That offer to protect slavery permanently should convince any reasonable person that the North had no serious issue with the continuation of slavery.
Posted on 04/08/2018 3:39:59 PM PDT by iowamark
That offer to protect slavery permanently should convince any reasonable person that the North had no serious issue with the continuation of slavery.
You mean the status quo before they left the Union?
The status quo which would have been maintained had they rejoined the Union early enough?
They were fighting to make sure that the thing which would not change anyway, wasn't going to change?
You talk about lying? The biggest lie in this conversation is this accusation that people fighting to defend their homes and homeland were evil because they did not insist on immediately making drastic social changes advocated by liberal Massachusetts nut-jobs of the period.
None of the Northern states made these changes either, but for some reason they don't share blame for the "evil" that those Southern states supposedly committed.
Can you say "Hypocrite?"
As discussed previously, if we include Rhett's address as the fifth original "Reasons for secession" document (along with SC, MS, GA & TX), it is the only one which focuses serious attention on reasons other than slavery.
But even in Rhett's address, slavery is discussed twice as much as the other alleged reasons combined.
FLT-bird: "According to the 1860 US Census, South Carolina had 26,701 slave owners out of a total free population of 301,302 or 8.86% of all free people owned slaves.
Mississippi had 30,943 slave owners out of a total free population of 354,674 or 8.72% of all free people owned slaves."
Totally irrelevant, if not technically bogus.
That's because no slave-holder lived by himself, all had families and in those days most were quite large families.
This site gives a realistic estimate as to how many families, and what percent of the totals, owned slaves.
Mississippi and South Carolina lead the list at 49% and 46% respectively -- almost half.
What it means is that everybody who could afford to owned slaves and everybody who didn't had close family & friends that did.
In that culture slave-holding was not simply economics, it was a "way of life" that all aspired to participate in.
FLT-bird: "Nope. Your denial is simply false.
Yes the South was indeed prosperous. "
You do realize, right, that in those two sentences you contradicted yourself?
My point was that in 1860 average Deep South whites were better off than anyone else on Earth.
First you claim that "is simply false" then substantially affirm it.
FLT-bird: "It would have been far more wealthy had it not been economically exploited by the Northern states to pay for their industrialization."
First, there was no "exploitation" that Southerners did not themselves agree to -- see previous posts on Democrat rule in Washington, DC.
Second, claims of "unfair" or "undue" burdens on the South are simply false.
Third, it's hard to have any sympathy for claims of "exploitation" from people whose whole economy is based on exploiting slave-labor.
FLT-bird: "Various Northern states enacted various laws to prevent compliance with federal agents attempt’s to recapture escaped slaves."
Just as today Democrats pass "sanctuary cities" laws, and so long as Democrats rule in Washington, DC, they get away with it.
When the other party takes over, it becomes more difficult.
And that was the case until 1861: Democrats ruled Washington, DC, and enforced the laws they considered important, including fugitive slave laws.
FLT-bird: "It was more a means of saying that the Northern states had broken the deal (which they did)."
But the Compromise of 1850 shifted responsibility from states to Federal enforcement, and Democrats ruled Washington, DC.
If they truly wanted stricter enforcement, they could have done it.
Even in 1860, state laws did not nullify Federal law.
But the key point here is that South Carolina specifically had no standing in the Fugitive Slave case because, so far as we know, there were no South Carolina runaway slaves being protected by Northern state personal liberty laws.
Indeed, there were no court cases period brought by South Carolina to redress its grievances against those deplorable, irredeemable baskets of Northern Republicans.
FLT-bird: "It is for each state to determine necessity and not for anybody else.
Also it is completely false to say no Founder ever supported unilateral secession.
I have provided numerous quotes showing this to be false already."
Sorry, but there are no legitimate quotes from any Founder supporting unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure.
And James Madison spelled out why, here.
Your claim that states themselves can determine their own "necessity" might be worth considering, except that in late 1860 there was no "necessity" of any kind remotely resembling the conditions of 1776 to which our Founders referred by their word "necessary".
Even a highly sympathetic Doughfaced Northern Democratic like President Buchanan could not agree that secessionists had any constitutionally valid reasons.
It’s not my fault that Southern Democrats were deranged, emotional, and paranoid.
What were these drastic social changes anyway?
Often I just ignore your stuff, but this was close to the top, and is easily demonstrated to be factually wrong.
General Beauregard made it quite clear to Major Anderson that he was not asking for a surrender, but merely an evacuation.
Do I need to post Beauregard's messages to Anderson and Anderson's response? They both made it quite clear what their position was regarding this term "Surrender."
Beauregard did not ask it, and Anderson said he would die first. It was an exchange of several messages to make certain all were clear on this point. Must I post them for you?
Fighting to protect your homeland from invasion by a force intent upon imposing it's will on you is not deranged or paranoid.
Invading someone else because they don't want to be ruled by you any longer is what is deranged.
If they really are out to get you, that’s not paranoia.
