Posted on 07/22/2015 7:36:12 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
We call the war of 1861 the Civil War. But is that right? A civil war is a struggle between two or more entities trying to take over the central government. Confederate President Jefferson Davis no more sought to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington sought to take over London in 1776. Both wars, those of 1776 and 1861, were wars of independence. Such a recognition does not require one to sanction the horrors of slavery. We might ask, How much of the war was about slavery?
Was President Abraham Lincoln really for outlawing slavery? Let's look at his words. In an 1858 letter, Lincoln said, "I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion neither the General Government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists." In a Springfield, Illinois, speech, he explained: "My declarations upon this subject of Negro slavery may be misrepresented but cannot be misunderstood. I have said that I do not understand the Declaration (of Independence) to mean that all men were created equal in all respects." Debating Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln said, "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."
What about Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation? Here are his words: "I view the matter (of slaves' emancipation) as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion." He also wrote: "I will also concede that emancipation would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition." When Lincoln first drafted the proclamation, war was going badly for the Union.
London and Paris were considering recognizing the Confederacy and assisting it in its war against the Union.
The Emancipation Proclamation was not a universal declaration. It specifically detailed where slaves were to be freed: only in those states "in rebellion against the United States." Slaves remained slaves in states not in rebellion — such as Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and Missouri. The hypocrisy of the Emancipation Proclamation came in for heavy criticism. Lincoln's own secretary of state, William Seward, sarcastically said, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."
Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been heartily endorsed by the Confederacy: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. ... Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit." Lincoln expressed that view in an 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives, supporting the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.
Why didn't Lincoln share the same feelings about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our nation's history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What "responsible" politician would let that much revenue go?
The implication is clear in your sentence; you really believe that since Lincoln was part of the Illinois legislation he was responsible for , "very cruel laws as relating to blacks," and that he helped pass, "laws aimed at preventing them from settling in Illinois, and for treating them horribly when they did."???
We stole the entire Island from Spain, so what was anybody gonna do about it?
The US Constitution clearly gives Congress authority over Federal properties.
In the same manner that English Law gave Britain authority over British Forts.
The US Constitution clearly gives Congress authority over Federal properties. If Jefferson Davis was serious about any negotiations, he would have sent emissaries to Congress.
Congress was not the sticking point. The guy with all the soldiers was the sticking point.
The fact that it took four long years to defeat that 20% demonstrates conclusively they were a considerable force.
When a man fights to protect his home, he gets a +5 on the attack, and a +25 on defense. Yes, the Confederates punched way out of their weight class, but that's because they were defending their homeland.
Had the Confederacy gained the full support of all Border State populations, the ratio of Union/Confederate instead of being 4 to 1 would have been 2 to 1, and if the Confederacy's slaves remained loyal, then the ratio would be almost one to one.
Had Lincoln allowed the Democratic process to work in it's normal manner, there was a good chance that such a thing might have happened. Lincoln locked up Legislators in Maryland to prevent a vote for secession. Maryland's state song still recalls this period of History.
The despot's heel is on thy shore,
Maryland!*
His torch is at thy temple door,
Maryland!
Avenge the patriotic gore
That flecked the streets of Baltimore,
And be the battle queen of yore,
Maryland! My Maryland!
VI
Dear Mother! burst the tyrant's chain,
Maryland!
Virginia should not call in vain,
Maryland!
She meets her sisters on the plain-
"Sic semper!" 'tis the proud refrain
That baffles minions back amain,
Maryland! My Maryland!
The "Tyrant" and "Despot" referred to in those Stanzas is Abraham Lincoln. :)
The results would certainly be not just Confederate victory, but Confederate domination over whatever little was left of the former United States.
That is a fact not in evidence.
Your claim -- if it is indeed your claim -- that Lincoln was primarily motivated by his desire to collect duties from Southern ports is ridiculous and contradicted by all evidence of where US duties were collected.
Your statement -- if that's what you've said -- that Southern cotton, aka King Cotton, was in 1860 the US number one export, that's certainly true.
