America Remembers Robert E. Lee

The South did not start the war. The North refused to vacate areas it was occupying, even with ample warning to leave. Lincoln very successfully started a war he wanted.

The North refused to turn over its property to the southern rebellion. The south then shelled the fort into surrender. An act of war if ever I heard of one.

You've probably seen it before but you this needs to be a part of this discussion:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1323474/posts?page=407

Scroll down to the replies

See post #422 and in the link scroll down to replies.

You've probably seen it before but you this needs to be a part of this discussion...

Yes I have, and no I don't need to be part of that discussion. But since you've waded through it please point out one illegal action that Lincoln took?

I'm not inviting your cut and paste talents into the other discussion, I was introducing this infomation into your discussion. What illegal actions did Lincoln take? I don't know. In your world an act of war against a peaceful people who chose to form their own government (a bedrock of our republic) is not an illegal act. I guess if it isn't enumerated or declared in the Constitution then it isn't illegal. It sure pissed us off and we almost whipped your little peni's despite overwhelming odds. To this day we have people calling us traitors and turncoats and lauding themselves as patriots because they rebeled against the king.

[Non-Sequitur] The claim was made that representatives were sent to Washington to negotiate secession of the New England states. That claim is patently, completely false. And if you read the Declaration of the Hartford Convention you will not find any threat of secession, either.

SOURCE: Albert Taylor Bledsoe, Is Davis a Traitor?, 1866, Reprint 1907, pp. 194-204. (Also printed as The War Between the States in 1915)

The embargo and non-intercourse laws, which were designed to bring England to terms without the dire necessity of war, augmented the already great dissatisfaction of New England; because they affected her commercial interests, and thereby "touched her in by the most sensitive portion of her frame. She cried aloud for war! She cried, down with all your embargo and non-intercourse laws, and up with the flag of armed resistance! Impatient at the slow movements of the South, she taunted her with cowardice, and courteously as well as elegantly declared, that the South could not be "kicked into a war with England. But she was mistaken; she did not fully comprehend the South: the South is, perhaps, too easily "kicked into a war with England." It is certain, that the South in the persons of her two young, ardent, enthusiastic, and chivalrous representatives, Henry Clay, of Kentucky, and John C. Calhoun, of South Carolina, responded to the loud, vehement war-cry of New England. Their eloquence shook the nation. The spirit of armed resistance was roused; and the war with Great Britain proclaimed. But, alas! this did not help the commerce of New England. The remedy proved worse than the evil. Her ravenous pockets, instead of being filled with gold and satisfied, became still more and more alive to the dreadful state of things, and, thereupon, she endeavored to "kick the Southout of the war with Great Britain. In this, the dark hour of her agony and distress, she suddenly discovered that war is; at best, a most unholy and unchristian thing: not to be entered on lightly, or without counting the cost. She also discovered, that, after all, the number of her seamen, impressed by the tyranny of Great Britain, had been greatly exaggerated (by whom?): and that consequently the cause of quarrel was far too small to justify so unholy and so unchristian, that is to say, so unprofitable a war.

In the dark hour of her distress, the glorious rights of the States came out, and showered down their radiance on all New England, like the stars at night. The sovereignty of her own beloved Massachusetts, indeed, then totally eclipsed the full moon of the once "glorious Union;" just as completely as if Massachusetts had been "the whole earth." I speak from the record; from that secret, silent record of the Hartford Convention, in which all the profound dissatisfaction of New England with the Union culminated; and into which her sons, in spite of all their prying curiosity, have no desire whatever to look. Mr. Webster, for example, in his great debate with Mr. Hayne, of South Carolina, in 1830, solemnly declared that he had never read the proceedings of that famous Convention. No wonder!

Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise.

"Events may prove, says the Journal of the Hartford Convention, January 4th, 1815, "that the causes of our calamities are deep and permanent. They may be found to proceed, not merely from blindness of prejudice, pride of opinion, violence of party spirit, or the confusion of the times; but they may be traced to implacable combinations of individuals, OR OF STATES, to monopolize power and office, and to trample without remorse upon the rights and interests of the commercial sections of the Union." [1] Now, if we only substitute the term agricultural for commercial in the above passage; how admirably will it express the complaint of the South, which, for long years of endurance, was treated with such imperial scorn and implacable contempt by the States of New England!