If they really aren’t out to end slavery within your borders, but you secede because you think they are, that IS paranoia.
Now what about those drastic social changes?
Your whole conspiracy theory is about as luny as any I can imagine.
Occam's razor says it was a simple screw-up, no serious reason to think otherwise.
DiogenesLamp: "It left them poised menacingly in a staging position, but with no actual possibility of them engaging in the attack which their orders would have required had the Powhatan showed up."
And that's a lie, and you well know it.
Lincoln's orders were not to attack anybody: no first use of force, so long as they were not attacked.
And the more important point is this: even with Powhatan's misdirection, Lincoln's resupply mission was far from doomed to fail.
All success needed was the combination of calm seas and cover of darkness to deliver their supplies to Fort Sumter.
And that's just what they had Saturday night, April 13, the day after Anderson surrendered.
Had Anderson held out a little longer, Lincoln's resupply mission could have been completed as intended and his "battle fleet" returned to their base.
Of course, with Confederates going berserk, there's no telling what future consequences might have been, doubtless not happy for the good Major & his troops.
But the decision to surrender was Anderson's alone, Lincoln did what he could to help.
DiogenesLamp: "The Fleet's orders would have been suicide had they actually followed them.
Every ship would have been sunk, and most of the men on them killed, and Lincoln and his Generals knew this..."
Total nonsense, cover of darkness & calm seas would allow boats to deliver supplies to Anderson unmolested.
Mission accomplished.
DiogenesLamp: "One can only believe he never intended for those men to be killed.
They were only intended to create a provocation for which he could initiate a war."
Riiiiiight.
And there was no moon landing, Area 51 is full aliens and 9/11 was an inside job.
You know, for some people the facts just won't satisfy, got to be something more...
Attributing false motives to others is Lying. Congress and the President could have done nothing further to assure them that they weren't going to end slavery than this:
Now what about those drastic social changes?
The Union didn't want them either, as demonstrated by Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware. Of course, for some reason, no one was talking about applying them to states on the Union side, only those who would leave it.
Why do you suppose there was no effort to make any massive social changes in Maryland? They had the army right there, and it would have been so very easy, wouldn't it?
I had decided not to address you anymore because it’s like talking to a wall. But I can’t let this go because I know you have been told on numerous other threads why Lincoln did not free the slaves in states that stayed loyal to the Union. HE COULD NOT FREE THEM BECAUSE IT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!
In states that were in rebellion he had the constitutional authority to proclaim slaves contraband of war and free them.
Because it's completely reasonable to believe that on the edge of the most major war in History, no great care would be taken to insure that the most significant ship in the Sumter expedition would arrive where it was expected so that it could lead the mission.
You plead "colossal stupidity" as your defense? Lincoln was not a stupid man. He was in fact a very clever man, and he was given to underhanded tricks, like having the railroads bring in massive numbers of astro-turf supporters with counterfeit tickets to shout down other candidates at the nominating convention in Chicago.
And that's a lie, and you well know it.
You wish it were.
Lincoln's orders were not to attack anybody: no first use of force, so long as they were not attacked.
The orders simply say to use force if they are impeded or prevented from landing supplies. Being attacked is not required for them to use force. Just parking boats in the channel is sufficient cause for the fleet to use force.
Total nonsense, cover of darkness & calm seas would allow boats to deliver supplies to Anderson unmolested.
So they could batter the fort to pieces, but they couldn't hit any of the boats or ships that would be trying to reach it? Boats which would have been closer to them than Sumter actually was?
And there was no moon landing, Area 51 is full aliens and 9/11 was an inside job. You know, for some people the facts just won't satisfy, got to be something more...
And so you finally have to grasp at the straw of "You are a conspiracy nut because you believe massed numbers of cannon batteries would sink ships!"
I'll tell you what is a kooky conspiracy theory. The idea that people would have been able to run that gauntlet of cannon fire without getting sunk.
In a Lost Causer mythology built on Big Lies atop Bigger Lies, that's a pretty big one all by itself.
And the worst part is, DiogenesLamp well knows better, but just can't stop it, right?
But it was constitutional to do it in the other states? I know, you give him special powers to do that, and you convince yourself that what was completely unconstitutional before, was somehow made constitutional because he had an army that could impose his will.
But what does "constitutional" have to do with the moral imperative of freeing slaves? What does a constitution matter when you have a war being fought for a higher morality?
What you want is both legal and moral justification for invading and killing other people who wanted out from Washington DC's control, and you are going to convince yourself you had it one way or the other, by telling yourself whatever it is you want to hear that allows you to believe what you want to believe.
Confederate states never left the union? Sure! When we need it to be that way. Confederate states did leave the Union? Sure! When we need it to be that way.
Constitutional law applies? Sure! When we need to justify not freeing the slaves in Maryland. Constitutional law doesn't apply? Sure! When we want to illegally free the slaves in the Confederate states, which did or did not leave the Union, based on whatever point we wish to justify.
Moral authority to kill people? Sure! When we need it. Legal authority? Sure! When we need it.
