Posted on 06/12/2003 5:58:28 AM PDT by Aurelius
Over the years I've heard many rail at the South for seceding from the 'glorious Union.' They claim that Jeff Davis and all Southerners were really nothing but traitors - and some of these people were born and raised in the South and should know better, but don't, thanks to their government school 'education.'
Frank Conner, in his excellent book The South Under Siege 1830-2000 deals in some detail with the question of Davis' alleged 'treason.' In referring to the Northern leaders he noted: "They believed the most logical means of justifying the North's war would be to have the federal government convict Davis of treason against the United States. Such a conviction must presuppose that the Confederate States could not have seceded from the Union; so convicting Davis would validate the war and make it morally legitimate."
Although this was the way the federal government planned to proceed, that prolific South-hater, Thaddeus Stevens, couldn't keep his mouth shut and he let the cat out of the bag. Stevens said: "The Southerners should be treated as a conquered alien enemy...This can be done without violence to the established principles only on the theory that the Southern states were severed from the Union and were an independent government de facto and an alien enemy to be dealt with according to the laws of war...No reform can be effected in the Southern States if they have never left the Union..." And, although he did not plainly say it, what Stevens really desired was that the Christian culture of the Old South be 'reformed' into something more compatible with his beliefs. No matter how you look at it, the feds tried to have it both ways - they claimed the South was in rebellion and had never been out of the Union, but then it had to do certain things to 'get back' into the Union it had never been out of. Strange, is it not, that the 'history' books never seem to pick up on this?
At any rate, the Northern government prepared to try President Davis for treason while it had him in prison. Mr. Conner has observed that: "The War Department presented its evidence for a treason trial against Davis to a famed jurist, Francis Lieber, for his analysis. Lieber pronounced 'Davis will not be found guilty and we shall stand there completely beaten'." According to Mr. Conner, U.S. Attorney General James Speed appointed a renowned attorney, John J. Clifford, as his chief prosecutor. Clifford, after studying the government's evidence against Davis, withdrew from the case. He said he had 'grave doubts' about it. Not to be undone, Speed then appointed Richard Henry Dana, a prominent maritime lawyer, to the case. Mr. Dana also withdrew. He said basically, that as long as the North had won a military victory over the South, they should just be satisfied with that. In other words - "you won the war, boys, so don't push your luck beyond that."
Mr. Conner tells us that: "In 1866 President Johnson appointed a new U.S. attorney general, Henry Stanburg. But Stanburg wouldn't touch the case either. Thus had spoken the North's best and brightest jurists re the legitimacy of the War of Northern Aggression - even though the Jefferson Davis case offered blinding fame to the prosecutor who could prove that the South had seceded unconstitutionally." None of these bright lights from the North would touch this case with a ten-foot pole. It's not that they were dumb, in fact the reverse is true. These men knew a dead horse when they saw it and were not about to climb aboard and attempt to ride it across the treacherous stream of illegal secession. They knew better. In fact, a Northerner from New York, Charles O'Connor, became the legal counsel for Jeff Davis - without charge. That, plus the celebrity jurists from the North that refused to touch the case, told the federal government that they really had no case against Davis or secession and that Davis was merely being held as a political prisoner.
Author Richard Street, writing in The Civil War back in the 1950s said exactly the same thing. Referring to Jeff Davis, Street wrote: "He was imprisoned after the war, was never brought to trial. The North didn't dare give him a trial, knowing that a trial would establish that secession was not unconstitutional, that there had been no 'rebellion' and that the South had got a raw deal." At one point the government intimated that it would be willing to offer Davis a pardon, should he ask for one. Davis refused that and he demanded that the government either give him a pardon or give him a trial, or admit that they had dealt unjustly with him. Mr. Street said: "He died 'unpardoned' by a government that was leery of giving him a public hearing." If Davis was as guilty as they claimed, why no trial???
Had the federal government had any possible chance to convict Davis and therefore declare secession unconstitutional they would have done so in a New York minute. The fact that they diddled around and finally released him without benefit of the trial he wanted proves that the North had no real case against secession. Over 600,000 boys, both North and South, were killed or maimed so the North could fight a war of conquest over something that the South did that was neither illegal or wrong. Yet they claim the moral high ground because the 'freed' the slaves, a farce at best.