"Whenever it shall appear," continues the Journal, "that these causes are radical and permanent, a separation by equitable arrangement, will be preferable to an ALLIANCE BY CONSTRAINT, AMONG NOMINAL FRIENDS, BUT REAL ENEMIES, INFLAMED BY MUTUAL HATRED AND JEALOUSIES, AND INVITING, BY INTESTINE DIVISIONS, CONTEMPT AND AGGRESSIONS from ABROAD. [2] Precisely thus, and not otherwise, reasoned the South in 1861; and asked for a separation by equitable arrangement," instead of an alliance by contrast with "nominal friends, but real enemies, inflamed by mutual hatred and jealousies. But the great boon was contemptuously refused; because the sentiments of New England had undergone a radical and total revolution. The reason is, that those were the sentiments of New England in the minority, and these the sentiments of New England in the majority. Holy indeed was her horror of an alliance by constraint,when she was the party in danger of being constrained; but no sooner had she acquired the power to constrain, than such an alliance appeared altogether pure and just in her unselfish eyes!

The Journal of this Convention has much to say about "the constitutional compact;" and hence, if it had only been read by Mr. Webster, he must have been familiar with this mode of expression, which so seriously offended him in the resolutions of Mr. Calhoun in 1833, and called forth his fine burst of eloquence in defence of the rights of that noun substantive, the Constitution. He must have discovered also, that in the opinion of Massachusetts in 1815. the rights of sovereign States are at least as important as those of any noun substantive in the language. For, in the words of that Convention, the power of conscription is "not delegated to Congress by the Constiution, and the exercise of it would not be less dangerous to their liberties, THAN HOSTILE TO THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATES." [3]........ It must be the duty of the State to watch over the rights reserved, as of the United States to exercise the powers which were delegated. [4]

The Hartford Convention, towering in the strength of its State rights sentiments, continues thus: "That acts of Congress in violation of the Constitution are absolutely void, is an undeniable position. It does not, however, consist with the respect from a CONFEDERATE STATE towards the General Government, to fly to open resistance upon every infraction of the Constitution. The mode and the energy of the opposition should always conform to the nature of the violation, the intention of the authors, the extent of the evil inflicted, the determination manifested to persist in it, and the danger of delay. But in cases of deliberate, dangerous, and palpable infractions of the Constitution, AFFECTING THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE, and liberties of the people: it is not only the right, but the duty, of such State to interpose its authority for their protection, in the manner best calculated to secure that end. When emergencies occur which are either beyond the reach of judicial tribunals, or too pressing to admit of delay incident to their forms, States, which HAVE NO COMMON UMPIRE, MUST BE THEIR OWN JUDGES, AND EXECUTE THEIR OWN DECISIONS." [5] Now, if possible, this comes more directly and plainly to the point, than the Resolutions of '98. It not only sets forth the great doctrine, it sometimes employs the very language of those Resolutions.

