An image of the Confederate Statue taken from a postcard, circa 1910. Note the iron fence and gaslights
Posted on 06/24/2012 5:54:41 PM PDT by Borges
Point Lookout (MD) was no picnic, either. On a sand spit across the Potomac from Westmoreland VA, the place was noted for its cruelties. The Union had the resources to treat prisoners better. They chose not to.
Anybody who ever comes through the DC area can get to it fairly easy and they should stop by.
The rump government of Northern Virginia had been given orders to clear Alexandria of Confederate troops and sympathizers, and they were prepared to do so. First, the Confederate troops and their sympathizers assembled on Washington street and marched South out of town.
A handful of people ever returned.
So, there's a memorial in the middle of that street ~ and heavy rush hour traffic passes on both sides.
There are those who think it should be moved for its own protection. Then there are the others who've found in it an inspiration or a lesson.
We stopped on a sidestreet and I walked back to the intersection and waited on a break in the traffic to get over to the middle with the memorial.
It's larger up close, but still human scale. It was dedicated to our fathers, sons, and comrades.
Which is about as simple and stark a dedication that anyone could ever come up with.
“A “right of secession” is not listed in the US Constitution, but the Founders’ Original Intent is clear and consistent — secession is only authorized by mutual consent or from a material breech of contract.”
Jefferson’s already been quoted in the thread saying that if the federal government should impose things contrary to the compact then the individual states were permitted to secede.
“Abraham Lincoln’s election in 1860 was, in effect, engineered by Deep-South Fire-Eaters, who walked out of their Democrat Convention rather than accept the nomination of Senator Stephen Douglas for President.”
Lincoln would still have defeated Douglas without the split. Lincoln didn’t need to carry a single southern state to be elected.
“Deep South slave-holders had neither “mutual consent” nor material breech-of-contract to justify declarations of secession.”
No, but the state legislatures did. Their purpose is to safeguard the powers of their individual state from privation.
“secessionists began committing innumerable acts of increasing violence”
Like John Brown?
“Before its official Declaration of War, no Confederate soldier had been killed by any Union force.”
True, but southern civilians were killed by gunrunners. The response of Buchanan was to recognise the south. It was Lincoln who chose to go to war with the South.
“In its War of Aggression against the United States, the Confederacy not only seized every possible Federal property within its borders”
Within it’s borders? That doesn’t sound like aggression to me.
“also sent forces into every Union state and territory on its borders, and some well beyond.”
Nonsense. The first time that confederate forces crossed into Union territory was at Gettysburg. Prior to this, every battle had been on Confederate territory. If the South were the invaders, why is it that the North was the first to invade?
“This is hardly comparable to mass murders in other wars.”
So now you’re whitewashing Confederate casulties due to the scorched earth campaign. If they were sincerely ‘friends’, why did Sheridan devastate the Shenandoah, and Sherman torch Atlanta?
That doesn’t sound like ‘friends’ to me. That sounds like an occupation.
An image of the Confederate Statue taken from a postcard, circa 1910. Note the iron fence and gaslights
Where are Clinton, and Obama?
BTW, when the South used the federal government to impose their slavery on Northern territory, that's when the war began in earnest.
I had an ancestor who was prosecuted for violating the Runaway Slave Act. Best of all he was convicted! Praise God.
When was this?
Dred Scott ruled against the abolitionists.
Let’s take a look at the justices who supported Dred Scott:
Chief Justice Taney, a northerner, slaveowner and supporter of the union.
Justice Samuel Nelson, of New York, another Northerner and Democrat who supported slavery and the Union.
Justice Robert Cooper Grier of Pennsylvania, another Northerner and Democrat who supported Slavery and the Union.
That’s 3 of the 9 justices were both Northerners, slavery supporters and supporters of the union. All three sided with Dred Scott.
Only the Whigs, McLean and Curtis opposed the decision.
3 of the majority of 5 Northern justices ruled in favor of slavery. Had the North really been opposed to slavery - the North would never have passed Dred Scott.
A little known fact is that the Arlington property was confiscated in retaliation for the Virginia secessionist state government confiscation of the property of the great United States general, Henry Thomas, a Virginian who chose to remain loyal to his country rather than his state. He was ostracized by his entire family and most of his friends for doing so.