Benjamin F. Butler, Autobiography and Personal Reminiscences of Major-General Benjamin F. Butler: A Review of His Legal, Political, and Military Career (or, Butler’s Book) (Boston: A. M. Thayer & Co. Book Publishers, 1892), p. 903.
THE FINAL SOLUTION
Finally, as a postscript to Sherman and Sheridan's barbarism toward the south, Sherman wrote to Sheridan in 1868 concerning Sheridan's assaults on the Indians, telling him to act with all the vigor he had shown in the Shenandoah Valley during the final months of the Civil War. And Sherman promised to cover for him if the press started writing about "atrocities."
Sherman, as commander over the forces against the Indians, after the Civil War, sent a letter to President Grant: We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women, and children. Nothing else will reach the root of this case." Sherman was to call the massacre of all American Indians his "final solution to the Indian problem," a phrase the Nazis were to use for the Holocaust. Just before Sherman died in 1891 he complained bitterly about civilian interference in his Indian policies, which had prevented him from getting "rid of them all."
When in the Course of Human Events, 2000, Charles Adams, p. 116
Upon the foregoing hypothesis, then, the following questions arise:--
1st. Had the people of Rhode Island, in the month of December, 1841, without the sanction or assent of the Legislature, a right to adopt a State constitution for themselves, that constitution establishing a government, republican in form, within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States?
2d. Was the evidence of the adoption by the people of Rhode Island of such a constitution, offered in the court below by the plaintiff in this cause, competent to prove the fact of the adoption of such constitution?
3d. Upon the issuing of the proclamation of the convention, by which it had been declared duly adopted, namely, on the 13th day of January, 1842, and the acts under it, did not that constitution become the supreme law of the State of Rhode Island?
If these questions are answered in the negative, then the theory of American free governments for the States is unavailable in practice.
* * *
So far as the foregoing authorities are proof of anything, they establish the following positions, viz.:--
1. That in the United States no definite, uniform mode has ever been established for either instituting or changing a form of State government.
2. That State legislatures have no power or authority over the subject, and can interfere only by usurpation, any further than, like other individuals, to recommend.
3. That the great body of the people may change their form of government at any time, in any peaceful way, and by any mode of operations that they for themselves determine to by expedient.
4. That even where a subsisting constitution points out a particular mode of change, the people are not bound to follow the mode so pointed out; but may at their pleasure adopt another.
5. That where no constitution exists, and no fundamental law prescribes any mode of amendment, there they must adopt a mode for themselves; and the mode they do adopt, when adopted, ratified, or acquiesced in by a majority of the people, is binding upon all.
* * *
8th. Why a revolution to change the form of a State government can never be resorted to within the limits of the United States Constitution, while a State remains in the Union.
The United States Constitution, Art. 4, Sect. 4, provides that 'the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion, and, on the application of the legislature or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.'
* * *
The rule of State decision does not apply to this case,--
1. Because it involves no rule of property nor construction of a statute enacted by a legislature acknowledged by both parties, but related to the existence of a constitution and government under it.
2. The court never decided which was the valid constitution, but refused to take jurisdiction of that question or to hear it at all.
3. The excitement of the times forms an exception.
4. It was made a political question, and not a judicial construction, as far as it entered into the case.
* * *
Moreover, the Constitution of the United States, as far as it has provided for an emergency of this kind, and authorized the general government to interfere in the domestic concerns of a State, has treated the subject as political in its nature, and placed the power in the hands of that department.
* * *
They might, if they had deemed it most advisable to do so, have placed it in the power of a court to decide when the contingency had happened which required the federal government to interfere. But Congress thought otherwise, and no doubt wisely; and by the act of February 28, 1795, provided, that, 'in case of an insurrection in any State against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such State or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened), to call forth such number of the militia of any other State or States, as may be applied for, as he may judge sufficient to sufficient to suppress such insurrection.'
By this act, the power of deciding whether the exigency had arisen upon which the government of the United States is bound to interfere, is given to the President. He is to act upon the application of the legislature or of the executive, and consequently he must determine what body of men constitute the legislature, and who is the governor, before he can act.
