Posted on 07/24/2015 6:56:31 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
The victors of war write its history in order to cast themselves in the most favorable light. That explains the considerable historical ignorance about our war of 1861 and panic over the Confederate flag. To create better understanding, we have to start a bit before the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.
The 1783 Treaty of Paris ended the war between the Colonies and Great Britain. Its first article declared the 13 Colonies “to be free, sovereign and independent states.” These 13 sovereign nations came together in 1787 as principals and created the federal government as their agent. Principals have always held the right to fire agents. In other words, states held a right to withdraw from the pact — secede.
During the 1787 Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made that would allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison rejected it, saying, “A union of the states containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”
In fact, the ratification documents of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island explicitly said they held the right to resume powers delegated should the federal government become abusive of those powers. The Constitution never would have been ratified if states thought they could not regain their sovereignty — in a word, secede.
On March 2, 1861, after seven states seceded and two days before Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration, Sen. James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin proposed a constitutional amendment that read, “No state or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter admitted into the union, shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States.”
Several months earlier, Reps. Daniel E. Sickles of New York, Thomas B. Florence of Pennsylvania and Otis S. Ferry of Connecticut proposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit secession. Here’s a question for the reader: Would there have been any point to offering these amendments if secession were already unconstitutional?
On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, “Any attempt to preserve the union between the states of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty.”
Both Northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace. Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South’s right to secede. New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): “If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861.” Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): “An attempt to subjugate the seceded states, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil — evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content.” The New York Times (March 21, 1861): “There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go.”
The War of 1861 settled the issue of secession through brute force that cost 600,000 American lives. We Americans celebrate Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, but H.L. Mencken correctly evaluated the speech: “It is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense.” Lincoln said the soldiers sacrificed their lives “to the cause of self-determination — that government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth.” Mencken says: “It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves.”
The War of 1861 brutally established that states could not secede. We are still living with its effects. Because states cannot secede, the federal government can run roughshod over the U.S. Constitution’s limitations of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. States have little or no response.
Probably because it's neutral. "Civil War" and "War of the Rebellion" are Yankee while "War Between the States," War of Southern Independence," etc. are Southern.
bmk
Because it started in 1861? And is a neutral descriptor?
Personally, I prefer "The War of Northern Aggression."
Give it a rest!
Bookmarked
Your assertion is this statement is factually incorrect
As the author cherry-picked Mencken's words, so did Mencken, shall we say embellish Lincoln's words. You know what Lincoln said in that Address. Did he say "the Union soldiers sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination"? No. Those are the words of Menken, but butchered by the author. For comparison, here is what Menken actually said (compare it to the authors words):
"The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history…the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous. But let us not forget that it is poetry, notlogic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination — that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves."
The author forgot/neglected to mention that he was quoting Menkens interpretation of Lincoln's words "put into the cold words of everyday."
The NYT was agitating for war against the south and just like today did nothing but propgandize against freedom from federal tyranny.
I would proffer that that War was brewing since 1776. When you say the War “started in 1861”, what specific event are you referring to?
“I think we did this one already.” We did. Let’s don’t do another beat down of our northern friends tonight.
Beat down? Hardly. I follow these posts for the informational links they provide. Case in point is the mention by Walter Williams of Rep. Daniel E. Sickles suggesting an amendment to the Constitution prohibiting secession. He was later a Union General on the field at Gettysburg. “Several months earlier, Reps. Daniel E. Sickles of New York, Thomas B. Florence of Pennsylvania and Otis S. Ferry of Connecticut proposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit secession.” I recognized the name although I did not connect the Representative with the General. This led me to confirm Sickles the Rep. as being Sickles the General, which I suspected. One link with a brief biography of Sickles confirmed he was one in the same. This individual had a tawdry history to say the least and murdered the son of Francis Scott Key as a result of Key having a continuing affair with the wife of Sickles. Interesting in that Sickles was well known as being an adulterer. Sickles history also indicates he benefited from the corruption of Tammany Hall. The point of all this rhetoric being there was more at play in the personal and political lives of the parties involved prior to and during the “War of 1861” than we will know and I don’t believe for a New York minute the war hinged solely upon the issue of slavery; politics being what it was and continues to be. I have yet to investigate Reps. Florence and Ferry. The link below leads to the biography mentioned above.
http://www.sicklesatgettysburg.com/Sickles_Biography.html
Lastly, I find it interesting to have read two short essays from Williams and Sowell in the last few days and find opportunities to acquire knowledge from the information they present. Beat down? I say keep the informational links flowing for the betterment of all.
No, it established that it's not smart to start a war with an entity that can whoop you. The South fired the first shot, they were the aggressors, and got their butt handed to them.
The South only lost the war because they ran out of men to fight it. The Union has no such problems with the never-ending supply of soldiers fresh off the boats in Boston and NY harbors. “You’re in the Army now, whether you like it or not”. When the soldiers who fought were somewhat equal in numbers, like 4 to 1 in favor of Federalists, the Confederates consistently beat them. When it got 10 to 1 the numbers were a little too much to overcome.
Exactly my point. The South should have thought of this before they tried to murder all those at Fort Sumter.
“You’re in the Army now, whether you like it or not”. When the soldiers who fought were somewhat equal in numbers, like 4 to 1 in favor of Federalists, the Confederates consistently beat them. When it got 10 to 1 the numbers were a little too much to overcome.
Wow, exaggerate much? lol No, when the Union had pro-Confederate generals like McClellan, they would get beat, but when Grant and Sherman were leading the fight then the south still had home-field advantage, but they were losing. Look at Atlanta. How many cities burned in the north? Not many. Lee got a taste of what home-field advantage can do when he went to Gettysburg. He got his butt handed to him. The north did better in the south than the south did in the north.
“He got his butt handed to him”.
Gettysburg would have turned out different if Stonewall Jackson hadn’t been killed, but JEB Stuart’s disappearing act is the primary reason the battle was lost.
The truth of the matter is the South lost because they ran out of men to fight. Once again, the Federals, although having over 20,000 more men engaged, had almost as many casualties.
“The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states.”
Charles Dickens, 1862
Woulda, coulda, shoulda. The north did better in the south than the south did in the north. They won.
The truth of the matter is the South lost because they ran out of men to fight.
Well, they should've thought of that before their murderous rampage on Fort Sumter.
Once again, the Federals, although having over 20,000 more men engaged, had almost as many casualties.
The south had less men but more casualties inflicted on them. That's not good at all! Target-rich environment and they still took the worst of it, numbers-wise. Like I said home-field advantage. Lee got a taste of in it Gettysburg.
And Charles Dickens' opinion matters because?
“Well, they should’ve thought of that before their murderous rampage on Fort Sumter”.
No men died in the “murderous rampage”. There were no deaths on either side as a direct result of this engagement, although a gun explosion during the surrender ceremonies on April 14 caused two Union deaths.
It's funny when you lost-causers repeat that as if the fact no one was killed somehow makes the attack okay. The fact that no one died doesn't mean it wasn't a murderous rampage, The intent was there.
“The fact that no one died doesn’t mean it wasn’t a murderous rampage”.
Well I guess it depends on what the meaning of is is.....
~ Bill Clinton
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.