But it was not our only export, and any relationships between exporters and importers was more complex that just saying, "Southern cotton growers paid half of all import duties," as my post just above shows.
No you won't, you will lie and say "That doesn't mean what it says, it means this other thing over here that agrees with what I wish to believe."
Let's see if I am wrong about this: Here's your quote.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
And signed by these men; Representatives of 13 slave holding states.
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton
You are right. There was this thing that invokes the power of "Nature, and of Nature's God", which I take to mean the almighty. A bunch of subsequent rules agreed to by a bunch of men has no power in comparison to that.
There was a long list of legitimate grievances which the colonists had for years attempted to negotiate, without success.
If you will read the document, it points out that mentioning the grievances is only a courtesy, not a requirement.
a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation
In the case of Southern Secession, there was no need to list causes, because the "causes" had been the subject of debate throughout the Nation for decades.
and before any Union army invaded a single Confederate state.
And once again, if you will read the thread, specifically the items posted by PeaRidge regarding the messages from Lincoln and other Union officials, you will discover that an invasion fleet was ten miles away from Ft. Sumter and ready to land. The Union was invading, they just stopped the mission after they heard that Ft. Sumter was under attack.
Most likely it was the knowledge of the arrival of the Union fleet that precipitated the attack.
"My post #590 addresses this issue with the best data I can find.
The data you quoted was wrong for your purposes. I suppose you used the "best you could find" but what you used was data from the US Treasury....we know this because in their reports, they were on the July to June fiscal schedule. The US Treasury always published gross export data that included reexports of goods from Central and South America that made a stop in the United States.
If you had used US Dept. of Commerce data they would have given you the correct data to compute the percentage of Southern goods to totals.
In 2008 Obama was against gay marriage. In California, Proposition 8 was passed and then thwarted by Judicial activists. Stuff Changed.
Texas has always had a little yearn for being Independent, even it's flag is symbolic of this inclination.
There are reasons to suspect that there exist natural fault lines throughout the nation, and that during times of stress, the thing could easily break up into distinctive chunks.
Ordinarily, existing governments don't give up their powers without a fight.
A Government which was founded upon such a principle ought not be opposed to the same principle upon which it was founded. Unlike a Kingdom which is founded on "Divine Right of Kings", it should have had no legitimate claim to hold states in bondage.
Except for people who are incarcerated, every American retains a right to leave this country. No one is challenging that right.
In 1776, Allegiance was perpetual, and the British would not have allowed anyone to throw off their citizenship no matter where they went, but had they approved of such a concept, do you think it was reasonable to tell Washington that you can "leave", and by the way, we'll take your lands?
Why cannot he and others of their state create and maintain whatsoever kind of government suits them as a right expressly asserted in the Declaration of Independence?
With all due respect, I think it is you who is challenging the right of people to decide "rightly or wrongly the course they wish to take in their lives." If you accept your own argument, then the people of the United States have an inherent God-given right to maintain a huge, bloated government if that's what they want.
The Wishes of the people do not repeal the laws of nature. One way or another their "huge bloated government" will eventually collapse. The Math says the trends are unsustainable. Venezuela is already being bitchslapped by math and the laws of nature, but they still haven't figured it out.
But that side steps your point. To address it square on, individuals also have natural rights. The whims of the public do not override the natural rights of individuals. You cannot "vote" someone's execution. You can't "vote" to seize their house, (well actually you can, but that is a peculiar and uncommon set of conditions) you ought not be able to "vote" to seize more than a well defined and necessary share of their money or work product.
If you follow natural law philosophy in your thinking, natural barriers and restraints manifest themselves as the balance between the principles involved. A public ought to be permitted to go so far, but no farther.
This is an echo of the Lincoln Douglass debate in which Lincoln noted that if states have rights, can they not have the right to be a none slave state?
Yes, people may be inclined to vote for bloat, but if their governance is constituted correctly, they ought not be able to get it.