* * *
A question very similar to this arose in the case of Martin v. Mott, 12 Wheat. 29-31. The first clause of the first section of the act of February 28, 1795, of which we have been speaking, authorizes the President to call out the militia to repel invasion. It is the second clause in the same section which authorizes the call to suppress an insurrection against a State [48 U.S. 1, 45] government. The power given to the President in each case is the same,- with this difference only, that it cannot be exercised by him in the latter case, except upon the application of the legislature or executive of the State.
* * *
No more force, however, can be used than is necessary to accomplish the object. And if the power is exercised for the purposes of oppression, or any injury wilfully done to person or property, the party by whom, or by whose order, it is committed would undoubtedly be answerable.
* * *
No one, we believe, has ever doubted the proposition, that, according to the institutions of this country, the sovereignty in every State resides in the people of the State, and that they may alter and change their form of government at their own pleasure. But whether they have changed it or not by abolishing an old government, and establishing a new one in its place, is a question to be settled by the political power. And when that power has decided, the courts are bound to take notice of its decision, and to follow it.
* * *
I suppose we can agree Davis, Stephens, and Grant were not "traditional historians." Since I don't care much for the Ivy league types anyway, I can probably agree with you about them. But who are the "traditional" historians that you refer to?
[Wlat] General Grant clearly refused to exchange any prisoners unless blacks were included.
Before a Congressional committee Grant testified as follows:
"I refused to exchange prisoners because as soon as the South's soldiers are released from our prisons they rush back into the rebel ranks and begin fighting again. When Northern soldiers return from southern prisons either they never atgain enter the ranks, or if they do, not until they go to their homes and have a long furlough."
[Wlat quoting Lincoln] Please notify the insurgents, through the proper military channels and forms, that the government of the United States has satisfactory proof of the massacre, by the insurgent forces at Fort-Pillow,
Student Essay - Cal Poly (author unknown)
It is almost as difficult to find consistent information about the incident at Fort Pillow as it is to determine the moral significance of its outcome. Scholars disagree about exactly what transpired on April 12, 1864 at Fort Pillow, when General Nathan Bedford Forrest captured the fort with his 1,500 troops and claimed numerous Union lives in the process. It became an issue of propaganda for the Union, and as a result the facts were grossly distorted. After close examination it is clear that the "Fort Pillow Massacre" (as it became known by abolitionists) was nothing of the sort. The 1,500 troops under the command of General Nathan Bedford Forrest acted as men and as soldiers in their capture of Fort Pillow.
It is first necessary to understand what happened in the battle before any judgment can be made. A careful study performed by Dr. John Wyeth revealed the following information: from April 9-11, 1864, troops under the command of Ben McCulloch, Tyree Harris Bell, and Brig. General James Chalmers marched non-stop to Fort Pillow to begin their assault under the command of General Nathan Bedford Forrest. Confederate sharpshooters claimed the lives of several key Union officers during the morning assault on the fort. The losses included the commanding officer Major Lionel F. Booth, and his second in command shortly after that. These losses created a complete breakdown of order and leadership among the Union troops within the fort.
During the morning engagement, the gun boat the New Era was continually attempting to shell the Confederate forces from the Mississippi, but with minimal success. The Union forces fought back heartily until around one o'clock in the afternoon, when both sides slowed down. Around that time the New Era steamed out of range to cool its weapons. It had fired a total of 282 rounds, and its supplies were almost totally exhausted. During this hiatus in the firing, while Confederate troops waited for supplies that would arrive around three o'clock, Forrest was injured when his horse fell on him after being mortally wounded. When the supplies arrived, Confederate troops under a flag of truce delivered a message from Forrest that said, "My men have received a fresh supply of ammunition, and from their present position can easily assault and capture the fort,". Forrest demanded "...the unconditional surrender of the garrison," promising "...that you shall be treated as prisoners of war". This agreement was refused by Major William F. Bradford using the name of Major Booth, and Forrest was left with no option but to attack.
Without a word, Forrest rode to his post, and a bugle call began the charge. The soldiers stormed the fort under the cover of sharpshooter fire. The Union spent their rounds on the charging mass, and the second wave was to all intents and purposes a "turkey shoot." As hordes of soldiers came over the wall, a considerable number of Union lives were lost to point blank fire, an action that was deemed murder by the northern press. However, it must not be forgotten that those Union troops who died were in the process of reloading their rifles. Even knowing that they were severely outnumbered, they had demanded the fight.