In states that were in rebellion he had the constitutional authority to proclaim slaves contraband of war and free them.
That is made up. The constitution does not say any such thing, but like I said, the Union apologists will make up any "law" that suits their need. Just as Modern day liberals rubber band the constitution to create a right to homosexual marriage, anchor babies, ban prayer in schools, and create a phoney baloney right to abortion, so too did the liberals in the 1860s rubber band the constitution back then.
It means whatever they claim it means, so "shut up, they reply."
Who was that, Shakespeare or Gertrude Stein who said: "Sh*t by any other name would stink just as bad" and Sh*t is sh*t is sh*t"??
I'm not sure, but I am sure that when Anderson pulled down the US flag at Fort Sumter both he and everybody else in the world considered it a "surrender".
Of course, Lincoln didn't blame Anderson or Fox for the mission's failure, but he did find something useful to do with the, ahem, sh*t -- turned it into fertilizer to help grow Northern war fever...
It's the made up, post hoc justification for invading people who just wanted to be free of Washington DC's control that is the myth.
The New York/Washington establishment cartel won that war, and they have been ruling the rest of the nation ever since.
You don’t get my meaning. I don’t understand what social changes you are referring to. Can you please list these social changes that southern states found so objectionable?
You just can't admit you are mistaken, even when it can be easily proven that you are. I see you didn't ask me to post the message exchanges.
I'm not sure, but I am sure that when Anderson pulled down the US flag at Fort Sumter both he and everybody else in the world considered it a "surrender".
Because during an evacuation, they would walk away and leave the flag up with no one to attend to it.
Of course, Lincoln didn't blame Anderson or Fox for the mission's failure, but he did find something useful to do with the, ahem, sh*t -- turned it into fertilizer to help grow Northern war fever...
Lincoln was in fact delighted, because he now had his excuse to invade the South.
In a letter to Gustavous Fox he said:
"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail, and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result."
And exactly what was Lincoln's military experience in April, 1861?
That's right, in 1832 during the Black Hawk war Lincoln had been voted Captain of his militia unit.
He fought no battles and lead no difficult missions.
He certainly had no Navy experience -- zero, zip, nada Navy -- much less the sort of combined arms operation contemplated by Captain Fox.
Furthermore, Lincoln then was under the most intense pressure anyone can imagine and stress & fatigue never make us smarter, always make us more prone to errors, even the simplest of them.
That's what Occam's razor says, and I see no reason to think otherwise.
DiogenesLamp: "Being attacked is not required for them to use force.
Just parking boats in the channel is sufficient cause for the fleet to use force. "
But "parking" boats by itself would in no way seriously impede or prevent Lincoln's resupply mission, only actual force could stop them.
And your suggestion that Confederates may even have tried to block Union ships with row-boats is absurd and I'm sure you know it.
The fact remains that Lincoln's resupply mission had a good chance of success given calm seas and cover of darkness, or even fog.
But rightly or wrongly, Major Anderson decided otherwise.
DiogenesLamp: "So they could batter the fort to pieces, but they couldn't hit any of the boats or ships that would be trying to reach it?
Boats which would have been closer to them than Sumter actually was? "
Boats moving under cover of darkness, or even fog.
Good chance of success.
DiogenesLamp: "I'll tell you what is a kooky conspiracy theory.
The idea that people would have been able to run that gauntlet of cannon fire without getting sunk."
I'll tell you what you can do, you can prove it to yourself, pal.
Go look up and find America's best sniper, a Chris Kyle class shooter who can hit a small target using a scope from a mile away.
Now sit down and buy him a beer so you can ask him the most important question: can the world's best sniper hit a moving target that he can't see in the dark?
If he tells you "yes", then buy him another beer, and another, until he confesses the real truth of it.
You think sending a war fleet with orders to attack (if impeded) but paralyzing it so it would just sit there in a menacing fashion, was a military exercise?
Lincoln was a master at politics. He was a master at employing verbal jujitsu in the Court room too. You should read up on him.
Besides, he had a lot of military experts telling him that it was impossible to succor Sumter, so his idea didn't make any military sense anyway.
And your suggestion that Confederates may even have tried to block Union ships with row-boats is absurd and I'm sure you know it.
It wasn't my suggestion, it was your attempt to say silly things and attribute them to me. They had three steamers which they had contemplated using for this purpose, and they had already sunk obstacles in the various alternative channels. Only ships with drafts of less than 7 feet could reach Sumter, and they could only come up through the channel closest to the cannons on the one side.
Boats moving under cover of darkness, or even fog. Good chance of success.
They had barges loaded with firewood that would be lit on fire in the approach. Did you even seriously look at what they had ready to deal with those ships?
Go look up and find America's best sniper, a Chris Kyle class shooter who can hit a small target using a scope from a mile away.
When you have timed fuses on your mortars, it will throw enough shrapnel on every thing below it such that you don't have to worry about hitting a small target. They had a lot of mortars, and they had had lots of time to get their range and elevation.
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.