Having finished its work, and appointed commissioners to lay the complaints of New England before the Government of the United States., the Convention resolved, that "if these should fail,it would be the duty of the New England States to hold another Convention at Boston, on the 3d Thursday of June, with such powers and instructions as so momentous a crisis may require, [6] No such Convention ever assembled at Boston, or elsewhere; for, in the meantime, the great trouble had come to an end. How, or by what means? Mr. Webster, though he confesses ignorance as to the proceedings of the Hartford Convention, is nevertheless perfectly ready with an answer to this question. In his. senatorial debate with Mr. Hayne. in 1830, he tells the world, that Massachusetts gave up all opposition as soon as the Supreme Court of the United States decided the laws of 'which she complained to be constitutional; thus showing her loyalty under the most severe and trying circumstances! This was, perhaps, a thrust at South Carolina; who, as Mr. Webster supposed, stood far apart from Massachusetts in the heresy, that, in great and trying emergencies, "the States, who have no common umpire, are to be their own judges, and to execute their own decisions." How little he knew the history of his own State! Hence, he could fondly imagine, that Massachusetts had always been willing and ready to bow to the Supreme Court as the common umpire between the States, and proudly pointed to her conduct in 1815, bending and groaning under the burden of the laws, and yet loyally submitting to the high tribunal by whom it was fastened upon her shoulders! The truth is, as we have just seen, that Massachusetts had resolved to take that very emergency into her own hands: to be her own judge, and to execute her own decision. She cared indeed as little for the Supreme Court, in such an emergency, as she did for the other Courts of the Union; whose decisions had been repeatedly treated with contempt, and resisted with impunity, by her very loyal citizens during the great trouble of the war.

Why, then, did Massachusetts submit at last? Why did so great a change come over the spirit of her dream? The answer is a very simple one. It is told in the printed proceedings of the Hartford Convention. The story is certainly not so well adapted to the purposes of poetry, or of oratory, as the fine fiction invented by Mr. Webster; but it has, at least, the homehmerit of truth. Harrison Gray Otis, T.H.. Perkins, and W. Sullivan, the commissioners appointed by the Convention to lay the grievances of New England before the Government of the United States, reported that they had declined to do so, "because they found, on their arrival at Washington, that peace lead been concluded:" [7] That was the secret of the submission of Massachusetts. The war with Great Britain was at an end; the embargo and non-intercourse would, of course, no longer vex her righteous soul: she could unfurl the wings of her commerce to every breeze, and bring in harvests of gold from every quarter of the globe. That was the secret of her great-hearted loyalty and submission. She no longer had anything to submit to!

Sidney Smith complains of exegesis,that it spoils so many line sermons; not allowing the preacher to ramble in his rhetoric, or to flourish at random, without regard to the real sense of his text. The same complaint may be urged against the simple truth of history. How many splendid orations, and grand soaring flights of rhetoric, will it not spoil for the people of New England! How many self-flattering and glorious illusions will it not dispel! That their object was, said Mr. John Quincy Adams, "and had been for several years, a dissolution of the Union, and the establishment of a separate Confederation, he knew from unequivocal evidence, although not provable in a court of law: and that in case of a civil war, the aid of Great Britain to effect that purpose would be assuredly resorted to, as it would be indispensably necessary to their design." [8]

This design, says Mr. Adams, he had communicated to Mr. Jefferson, in 1809. Again, while President of the United States, Mr. Adams said: "That project, I repeat, had gone to the length of fixing upon a military leader for its execution: and although the circumstances of the times never admitted of its execution, nor even of its full development. I had no doubt in 1808 and 1809, and have no doubt at this time, that it is the key of all the great movements of the Federal Party in New England, [and that party was then in the ascendency in New England,] from that time forward till its final catastrophe in the Hartford Convention. [9]

It is but fair to observe, says Mr. Buchanan, that these statements were denied by the parties implicated, but were still adhered to and again reaffirmed by Mr. Adams. [10] True, it is but fair that their denial should be known: and estimated at its true value. But who could expect any men to acknowledge their complicity in such a design? If in the dark hour of their country's trial, engaged in a war with the greatest nation upon earth,. they could conceive the idea of deserting her standard, and even of invoking the aid and the arms of her powerful enemy to make their desertion good, is it to be supposed that, after the scheme had failed or blown over, they would have pleaded guilty to such a design? Nor is this all. What did they mean by appointing another Convention to be held at Boston? Did they mean nothing? Or if they had any honorable design, -- any design which need not shrink from the light of day, -- why has it never been avowed by them? The truth is, if any one shall carefully examine the proceedings of the Hartford Convention, and the previous history of New England which culminated in that Convention, he can hardly fail to perceive, that the positive testimony of John Quiney Adams, is most powerfully corroborated by circumstances. The conclusion of Mr. Buchanan appears perfectly true; "that this body [the Hartford Convention] manifested their purpose to dissolve the Union, should Congress refuse to redress the grievances of which they complained."