You seem to suggest that if you, you personally do not agree with some of the current, existing policies of our government, then you retain some sort of God-given right to leave without really leaving in any geographical sense and that it doesn't really matter what your neighbors might want. That doesn't seem workable to me.
Well no, it isn't, and that is not what I am advocating or suggesting. What I am suggesting is that if a sufficiently large population has emerged from a geographical area to which they are native, they ought to be able to govern themselves in a manner they so choose, within the normal and usual rules of human interaction.
Defining the amount and demographic necessary to exercise this valid collective right is not necessarily easy, but as Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart noted regarding pornography, "I know it when I see it."
It would seem to me that most if not all states ought to qualify. (Rhode Island has way too much power for it's size and Demographics.) Measuring against the population that the Founders had when they exercised the right seems reasonable to me.
No, no, you misunderstand.
Whether I approve or not is not the issue here.
The question is: why, I repeat why, did Deep South Fire Eaters declare their secessions, beginning in December 1860.
The clear answer is: if you look at their documents of the time, there's only one reason, and that is to protect the future of their "peculiar institution", slavery, against perceived future threats from "Ape" Lincoln's Black Republicans.
Nothing else mattered enough to those people to drive them to secession.
Every cockamamie excuse concocted in the years and century since are pure fantasy.
Deep South secessionists well knew why they declared secession, and they weren't ashamed to say it publically.
However, their problem was: in December 1860 the Southern Slave Power still substantially controlled the Federal government, just as it had almost continuously since 1788, and no actual damage had yet been done them.
That made their secessions "at pleasure", which even highly sympathetic Northern Dough-faced Democrats like President Buchanan said was unlawful.
DiogenesLamp: "That hypocritical thing that even Secretary of State Seward couldn't stomach?"
It was a fact of US constitutional law that the President had authority to free "contraband" slaves in the protection of the US Army, but not slaves in states which had not declared their secession.
Seward well understood that, and his comment is ironical, not bitter or critical.
And that is why, in December 1863, radical Republicans began submitting bills for a constitutional amendment -- the 13th -- totally and permanently abolishing slavery.
So why is it that you people think this is such a clever issue to raise?
Surely the real facts are simple enough for anyone to grasp?
DiogenesLamp: "Twisting the arms of State legislatures with Federal occupation troops is probably not what the Founders would have considered to be a legitimate expression of the Democratic process.
In fact, I believe our current legal system sees contracts made under duress as invalid."
Oh, but FRiend, there was vastly less arm-twisting or duress than you imagine here for one simple reason: those state legislatures now included, for the first time elected black representatives.
So there was no duress, there was joy and liberation in those state-houses.
Of course, it didn't last so long, since the KKK and Jim Crow soon reared their ugly heads to take back the power they had temporarily lost.
DiogenesLamp: "Good political operatives retroactively made the war about Slavery, so as if to give the Union moral cover for the people that got killed during the Southern states efforts to gain independence.
The Winners of a conflict will always force history into making them appear to be the 'good guys', even when they are not."
And, of course, the Lost-Cause Losers endlessly concoct mythology to pretend they weren't really the bad guys, didn't really stupidly start a war, etc., etc.
The truth of this matter is that from DAY ONE, secession was all about protecting the peculiar institution of slavery.
And why the Confederacy started Civil War is one of history's Big Questions, with "shear stupidity" being the likely best answer.
Once war began, the Union objective was to defeat the Confederate military power, and to do that, freeing slaves was an effective strategy.
So, bottom line: slavery was the first reason, then slavery was the final reason, though in-between first and last there were other reasons and tactics, but none of more importance than slavery.
"Where" US Duties were collected is quite irrelevant to the point. Where duties are collected says nothing as to who ultimately pays for them.
Lincoln was also not as concerned about "Where" such duties would be collected as he was that they be collected. Again, PeaRidge posted material that seems to indicate the Union was in a serious deficit condition at the start of the war.
FRiend, you corrupt ideology is making you stupid.
The fact is you have no idea what "my standards" are, even though I've endlessly explained them.
My standards are the same standards as our Founding Fathers, who DID NOT "secede" from Britain "at pleasure" but only after many years of suffering abuse and failed negotiations.