By this point most of the Union officers in the fort had been killed, and the remaining troops fled the fort toward the river where they had provisions waiting . There was also a plan for the New Era to shell the Confederate troops in the fort with canister, but the shelling never happened. Confederate troops were waiting at the bottom of the fort to prevent access to the supplies by the Union forces. With the Union flag still flying upon the fort and Union forces still firing on the run, Confederate troops claimed many more lives on the river bank.
It was reported by Colonel Barteau (CSA) that "...they made a wild, crazy, scattering fight. They acted like a crowd of drunken men. They would at one moment yield and throw down their guns, and then would rush again to arms, seize their guns and renew the fire. If one squad was left as prisoners ... it would soon discover that they could not be trusted as having surrendered, for taking the first opportunity they would break loose again and engage in the contest. Some of our men were killed by Negroes who had once surrendered".
With this type of activity, it is understandable how a superior force could claim so many casualties. However, the issue is not so clear to Civil War historians. The first and biggest problem has to do with the information that different historians base their opinions on. For example, in a historical account written by Carl Sandburg it is reported that Forrest's troops stood 6,000 strong. This is slightly inflated from the actual 1,500 that were present. In this same account Sandburg claims that the "...battle ended as a mob scene with wholesale lynching". It was distorted information such as this that was used by the Union as propaganda against the South. After the incident General Kilpatrick (USA) was quoted saying Forrest had "nailed Negroes to the fences, set fire to the fences, and burned the Negroes to death". With reports like this, it is understandable why abolitionist were outraged. The Congressional Committee released a summary after the event. It stated "....that the rebels took advantage of a flag of truce to place themselves in position from which the more readily to charge upon the fort"; that after the fall of the fort "...the rebels commenced in an indiscriminate slaughter sparing neither age nor sex, white or black, soldier or civilian"; that this was "not the results passions excited by the heat of conflict, but of a policy deliberately decided upon and unhesitatingly announced"; that several of the wounded were intentionally burned to death in huts and tents about the fort; and the "...the rebels buried some of the living the dead."
In the intensive studies performed by Dr.. John Wyeth there were more than fifty soldiers that were present at this battle who gave sworn testimonies contradicting these findings. This suggests that the Union fabricated the truth to aid in its own cause. The fact is that most of what was said about Forrest's unethical actions were false accusations. Testimonies from several different sources (both Union and Confederate) claim that there were no movements under the flag of truce, but that they had their positions hours before. It is true that the losses were huge in this battle, but that is typical of many significantly unbalanced battles. According to Wyeth there was only one incident of force against the Union after the Union flag came down, and that resulted in an on-the-spot arrest.
This entire incident was blown totally of proportion. It is tragic to lose even one life, but on a battle field, death is inevitable. This event became a monumental point in the war because of exaggeration and lies told by Union supporters. These lies strengthened the Union cause and further blemished the reputation of Confederate forces. Morally, there is no fault in Forrest's actions.
Reference Materials:
Henry, Robert Selph. "First the Most"-Forrest. . New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1944.
Hurst, Jack. Nathan Bedford Forrest-A Biography. New York: Alfred Knoph, 1993.
Lee, Guy Carleton. The True History of the Civil War. Philadelphia: I.B. Lippincott, 1903.
Long, E. B. and Barbara Long. The Civil War Day by Day-An Almanac. New York: Doubleday, 1971.
Sandburg, Carl. Storm over the Land--A Profile of the Civil War. New York: Harcourt Brace: 1939.
Wyeth, John Allan. That Devil Forrest -The Life of Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1959.
"Was There a Massacre at Ft. Pillow?" John L. Jordan, Tennessee History Quarterly VI (June 1947), pp 99-133:
"...burial details were composed of Union troops under Union officers, a fact which clears Forrest's men of the charges that they buried Negro wounded alive...Union casualties may have amounted to less two hundred killed, wounded, and missing."
There was clearly a massacre at Fort Pillow.