Four years before the date of the Hartford Convention, Mr. Josiah Quiney, an influential member of Congress from Massachusetts, publicly declared the right of seces sion. The extract from his speech on the 14th January, 1811, is hackneyed; but it is, nevertheless, significant of what was then passing in the mind of Massachusetts. It is also exceedingly significant; because it was uttered in opposition to the admission of Louisiana into the Union as a State. If this bill passes, said he, "it is my deliberate opinion that it is virtually a dissolution of the Union; that it will free the States from their moral obligation and, as it will be the right of all, so it will be the duty of some, definitely to prepare for separation, amicably if they can, violently if they must." Nay, upon the purchase of Louisiana in 1803, the Legislature of Massachusetts passed the following resolution: Resolved, That the annexation of Louisiana to the Union, transcends the Constitutional power of the Government of the United States. It formed a new Confederacy to which the States united by the for mer compact, are not bound to adhere. Thus, as we have seen, Massachusetts from the foundation of the Federal Government down to 1815, held the Constitution to be a compact between the States, and the Union to be a Confede racy. In her ordinance of ratification in 1788; in her reply to the Resolutions of '98; in her own resolution of 1803-4; she most distinctly announced this doctrine. Hence, it seems impossible to doubt the statement of John Quincy Adams, [11] that the Hartford Convention deduced the right of secession from the fact, that the Constitution was a compact between the States of the Confederacy. This was a clearly legal inference. Rawle, Story, and Webster all admit it to be such. Thus the fathers, one and all, laid down the great premise or postulate of the doctrine of secession at the very foundation of the Union; and the New England States, in 1815, deliberately drew the inference, and asserted the right of secession. Yet these States, in 1861, took the lead of all others in the fierceness and the bitterness of their denunciation of secession as treason and rebellion! The first to assert for themselves, and vet the first to persecute in others, this great right!

It is thus that Josiah Quincy, the Webster of 1815, asserted the fundamental principle or postulate of secession: "Touching the general nature of that instrument called the Constitution of the United States, there is no obscurity; it has no fabled descent, like the palladium of ancient Troy, from the heavens. Its origin is not confused by the mists of time, or hidden by the darkness of past, unexplained ages; it is the fabric of our day. Some now living had a share in its construction; all of us stood by, and saw the rising edifice. There can be no doubt about its' nature. It is a political compact." Is this the same Josiah Quincy, or was it his son, who in 1861, made himself so conspicuous by denouncing secession as treason? It is certainly the same Josiah Quincy, who, in 1811, was called to order in Congress for asserting the right of secession, and voted to be in order. How rapidly the New England world turns upon its political axis! In 1815, as secession was the right of all, so it was the duty of some of the States; and, in 1861, it was treason and rebellion!

Did the South condemn Secession in 1815?

The South, it has been repeatedly asserted, condemned the secession of 1815 as treason, and is, therefore, estopped from complaining of the same sentiment in 1861. "This," it is urged, "may be said to be res adjudicata." All parties are committed against the right of secession."

Now, even if the facts were as alleged, still this would be a one-sided logic. For if the South, in 1815, condemned secession, it was the secession which New England had approved; and if the North, in 1861, denounced secession, it was precisely the right which the South had asserted. Hence, it is just as true, that all parties were committed for, as that all parties were committed against, the right of secession.

If, as is supposed, the minority was, in both instances, in favor of the right of secession, and the majority opposed to it; this would have been nothing very strange or wonderful. It would only have illustrated the saying of Aristotle, which all history confirms, that "the weak always desire what is equal and just; but the powerful pay no regard to it."

