US Civil War reading Recommendations?

Free Republic ^ | 11/23/2016 | Loud Mime

[Loud Mime]

I am studying our Civil War; anybody have any recommendations for reading?

[BroJoeK]

DoodleDawg to DiogenesLamp re: Fort Sumter: "I must be missing the part where the Confederates offered to pay for it.
Or their share of the debt.
Or the federal property they had seized."

First, all such matters are constitutionally assigned to Congress, which Jefferson Davis well knew, and is why he sent "commissioners" to the President instead.

Second, neither Lincoln nor Seward talked directly to Davis' "commissioners", and so we had a chain from Lincoln to Seward to Campbell to "commissioners" to Davis, through which some ideas might well be lost.

Third, Seward's basic mission was the same as a bank teller's when threatened by an armed robber with: "your money or your life".
Seward's mission was to delay the moment when the robber pulls his trigger killing someone, while in a back room the bank president (Lincoln in this case) decides whether to comply with the robber's demands, or not.

Fourth, in the beginning (March 4) most of Lincoln's advisers, including Seward, did oppose trying to defend Forts Sumter & Pickens.
But over the following weeks the majority opinion changed, and so did Seward's replies to Justice Campbell.
In the end, Seward promised to advise SC Governor Pickens before any resupply attempt, and that is, indeed, just what happened.

Finally, it's important for everyone to keep the following in mind:

1. From the very beginnings, President Lincoln promised there would be no Civil War unless secessionists started it.

2. From the very beginnings, Jefferson Davis made a slightly different promise.
   Davis promised there would be war if the Union tried to oppress secessionists.

3. So at Fort Sumter, Davis decided the Union resupply ships represented "oppression" and used them to assault the fort.
   Lincoln then decided that Davis' assault on & taking of Fort Sumter required a military response.
   The Confederacy considered Lincoln's military call-up and blockade were acts of war and so formally declared war on the United States, May 6, 1861.

Actual Civil War itself, in terms of armies battling armies (i.e., Bull Run) did not begin for another month, in June 1861.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp to DoodleDawg: "The states which became the Confederacy had been paying nearly 3/4ths of all the federal expenses.
It is the 20 Million Northerners who weren't paying their fair share.
This is the opposite problem from what California has."

No, statistics show that California not only pays the most taxes of any US state, but also one of the highest taxes per capita.
Among the reasons are California's hugely profitable hi-tech and entertainment industries.

Back in 1860 the correct number is one half of US exports came from Deep South secession states.
The other half came from Union states, including gold & silver from California & Nevada.
Deep South cotton & rice were produced by 3.5 million slaves who both heard about and appreciated the election of abolitionist "Ape" Lincoln and his Black Republicans.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp to rockrr: "You cannot invoke a right given by God to justify your own independence, and then claim it is constrained by man."

No Founder -- none -- ever claimed an unrestricted "right of secession" at pleasure.
All considered as legitimate disunion by mutual consent, or from necessity caused by oppression.
But secession "at pleasure" was simply treason, for which they had no tolerance.

[BroJoeK]

rockrr: "And they deliberately termed it a perpetual union, not a loose confederation of convenience."

jeffersondem: "That is an interesting comment.
Can you point to where in the Constitution the term perpetual union appears?"

Many have pointed out that the Articles of Confederation's reference to "perpetual union" was replaced in the Constitution by a "more prefect union".
They argue: would not a "more perfect union" also be perpetual?

Regardless, our Founders provided several constitutional mechanisms for changing laws, amending the Constitution and even convening to replace the entire constitution with something different.

In 1861 none of those constitutional methods were followed.

[BroJoeK]

central_va: "insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation."

Nobody disputes that Davis sent agents to Washington to "negotiate" Union surrender of forts & other assets.
But Davis knew perfectly well the Constitution assigns such matters to Congress, not the President.
That's why the agents never went to Congress, and why Lincoln's administration could not meet with them.

[BroJoeK]

PeaRidge: "The state of South Carolina made three efforts to pay for its portion of federal debt and federal property."

The US Constitution assigns such matters to Congress, not the President.
No secessionist agents ever approached Congress and Presidents acted constitutionally in refusing to see them.

[HandyDandy]

One might put forth the proposition that the Southern Slave Powers chose the perpetuity of their peculiar institution over the perpetuity of the United States.

[rockrr]

Thanks. You and I and jeffersondem know that looking for the term in the Constitution was a snipe hunt. He knows better but there it is. Like all good leftists they like the Constitution when they feeeeeeel that it favors their agenda and ignore it when it gets in the way.

[rockrr]

And in doing so guaranteed their failure and demise.

[jeffersondem]

“Many have pointed out that the Articles of Confederation’s reference to “perpetual union” was replaced in the Constitution by a “more prefect union”.”