The Founders Declaration includes a long list of British abuses, none of which were defenses of slavery, indeed Jefferson's original draft included a long moral condemnation of slavery, as having been imposed by the Brits.
Yes, those words did not survive editing, but they clearly indicate our Founders understood the moral problems slavery represents.
DiogenesLamp: "It is VERY hypocritical for a nation that explicitly recognizes such a right, and indeed was founded on the very same principle, to fight attempts to leave."
But the United States DID NOT fight the Deep South Declarations of Secession, nor did it fight their forming a new Confederacy.
The United States only went to war AFTER, the Confederacy provoked, started and declared war, then sent military aid to pro-Confederates in the Union state of Missouri.
DiogenesLamp: "I am not "pro-confederate" i'm pro "right to leave." "
Sorry FRiend, but that's a lie, and anyone can see it.
You are just as "pro-Confederate" as I am anti.
Your constant misrepresentations of my views demonstrate you hold to an ideology which renders you stupid to reality.
DiogenesLamp: "Unfortunately we have people like you who simply won't accept a "right to leave" because you are so emotionally tied up with "Rah rah! My Team won the Playoffs!" attitude regarding the civil war.
The larger principle involved here is whether Independence is a right given by "the laws of nature and of Nature's God", or it isn't."
But I support a "right to leave" under the same circumstances as our Founders left the British empire: no written constitution, no representative government, a long list of abuses, etc., etc.
I would also support a "right to leave" under conditions approved by our Founders: mutual consent and major breach of constitutional compact.
But just like our Founders, I don't believe in secession "at pleasure", and I certainly don't agree that secessionists should go about provoking, starting and declaring war on the United States.
That is not only wrong, it's just really stupid.
There is something to be said for that. Much of my family is "contrarian" and will often not make up their mind about something till they find out what someone else thinks just so they can be against it. :)
I do think that you try harder than most to find a rational path to working out differences and I commend you for that.
And I think you are less knee jerk and reactionary than most others who argue on this topic, and will at least attempt to weigh a point before dismissing it.
Always there will be things that we can criticize and I hope that you don't let that fact interfere with either your ability to succeed here in this country or your need to find a little happiness so long as you're still living here.
I don't know what to tell you about that. Much of my unhappiness stems from the perception of a threat to concepts I hold dear and future concern for my children. The world is simply a less hospitable place than it was when I was their age.
I feel as though we are passing through a whispering campaign before the night of broken glass.
(If all I wanted was a weaker government, I would have moved to Mexico a long time ago.) ;-)
Not sure what you mean here, we are moving in the direction of Mexican government. Our society is dividing into a coalition of the Wealthy and Poor, battling with the middle class for their earnings. Meanwhile the government skimmers get their cut and protect the elite of Mexico from the poor. Most of the time.
Just one of the many many lies and strawmen by dimbulb.
It imputes a "standard" to you and then goes about the task of tossing it like a Molotov cocktail into the room.
Then you have to ask: how stupid can a people be who provoke, start and declare war on a nation with, in your words: "five times the population and the vast bulk of the Industrial might"
And all for what?
To protect their "peculiar institution" which had never even been threatened in the South?
It's mind-boggling, just and mind-boggling as your endlessly repeated defenses of them.
I just noticed this. Yes, you are absolutely right. Why didn't I see this sooner? It was absolutely horrible that they murdered those people at Ft. Sumter. Yes, Lincoln was absolutely justified in sending a 35,000 man invasion force to revenge the deaths of all those people that the Confederates killed at Ft. Sumter.
It was an act of barbarism, and it should have been swiftly punished by the Army Invading Richmond, but which had no orders to free any slaves.
Yes, those Confederates really shouldn't have murdered those Union Soldiers at Ft. Sumter. They just shouldn't have done that. No siree, that was just wrong.
If they had simply blown up some rocks, but not killed anybody, that would have been one thing, but murdering those people at Ft. Sumter was just unforgivable. Once you've killed people, you deserve a vengeful response.