From "Battle Cry of Freedom":
"Forrest's most recent exploit had been the destruction on April 12 of the Union garrison at Fort Pillow on the Mississippi River, where some of his men had murdered black soldiers after they surrendered." 48
Footnote 48 reads: "Although formerly disputed by southerners, the truth of a massacre of several dozen black prisoners and some whites - along with their commander Major William F. Bradford, who was captured and subsequently shot "while attempting to escape" - is now well established and generally accepted. For summaries and analyses of the evidence, see Robert Self Henry, "'First with the Most' Forest" ... Albert Castel, "The Fort Pillow Massacre:
A Fresh Examination of the Evidence..." and John Cimprich and Robert C. Mainfort, Jr., "Fort Pillow Revisited: New Evidence about an Old Controversy"..."
Report of Lieut. Gen. U.S. Grant, U.S. Army, commanding Armies of the United States, of operations March, 1864-May, 1865.
On the morning of the same day(++) Forrest attacked Fort Pillow, Tenn., garrisoned by a detachment of Tennessee cavalry and the First Regiment Alabama Colored Troops, commanded by Major Booth. The garrison fought bravely until about 3 o'clock in the afternoon, when the enemy carried the works by assault, and, after our men threw down their arms, proceeded to an inhuman and merciless massacre of the garrison....
------------------------------------------
"No doubt Forrest's men acted like a set of barbarians, shooting down the helpless negro garrison after the fort was in their possession ... there is no doubt the feeling of the Southern people was fearfully savage on this very point of our making soldiers out of their late slaves, and Forrest may have shared this feeling."
-- W.T. Sherman
You're saying that Forrest disobeyed orders, can that be true?
"Headquarters Department Trans-Mississippi,Shreveport, La, June 13, 1863
Maj. Gen. R. Taylor Commanding District of Louisiana:
GENERAL:
In answer to the communication of Brigadier-General Hebert, ofthe 6th instant, asking what disposition should be made of negro slaves taken in arms, I am directed by Lieutenant-General Smith to say no quarter should be shown them. If taken prisoners, however, they should be turned over to the executive authorities of the States in which they may be captured, in obedience to the proclamation of the President of the Confederate States, sections 3 and 4, published to the Army in General Orders, No. 111, Adjutant and Inspector General's Office, series of 1862. Should negroes thus taken be executed by the military authorities capturing them it would certainly provoke retaliation. By turning them over to the civil authorities to be tried by the laws of the state, no exception can be taken.I am, general, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
S. S. Anderson"
There was definitely a massacre of Union POW's at Fort Pillow.
So -- does this indicate a segue from your previous, equally ridiculous premise about Lincoln and race?
Walt
Apparently, he missed this guy:
From a letter to his family by Sgt. Achilles V. Clark of Forrest's command, written a few days after the massacre. The original is in the Tennessee State Library and Archives, Nashville:
"The slaughter was awful--words cannot describe the scene. The poor deluded negros would run up to our men, fall upon their knees and with uplifted hands scream for mercy but then were ordered to their feet and shot down. The white men fared but little better." Incidentally, Clark wrote that he and others tried to stop the butchery, only to find that "Gen. Forrest ordered them shot down like dogs and the carnage continued."
However, another Confederate soldier, Samuel H. Caldwell, wrote to his wife a few days after the massacre "If General Forrest had not run between our men & the Yanks with his pistol and sabre drawn not a man would have been spared." To support this, Brigadier General James R. Chalmers, CSA, who was Forrest's second-in-command "similarly claimed to a Federal officer on April 13 that he and Forrest had `stopped the massacre as soon as [we] were able to do so'. He further explained that their men `had such a hatred toward the armed negro that they could not be restrained from killing the negroes after they had captured them.'"
One of the surviving white officers:
Major Anderson, Forrest's assistant adjutant-general, stated that they did not consider colored men as soldiers, but as property, and as such, being used by our people, they had destroyed them. This was concurred in by Forrest, Chalmers, and McCulloch, and other officers.
We respectfully refer you to the accompanying affidavit of Hardy N. Revelle, lettered A, and those of Mrs. Rufins, lettered B, and Mrs. Williams, lettered C. Respectfully submitted.
F. A. SMITH,
First Lieutenant Company D, 13th Tennessee Cavalry.