That’s what I thought, the term perpetual union does not appear in the Constitution.

Adopted in 1777, the “perpetual union” lasted just 12 years and was then replaced by the Constitution.

The term “perpetual union” was an aspiration of the people who used the term; it was not a binding revelation of duty to future generations unless they wanted it. They didn’t.

Another example: the federal law named the “Affordable Care Act”. That too is a stated aspiration, but because it is not affordable, it is not sustainable and it is going away. Hopefully, it will go away peacefully.

[jeffersondem]

“One might put forth the proposition that the Southern Slave Powers chose the perpetuity of their peculiar institution over the perpetuity of the United States.”

Things were going so well - until post 387 - when the side losing the debate decided it needed to play the “Southern Slave Powers” card signaling the debate is over and they won. See also: “Race Card play in modern America.” See also: “How Nazi’s won the 2016 election”

[PeterPrinciple]

I don’t see the Soviet Union as having been wrecked by political correctness

---

There was no political correctness in the Soviet Union? When did history get rewritten? It was ALL and ONLY political correctness.

I will ask how old you are. I have been told that “history” is what happens in your lifetime. Am I correct in assuming the USSR was before your time?

[PeterPrinciple]

Without California constantly dragging the nation leftward, we might actually be able to solve some problems for a change.

---

Now tell me what the unintended consequences are. If you look at only one factor, decisions are easy. Global warming is real as long as I only look at a couple of points.

Do you really want China or Russia to have a foot hold, a colony on our native soil? There are good people in CA, will you not fight for them and their property? Do you think the problem goes away by getting rid of CA?

I am trying to get you to find your Thinking Cap and think long term.

But everyone including conservatives want quick easy answer that don’t solve the problem but sound like they do........

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Adopted in 1777, the 'perpetual union' lasted just 12 years and was then replaced by the Constitution."

Replaced totally peacefully in 1788 by mutual consent, the second of the two legitimate reasons for disunion.

The first reason, as in 1776, is necessity brought on by a long list of oppressions and usurpations (see Declaration of Independence).

Neither condition existed in 1861, so Deep South Fire Eaters declared their secessions at pleasure for which they had no support from our Founders' ideals.

[BroJoeK]

;-)

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Things were going so well - until post 387 - when the side losing the debate decided it needed to play the 'Southern Slave Powers' card signaling the debate is over and they won."

There were many colorful names used for political factions back in the day.
They included:

1. the Slave Power -- referring to the Constitution's 3/5 rule which gave Southern whites disproportionately more representatives in Congress and presidential electors.
   It was said the Slave Power made Thomas Jefferson the first Black President.

2. Doughfaces -- Northern Democrat sympathizers with slavery and Southern Democrats.
   Northern Democrat Presidents Pierce and Buchanan were both commonly called "doughfaced".

3. Fire Eaters -- Southerners dedicated to preserving slavery and advocating secession.
   They first appeared in the early 1850s, but their time came in 1860 and they made the most of it.

4. Wide Awakes -- paramilitary Republicans who staged large marches to show and gather more political strength.
   Similar Democrat groups included "Douglas Invincibles", "Young Hickories", "Earthquakes" and in the South, "minutemen".

5. Black Republicans -- a name of derision, at the time.

6. Copperheads -- during the war, Northerners sympathetic to the Confederate cause.

Dean of Fire Eaters, South Carolina's Robert Rhett:

Republican Wide Awakes in 1860:

[BroJoeK]

PeterPrinciple: "There are good people in CA..."

Indeed, I was reminded in a post some time ago that even solid blue states like California & New York have huge numbers of real conservatives, millions more than most smaller states.
But since they are the minority, their influence is less.

[jeffersondem]

“Our Founders never claimed a right to independence “at pleasure”, only from necessity, which they fully documented.”

Who determined it was a necessity?

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Who determined it was a necessity?"

Well, in 1776 it was King George III and Parliament, who in 1774 unilaterally revoked the 1691 Massachusetts charter and then in 1775 effectively declared war on Americans.

All this despite numerous efforts by Americans to negotiate better terms (i.e., "no taxation without representation") and express their loyalty to the king.

So by July of 1776 independence was not simply "necessary", it was by the acts of Britain an already accomplished fact.
That's why Founders' Declaration of Independence does not express what will be or should be, but what already is, at that time.

Bottom line: for our Founders, "necessity" was in no way a difficult or amorphous ideal requiring the skills of a master-philosopher to discern.
Instead, it was clear and concrete: the Brits revoked our charter of self-government and then declared war on us, therefore of necessity we are free and independent.

So what, exactly is your problem with that, Jeffersondem.

[jeffersondem]

“So what, exactly is your problem with that, Jeffersondem.”

Let me ask the question like this: who determined that independence was a “necessity?”