These kinds of arguments are stupid. Highly honorable men were faced with a choice between betraying their nation or their state. They made an honorable choice, whichever it was.
There were, of course, also men on both sides who chose as they did for less than honorable reasons: expediency, personal advantage, ambititon, etc.
But that’s true of every war and indeed any human endeavor.
Of course he was a traitor by British law! Stupid question.
The American colonies launched a revolution, which is by definition a revolt against an existing political and legal system, using (again by definition) illegal or at least non-legal means.
Revolutionists are heroes if they win, and traitors if they lose.
“Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”
The runaway slave act was passed in 1850 and resulted ultimately in the destruction of the Whig party.
It was necessary to fix the constitution after the war to outlaw slavery anyway since part of the original compromise.
“Revolutionists are heroes if they win, and traitors if they lose.”
The south never had any chance of winning. They made a stupid choice to rebel.
Jefferson's quote, and many others as well, clearly refers to what we today call a "material breech of contract".
So Madison's point remains valid: the Constitution does not authorize secession "at pleasure", meaning for no good reason.
JCBreckenridge: "Lincoln would still have defeated Douglas without the split.
Lincoln didn’t need to carry a single southern state to be elected."
The Democrat party dominated by Southerners outnumbered Republicans, and had held power in Washington almost continuously since the beginning of the Republic.
In 1856 Democrats won with 1.8 million votes while carrying the Northern states of Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois and California.
In 1860 a united enthusiastic Democrat party could easily have held the 1.8 million from 1856, added hundreds of thousands more in carrying some northern states, and making them victorious.
Many northerners cared nothing about slavery and were happy to vote for Democrats who promised to hold the Union together.
But Deep-South Fire-Eaters splitting the party demoralized and depressed Democrat voters, reducing their total in 1860 to just 1.6 million, and causing their defeat.
In 1860 the election of Lincoln was not a foregone certainty, it first required willing self-destruction by Democrats.
JCBreckenridge: "No, but the state legislatures did.
Their purpose is to safeguard the powers of their individual state from privation."
In November 1860, when secessionists began to organize, there was no actual threat, no breech of contract, no "oppression or usurpation" -- nothing except the constitutional election of a new president, who would not even take office for four more months.
So they declared their secession, in Madison's words, "at pleasure" which is not authorized by either the Constitution or our Founders stated Original Intent.
JCBreckenridge: "Like John Brown?"
There were dozens and dozens of seized Federal properties in every seceding state, beginning in December 1860 -- some even before formal declarations of secession.
These included Federal forts, arsenals, naval ships, customs/Court houses, mints & paymasters offices, light houses, and ordnance stores.
In some cases Federal officials were detained, in others threatened and in some fired on.
But in no case was there direct killing by one side's soldiers of the other's soldiers -- until after the Confederacy declared war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.
JCBreckenridge: "True, but southern civilians were killed by gunrunners.
The response of Buchanan was to recognise the south.
It was Lincoln who chose to go to war with the South.
I don't know about "gun runners" allegedly killing southern civilians, not clear what that might have to do with the lead-up to war.
Outgoing President Buchanan never officially recognized the secessionists.
He did not meet with them, did not negotiate with them.
What he did do was talk things over with various intermediaries, who passed on Buchanan's words to Confederate emissaries.
What Buchanan told them was: there could be no recognition, he would not give up Forts Sumter or Pickens.
He also ordered that Fort Sumter be resupplied, a January 1861 mission that was met with shore fire in Charlston Harbor, and had many Northerners calling for war even then.
Lincoln chose nothing more than to repeat on a larger scale President Buchanan's attempt to resupply Federal troops at Fort Sumter.
The results were official threats by secessionists to start a war, then actual Confederate military actions against the fort, and on May 6, 1861 an official Confederate Declaration of War against the United States.
JCBreckenridge: "Within it’s borders?
That doesn’t sound like aggression to me."
Whenever you seize by force property which is not yours, that's aggression, FRiend.
JCBreckenridge: "Nonsense.
The first time that confederate forces crossed into Union territory was at Gettysburg.