Walt
Every Justice on the Supreme Court said U.S. law (the Militia Act) gave the power to the president to put down insurrection. The act leaves it to the president's sole discretion as when to call forth the militia.
Further, there is nothing inconsistent with what Taney said in Luther and his dissenting opinion in the Prize Cases.
Walt
Yep, see the Prize Cases.
Walt
Sandburg got this right.
"We saw several negroes burning up in their quarters on Wednesday morning. We also saw the rebels come back that morning and shoot at the wounded. We also saw them at a distance running about, hunting up wounded, that they might shoot them. There were some whites also burning. The rebels also went to the negro hospital, where about 30 sick were kept, and butchered them with their sabers, hacking their heads open in many instances, and then set fire to the buildings. They killed every negro soldier Wednesday morning upon whom they came. Those who were able they made stand up to be shot...
They ran a great many into the river, and shot them or drowned them there. They immediately killed all the officers who were over the negro troops, excepting one, who has since died from his wounds. They took out from Fort Pillow about one hundred and some odd prisoners (white) and 40 negroes. They hung and shot the negroes as they passed along toward Brownsville until they were rid of them all. (Out of the 600 troops, convalescents included, which were at the fort, they have only about 100 prisoners, all whites, and we have about 50 wounded, who are paroled."
--F. A. SMITH,
First Lieutenant Company D, 13th Tennessee Cavalry.
See the Militia Act.
"Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, the same being notified to the President of the United States, by an associate justice or the district judge, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session."
See also Martin v. Mott, (25 US 19, 1827), "We are all of the opinion that the authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen belongs exclusively to the President, and that his decision is conclusive upon all other persons. We think that this construction necessarily results from the nature of the power itself, and from the manifest object contemplated by the act of Congress. The power itself is to be exercised upon sudden emergencies, upon great occasions of state, and under circumstances which may be vital to the existence of the Union. A prompt and unhesitating obedience to orders is indispensable to the complete attainment of the object."
Walt
"Can South Carolina, upon any constitutional ground, say that those laws shall not be enforced within her limits? If that be admitted, then the old exploded heresy of nullification of Mr. CALHOUN is right, and it follows that General JACKSON, and HENRY CLAY, and DANIEL WEBSTER, and EDWARD LIVINGSTON, and all that class of great statesmen, were wrong.
"But if they were right (and who will deny that they were?), South CArolina cannot say, upon any constitutional grounds, that the United States law shall not be enforced within her limits. Knowing, right well, how false her old position was, that State to-day takes the new one of her right to secede from the Union, and declares herself to have done so, and that, therefore, the United States laws are inoperative within her limits. The whole North, with a few inconsiderable exceptions, and, we believe, a great majority of the honest people of the Southern States, do not believe in this new-fangled right of secession in any other form than as that ultimate right of rebellion against tyranny, of which man cannot divest himelf by any constitutional or social compact. . . .
"Can we coerce South Carolina to alter her views and opinions? By no means. Let her entertain them if she pleases, as long as she entertainst hem as mere political abstractions. If it pleases her to think herself out of the Union, let her think so. But she cannot legally resist the execution of the United States laws, or seize the United States property within her limits."
--Philadelphia _Press,_ January 15, 1861
"This is the relevant paragraph from the 142-year-old article in The North American Review:
"The Constitution declares that itself, the laws of the United States made pursuance of it, and treaties made under its authority, shall be the supreme law of the land, by which the judges of every State shall be bound, anything in the laws or constitution of the State to the contrary notwithstanding. It is a perversion of terms to call the "supreme law of the land" a compact between the States, which any State may rescind at pleasure. It is not itself an agreement, but is the result of an agreement. And in the absence of an express declaration, or reservation, it is an entire subversion of all legal principled to maintain that the subordinate may at pleasure set itself free from the restrictions imposed upon it by the fundamental law constituting the superior, even if the subordinate have in other particulars and uncontrolled authority. The judges of each State being expressly bound by the Constitution and laws of the United States, anything in the constitution or laws of the State to the contrary, how can a State law (or ordinance, which is but another name for law) relieve them from the obligation? And if they are bound, the State and the people are bound also. The judges are expressly named, the more surely to prevent a conflict of jurisdiction and decision."