But the facts have not been accurately stated. It is true, that the South, as well as other portions of the Union., vehemently condemned the Hartford Convention. No Convention, or assembly, was ever more odious to the great body of the people of the United States. But its proceedings were secret; and till the appearance of Mr. Adams' letter of Dec. 30th, 1828, its precise object or design was not generally known. It may be doubted, indeed, if it was ever condemned by any portion of the South, on the simple ground, that it claimed for the New England States merely the right to secede from the Union, and to be let alone. It was, however, known to the South, that the New England States had insisted on a war with Great Britain in order to defend and secure the rights of their seamen. It was also known, that while the South was engaged in this war, the New England States not only failed to do their duty, but denounced the war they had instigated, and the government by which it was carried on. It is true that, by these proceedings, the wrath of the South was awakened, and that she denounced them as treason: because they gave ''aid and comfort to the enemy. From all that had preceded, how could the South know, indeed, but that the Hartford Convention had formed the dark design of appealing to arms against the Government of the United States, and of joining Great Britain in the war against the people of this country?

Even if the South had known, that New England merely designed, in 1815, to secede from the Union; still her indignation would not have been without just cause. For, having got the South into a war with Great Britain, was that the time for her to desert the standard of her country, and leave the other States exposed to the full brunt of its fury? The clearest right may, indeed, be exercised in such a manner, and under such circumstances, as to render it odious. The right of secession has, no doubt, been made to appear treasonable, by its association with the Hartford Convention of 1815.

Far otherwise was the conduct of the South. She held no secret Conventions. All her proceedings were as open as the day. The United States were at peace with all the world. It was under these circumstances, that the States of the South, each in its own Convention assembled, withdrew from the Union, and asked to be let alone. But the South was not permitted to enjoy the government of her choice. On the contrary, she was subjugated, impoverished, and ruined, with the avowed design to bring her back into the Union; and now that she is knocking at the door of the Union, she is not allowed to enter. What, then, is left to her sons and daughters but to weep over the inconsistency and wickedness of mankind; and, if possible, to pray for their enemies?

------------------------------

ENDNOTES

[1] Page 5
[2] Page 5.
[3] Page 8.
[4] Page 7.
[5] Pages 10-13.
[6] Page 21.
[7] Proceedings of Hartford Convention, p. 33.
[8] Letter of Dec. 30, 1828 in reply to Harrison Gray Otis and others.
[9] Buchanan's Administration, p. 87.
[10] Letter of Dec. 30, 1828. in reply to H. Gray Otis and others
[11] Letter of Dec. 30, 1828. to H. Gray Otis, &c.

[Non-Sequitur] Surely you have something better than that? Based on that it appears that Sherman's army foraged liberally, something that has never been denied, and either took livestock with them or disposed of them to keep them from aiding the confederate war effort. All armies of the time lived off the land, Lee did it in Pennsylvania and Sherman did it in Georgia.