Yup, the Union certainly taught them that murdering people at Ft. Sumter was wrong. Had they not murdered anybody they wouldn't have needed such a harsh lesson, but because they murdered those people at Ft. Sumter, they needed hundreds of thousands of men killed, lands burned, property seized, and lives wrecked.
If only they hadn't murdered those people at Ft. Sumter.
When the Confederacy started & declared war on the United States, they gave the President constitutional authority to declare military "contraband" slaves as freed.
The Brits used the same strategy in the Revolutionary War, though without notable success.
So, why would Confederates be surprised, and why are pro-Confederates like yourself pretending outrage?
Do you think that if you declare war on the United States, you should be treated all the same as a law abiding citizen?
No they don't, and mostly it isn't, but some try to claim it has a higher authority than does the Declaration, and this is certainly wrong. I would also point out that most people think Obama is a good idea, so I would say the concept of "most people" as a determiner of valid thinking is not a very good methodology.
But regardless, the Constitution replacing the old Articles of Confederation is our current government's Founding Document, and any interpretation of it must begin with Founders' original intent.
I'm not sure you are grasping the meaning of "founding" in this context. There can be only one "founding" document. The other one is more or less just rules for governing, the "founding" document is the one that created the Nation. The operating charter is just a set of rules for running it. We've had two so far.
Without reference to original intent, you have no basis on which to measure anything except your own personal definitions of words, definitions which can easily turn the Constitution into total mush.
"Original Intent" is that a group of Slave Owning States had a God given right to gain independence from a Larger Union.
The rest of what you wrote is just drivel, and not cognizant enough to bother with rebutting.
No doubt you are more comfortable with the thought of living in a nation where it will soon become a "hate crime" to not have a gay D*** in your mouth.
Likewise the FedGov is investigating the people who made videos of Planned UnParenthood in their baby butchering dealings, rather than the baby butchers.
It is my opinion that the Jews were insufficiently "agitated about things" during the Nazi rise to power. Your millage obviously varies.
But leaving things to "people's discretion" leads us directly to the Obama-nation we have today, FRiend.
In today's world, the Pelosi's and Reed's define whatever words they want by whatever meanings they wish, and so there is, in practice, little if any limitation on Federal Government.
And there is only one way to defeat "people's discretion", and that is by focusing on Founders Original Intent.
It's an anchor which says: here's how far government can go without exceeding its limits, and requiring something major like a constitutional amendment.
But if you throw away "Original Intent" in order to justify 1860s unilateral declarations of secession, at pleasure, then you just can't get it back when you really need it, to fend of the Pelosi, Reed & Obama people who wish to make Federal government the be-all, end-all of everything.
So, bottom line: you need Founders Original Intent, and for that, you have to apply it to 1860s secessions, and say, they weren't legitimate.
So it's clear the South contributed more than it's "fair share" to total US exports, but it's not clear if the resulting imports were really paid for by Southern cotton growers.
Using your numbers, 20% of the population providing 58% of the exports sounds very lopsided. My point about product going out has to balance money coming in is still valid.
You've admitted to 54% going out, so are we to believe that the South is paying 54% of the tariffs or are the Northern products so much more valuable that they constitute the bulk of the income?
To cite a simple example: suppose a Southern cotton grower buys a machine (i.e., railroad or steamship equipment) manufactured in the North. Now suppose that with money earned building this machine, the Northern employees go out and buy something imported from Europe, on which they pay a duty to Uncle Sam.
So, who do we say ultimately "paid the duty", those northern employees, or the Southern cotton grower?
There was no doubt some of that. But was it the dominant occurrence? Somehow 54% has to come back in money or products, and if it comes back in money it has to eventually come back in products when they spend the money.
The South was apparently ending up with quite a lot of European Money, and some how the tariffs on European products had to be paid out of that chunk of money.
Virginian George Washington, the great man who stood head and shoulders above the great men of the founding generation, said the exact opposite of what you say, at great length and it explicit detail, in his valedictory Farewell Address.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.