--The North American Review (Volume 93, Issue 192) July, 1861
Walt
It would have been puerile for the constitution to say formally to each state, 'Thou shalt not secede.' The constitution, being the supreme law, being perpetual, and having expressly forbidden to the states those acts without which secession is an impossibility, would have been wanting in dignity had it used such superfuous phraseology. This constitution is supreme, whatever laws a state may enact, says the organic law. Was it necessary to add, 'and no state shall enact a law of secession.' To add to a great statute, in which the sovereign authority of the land declares its will, a phrase such as 'and be it further enacted that the said law shall not be violated,' would scarcely seem to strengthen the statute. It was accordingly enacted that new states might be admitted; but no permission was given for a state to secede. Provisions were made for the amendment of the constitution from time to time, and it was intended that those provisions should be stringent. A two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress, and a ratification in three quarters of the whole number of states, are conditions only to be complied with in grave emergencies. But the constitution made no provision for its own dissolution; and if it had done so, it would have been a proceeding quite without example in history. A constitution can only be subverted by revolution, or by foreign conquest of the land.
... The reserved and unnamed powers are many and important, but the state is closely circumscribed.
"Thus, a state is forbidden to alter its form of government. 'Thou shalt forever remain a republic,' says the United States constitution to each individual state. A state is forbidden, above all, to pass any law conflicting with the United States constitution or laws. Moreover, every member of Congress, every member of a state legislature, every executive or judicial officer in the service of the Union or of a separate state, is bound by solemn oath to maintain the United States constitution. This alone would seem to settle the question of secession ordinances. So long as the constitution endures, such an ordinance is merely the act of conspiring and combining individuals, with whom the general government may deal. When it falls in the struggle, and becomes powerless to cope with them, the constitution has been destroyed by violence."
[John Lathrop Motley, "The Causes of the American Civil War: To the Editor of the _London Times,_ May 23-24, 1861]
Walt
"I refused to exchange prisoners because as soon as the South's soldiers are released from our prisons they rush back into the rebel ranks and begin fighting again. When Northern soldiers return from southern prisons either they never atgain enter the ranks, or if they do, not until they go to their homes and have a long furlough."
That is consistent with the following from US General "Beast" Butler, US Commissioner of [prisoner] Exchange:
In case the Confederate authorities should yield to the argument...and formally notify me that their slaves captured in our uniform would be exchanged as other soldiers were, and that they were ready to return to us all our prisoners at Andersonville and elsewhere in exchange for theirs, I had determined, with the consent of the lieutenant-general [Grant], as a last resort, in order to prevent exchange, to demand that the outlawry against me should be formally reversed and apologized for before I would further negotiate the exchange of prisoners.It may be remarked here that the rebels were willing enough to exchange prisoners at this time, man for man, were we to permit it to be done.
Yeah, well. That's not true. The rebels never agreed to exchange black Union POW's.
The rebel armies were melting away through desertion. The de facto policy of the insurgent government seems to have been to abuse Union POW's in order to pressure the federals to return to the exchange cartel.
The federal government refused to exchange prisoners on several grounds:
The rebels refused to return black POW's.
The rebels violated the cartel by returning the bulk of the men captured at Vicksburg to service -- large numbers were captured again at Chattanooga; they had not been exchanged.
The rebels were running out of man power; exchanges benefited them more than the Union.
Oh, just a by the way:
Dr. Freehling's book "The South Vs The South" notes that the war was decided (on one level) by great sieges. The Union won them all:
Vicksburg, Atlanta, Chattanooga, Petersburg.
Rebel success? Nil.
Walt
I've read comments on how the US was the only western country to need a bloody war to remove slavery. And on the Southern argument (noted by Mark Twain, I believe, which shows it was not a later argument) that it was a tariff war. So possibily the reason there wasn't a drive to labor-saving devices was that they were primarily of British manufacture and the tariff was prohibitive.
Basically you are saying that a Union general lied.
I don't know whether or not black prisoners were ever exchanged by the South. It is clear that if the blacks were former escaped slaves, then the South would not return them. After all, if the South was willing to go to war to protect slavery, why would they return escaped slaves?
Writing to the lurkers again, Walt? I've shown you before that the paroles were invalid and that a Union general agreed the North could have no complaint.
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.