LINK to Lew Rockwell site

The Confederacy Compared to Nazi Germany
by Lewis Regenstein
To the Greenville, (NC) East Carolinian
To the editor:
Peter Kalajian's article comparing the Confederacy to Nazi Germany and its battle flag to the swastika is highly offensive, especially to those of us who are Jewish, & shows he knows little about either the Confederacy or the Nazis.
Some 3,500 to 5,000 Jews fought honorably and loyally for the Confederacy, including its Secretary of War & later State, Judah Benjamin ("See Robert Rosen's The Jewish Confederates and Mel Young's Last Order of the Lost Cause). My great grandfather also served, as did his four brothers, their uncle, his three sons, and some two-dozen other members of my Mother's extended family (The Moses’ of South Carolina and Georgia). Half a dozen of them fell in battle, largely teenagers, including the first and last Confederate Jews to die in battle.
We know first hand, from their letters, diaries, and memoirs, that they were not fighting for slavery, but rather to defend themselves and their comrades, their families, homes, and country from an invading army that was trying to kill them, burn their homes and cities, and destroy everything they had.
If you want to talk about Nazi-like behavior, consider the actions of the leading Union commander, General Ulysses S. Grant, whose war crimes included the following actions:
Ordering the expulsion on 24 hours notice of all Jews "as a class" from the territory under his control (General Order # 11, 17 December, 1862), and forbidding Jews to travel on trains (November, 1862);
Ordering the destruction of an entire agricultural area to deny the enemy support (the Shenandoah Valley, 5 August, 1864).
Leading the mass murder, a virtual genocide, of Native People, mainly helpless old men, women, and children in their villages, to make land available for the western railroads (the eradication of the Plains Indians, 1865-66). What we euphemistically call "the Indian Wars" was carried out by many of the same Union officers who led the war against the South -- Sherman, Grant, Sheridan, Custer, and other leading commanders.
Overseeing the complete destruction of defenseless Southern cities, and conducting such warfare against unarmed women and children (e.g., the razing of Meridien, and other cities in Mississippi, spring, 1863).
Contrast these well-documented atrocities (and many others too numerous to list) with the gentlemanly policies and behavior of the Confederate forces. My ancestor Major Raphael Moses, General James Longstreet’s chief commissary officer, was forbidden by General Robert E. Lee from even entering private homes in their raids into the North, such as the famous incursion into Pennsylvania. Moses was forced to obtain his supplies from businesses and farms, and he always paid for what he requisitioned, albeit in Confederate tender.
Moses always endured in good humor the harsh verbal abuse he received from the local women, who, he noted, always insisted on receiving in the end the exact amount owed.
Moses and his Confederate colleagues never engaged in the type of warfare waged by the Union forces, especially that of General William T. Sherman on his infamous "March to the Sea" through Georgia and the Carolinas, in which his troops routinely burned, looted, and destroyed libraries, courthouses, churches, homes, and cities full of defenseless civilians, including my hometown of Atlanta.
It was not the South but rather our enemies that engaged in genocide. While our ancestors may have lost the War, they never lost their honor, or engaged in anything that could justify their being compared to Nazi’s. It was the other side that did that.
Sincerely yours, Lewis Regenstein Atlanta, GA
October 15, 2004

LINK to eHistory site

Official Records of Union and Confederate Armies at eHistory

LINK to Cornell University site

Cornell University Official Records -- Links to Union and Confederate Armies and Navies and related

LINK to Cornell University site (Navy)

Cornell University Official Records Union and Confederate Navies

LINK to Cornell University site (Army)

Cornell University Official Records Union and Confederate Armies

LINK to Cornell University site

For a good starter, the above link yields a library of Gideon Welles articles, listed below.

This first article about Fort Sumter says "George" but it is really "Gideon" ... You will see there is another article on Fort Pickens which is also informative. These two articles by former Secretary of the Navy Welles contain quotations of many of the official orders that were issued. I highly recommend the articles on Forts Sumter and Pickens. The articles on Lincoln and Johnson are also interesting, especially the events of the cabinet meeting of April 14, 1865.

Welles, George, Facts in relation to the Expedition ordered by the Administration of President Lincoln for the relief of the Garrison in Fort Sumter. The Galaxy, vol. 10, issue 5 (November 1870).

Welles, Gideon, Administration of Abraham Lincoln. The Galaxy, vol. 23, issue 1 (January 1877).

Welles, Gideon, Administration of Abraham Lincoln. The Galaxy, vol. 24, issue 5 (Nov 1877).

Welles, Gideon, Administration of Abraham Lincoln. The Galaxy, vol. 23, issue 2 (February 1877).

Welles, Gideon, Administration of Abraham Lincoln. The Galaxy, vol. 24, issue 6 (Dec 1877).

Welles, Gideon, Administration of Abraham Lincoln. The Galaxy, vol. 24, issue 4 (Oct 1877).

Welles, Gideon, Admiral Farragut and New Orleans, with an Account of the Origin and Command of the First Three Naval Expeditions of the War. The Galaxy, vol. 12, issue 5 (November 1871).

Welles, Gideon, Admiral Farragut and New Orleans, with an Account of the Origin and Command of the First Three Naval Expeditions of the War. The Galaxy, vol. 12, issue 6 (December 1871).

Welles, Gideon, Capture and release of Mason and Slidell. The Galaxy, vol. 15, issue 5 (May 1873).

Welles, Gideon, Election and Administration of Abraham Lincoln. The Galaxy, vol. 22, issue 4 (October 1876).

Welles, Gideon, Election and Administration of Abraham Lincoln. The Galaxy, vol. 22, issue 3 (September 1876).

Welles, Gideon, Facts of the Abandonment of the Gosport Navy-yard. The Galaxy, vol. 10, issue 1 (July 1870).

Welles, Gideon, Fort Pickens. The Galaxy, vol. 11, issue 1 (January 1871).

Welles, Gideon, Gideon Welles in Answer to Thurlow Weed. The Galaxy, vol. 10, issue 1 (July 1870).

Welles, Gideon, The History of Emancipation. The Galaxy, vol. 14, issue 6 (December 1872).

Welles, Gideon, Lincoln and Johnson. The Galaxy, vol. 13, issue 4 (April 1872). (Review of Last Cabinet Meeting - 14 Apr 1865)

Welles, Gideon, Lincoln and Johnson. The Galaxy, vol. 13, issue 5 (May 1872).

Welles, Gideon, Lincoln's Triumph in 1864. The Atlantic Monthly, vol. 41, issue 246 (April 1878).

Welles, Gideon, The Opposition to Lincoln in 1864. The Atlantic Monthly, vol. 41, issue 245 (March 1878).

Welles, Gideon, Hon., Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Seward. The Galaxy, vol. 16, issue 6 (December 1873).

Welles, Gideon, Hon., Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Seward. The Galaxy, vol. 16, issue 5 (November 1873).

Welles, Gideon, Hon., Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Seward. The Galaxy, vol. 16, issue 4 (October 1873).

And how did the North supposedly own this property that was part of another sovereign State?

The topic was the extent of atrocity committed by armies--you, yourself, brought up other locations (e.g., Pennsylvania), and I, myself, brought up Hunter's devastation. Rather than addressing that point, though, you just made a snide comment about Sherman not being in Virginia.

Let's review how this started.

In post 387 you said, What seems to have been badly overblown over the years are claims of damage to purely civilian properties. In post 395 I responded with an example about the depredations of Sherman's troops. In post 396 your replied and brought in Lee. In post 397 I responded about Lee. In post 400 I mentioned yet another example of Union depredations, these conducted by Hunter's troops. You avoided responding to my point about Hunter and gave Gondring the lame excuse in post 416: He replied to a post about Sherman.

You opened the subject of supposedly overblown accounts of Union depredations on civilian properties. Let's look at some other examples of this depredation:

Example 1 -- Union General Halleck to Union General McClellan, December 19, 1861:

The conduct of the forces under Lane and Jenson has done more for the enemy in this state than could have been accomplished by 20,000 of his own men.

I receive almost daily complaints of Outrages committed by these men in the name of the United States, and the evidence is so conclusive as to leave no doubt of their correctness.
Example 2 -- The plunder of Fredericksburg, Virginia, 1862 [LINK]:

Example 3 -- A comparison of plundering by Northern and Southern troops [Source: the New York World of December 15, 1862]:

The ragged, half-starved rebels passed through Maryland without disorder or marauding, without injury to the country, showing their excellent discipline. The well-fed, well-clothed Union soldiers laid waste everything before them, plundering houses, hen-roosts, and hog-pens, showing an utter want of discipline.
Example 4 -- Sherman's admission, August 4, 1863

The amount of burning, stealing, and plundering done by our army makes me ashamed of it. I would quit the service if I could, because I fear that we are drifting to the worst sort of vandalism. I have endeavored to repress this class of crime, but you know how difficult it is to fix the guilt among the great mass of an army. In this case I caught the man in the act. He is acquitted because his superior officer ordered. it. The superior officer is acquitted because, I suppose, he had not set the fire with his own hands, and thus you and I and every commander must go through the war justly chargeable with crimes at which we blush.
Example 5 -- General Sheridan's General Orders 19:
The attention of the general commanding has been directed to the system of marauding and wanton destruction of household furniture, clothing, &c., through the country just passed over by this command. This is disgraceful, and will tarnish the brilliant success which has attended the Cavalry Corps since the opening of the campaign.

Some of us care to think he fought on the RIGHT side!

Amen to that Tex! All General Lee, and all of us Virginians ever wanted (and continue to want) is for the Federal Government to stay out of our lives. Is that too much to ask? And please, before some Yankee out there goes nuts and starts yelping about slavery and all - I'm not in favor of it - there, OK?

Having said that, General Lee and General Jackson there are those on this earth who mourn your passing and wish you both all the best in the great beyond.

[Non-Sequitur] But since you've waded through it please point out one illegal action that Lincoln took?

How many examples would you like? Here are a few.

SOURCE: Daniel A. Farber, Lincoln's Constitution, 2003, p. 196-7.

Farber does his utmost to offer any possible legal fig leaf to put over the UNLAWFUL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL acts of Abraham Lincoln, however, even he finds the task impossible at times. Some of the acts were so clearly and blatantly UNLAWFUL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL that Farber throws in the towel and just says so.

Military jurisdiction was extended beyond constitutional bounds in the North; money was spent and the military expanded without the necessary authority from Congress; and freedom of speech was sometimes infringed. Not a perfect record, but a creditable one, under incredibly trying circumstances.

SOURCE: Abraham Lincoln; Address Before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois; January 27, 1838; The Perpetuation of our Political Institutions.

LINK to Lincoln Lyceum Speech

Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap -- let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; -- let it be written in Primmers, spelling books, and in Almanacs; -- let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay, of all sexes and tongues, and colors and conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars.
While ever a state of feeling, such as this, shall universally, or even, very generally prevail throughout the nation, vain will be every effort, and fruitless every attempt, to subvert our national freedom.
When I so pressingly urge a strict observance of all the laws, let me not be understood as saying there are no bad laws, nor that grievances may not arise, for the redress of which, no legal provisions have been made. I mean to say no such thing. But I do mean to say, that, although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still while they continue in force, for the sake of example, they should be religiously observed.
* * *
Passion has helped us; but can do so no more. It will in future be our enemy. Reason, cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason, must furnish all the materials for our future support and defence. Let those [materials] be moulded into general intelligence, [sound] morality and, in particular, a reverence for the constitution and laws....

In your world an act of war against a peaceful people who chose to form their own government (a bedrock of our republic) is not an illegal act.

In your world bombarding a fort into submission isn't an act of war. Does that make us even?

I guess if it isn't enumerated or declared in the Constitution then it isn't illegal.

Isn't that what all y'all say about the 10th Amendment?

It sure pissed us off and we almost whipped your little peni's despite overwhelming odds.

The south never came close to winning.

And how did the North supposedly own this property that was part of another sovereign State?

By act of the South Carolina legislature:

COMMITTEE ON FEDERAL RELATIONS
In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836

The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor’s message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

Also resolved: That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House: T. W. GLOVER, C. H. R.

IN SENATE, December 21st, 1836

Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order: JACOB WARLY, C. S.

Sumter was not the joint property of the U.S. and South Carolina. Such a relationship would be unconstitutional since Article I, Section 8 says that Congress will exercise sole legislative authority over forts. Even if the South Carolina act of secession was legal, that did not automatically transfer control to them of property that belonged to the federal government. Sumter was the property of the federal government and South Carolina had no claim to it.

Yes.

LOL!

OH! RIGHT! THAT is whay Beauregard attacked Sumter!

Man! Talk about GRASPING.

Cut and paste talents???

LOL!

You just drooled praise over your commrade for what was no more than a series of looonngg cut & pastes over several e-mails!

Quote from groanup: "I'm impressed. Where did you find all this stuff?"

No double standard here.

It sure pissed us off and we almost whipped your little peni's despite overwhelming odds.

Your delusional, but even if you were right you can take no credit (or blame) for any of it. "We" you say? I did not realize you time travelled back to help.

To this day we have people calling us traitors and turncoats

If the shoe fits...