Prior to this, every battle had been on Confederate territory."
You obviously know very little about the actual Civil War.
Every state or territory bordering the Confederacy, and some quite distant, was invaded by Confederate forces, some multiple times.
In a previous thread I took the time to look them up, and posted them, but today am away from home and don't have my reference handy -- Maryland, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, Kansas, New Mexico, Arizona and Colorado all saw at least some Civil War battles, with Maryland and Pennsylvania suffering the worst of it.
Pennsylvania was invaded three different times -- in 1862, 1863 and 1864 or which Gettysburg was only the largest.
JCBreckenridge: "If the South were the invaders, why is it that the North was the first to invade?"
You forget what was going on all through 1861.
The Confederacy was on the march, beginning in South Carolina it grew from one state to seven, declared war on the United States and grew to 11 states, all the while seizing every Federal property it could.
It then sent forces into the Border states of Maryland (1862), West Virginia (1861 on), Kentucky (1861), Missouri (1861) and Oklahoma (1861), both to encourage their secession, and to seize as many militarily useful supplies as possible.
In the beginning of 1861 the Confederacy was the only aggressor, throughout most of 1861 was more aggressive, and its first major battle, at Manassas (Bull Run) was a clear Southern victory.
In short, the Confederacy was ready to fight a lot sooner than the North, and the result much of the war in 1861 started on Union property or territory before Confederates were driven back.
JCBreckenridge: "So now you’re whitewashing Confederate casulties due to the scorched earth campaign.
If they were sincerely ‘friends’, why did Sheridan devastate the Shenandoah, and Sherman torch Atlanta?
That doesn’t sound like ‘friends’ to me.
That sounds like an occupation."
I said nothing about "friends", where did that come from?
I merely said that enumerated civilian deaths in the US Civil War were a mere handful, minuscule compared to the tens of millions killed in, for example, WWII.
No one denies that civilians suffered deprivations, but there was no Civil War equivalent to, for example, the Soviets' rape and destruction of Eastern Germany in 1945.
I strongly agree with your second sentence. They were stupid to rebel.
Strongly disagree with your first sentence. For a cause that never had a chance, they came remarkably close to succeeding on several different occasions.
It’s my personal opinion that had any other man been in the White House, the country would have split up.
“For a cause that never had a chance, they came remarkably close to succeeding on several different occasions.”
They never had a chance because of the ENORMOUS manufacturing disparity between north and south.
These numbers are from the 1860 census.
Pig-iron production in Fiscal Year 1860 (short tons).
United States = 987,559
Pennsylvania = 580,049
Ohio = 117,754
New York = 74,645
New Jersey = 51,675
Kentucky = 33,471
Maryland = 30,500
Tennessee = 22,302
Missouri = 18,000
Vermont = 13,700
Michigan = 13,700
Connecticut = 11,800
Virginia = 11,645
Wisconsin = 2,500
Alabama = 1,742
Illinois = 1,300
Georgia = 1,100
Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, New Jersey, Vermont, Michigan and Connecticut produced 87% of the nation’s pig-iron.
The same disparity existed for production of coal, textiles, copper, timber, wheat, milk, cloth, paper, boots and shoes.
On 1 June 1860 the the country possessed 128,300 industrial establishments. Of these, 110,274 were located in states that remained in the Union.
They never had a chance if the people of the Union stood by their guns and continued to support the war.
This was by no means inevitable. In a democratic society sometimes the People just get tired and give up. As we did in Vietnam.
Also, pig-iron didn’t fight the battles. Men did. And there were quite a number of battles where if things had turned out a little differently the South would have won its independence.
That wouldn’t have been the end of it, of course. There would have remained huge numbers of areas for conflict between the two new nations, and in all likelihood other wars would have ensued.
The general consensus among European soldiers was that the South would win. They based this on the sheer size of the area that needed to be conquered, the factor that had defeated George III in America and Napoleon in Russia.
But they didn’t adequately factor in the railroad, without which the North, despite its great superiority in materiel, could not have handled the logistics needed to crush the South.
And the extensive railroad net was a very recent development, really only in the decade prior to the War.
At the cost of 750 thousand American lives and the devastation of the South?
It didn’t have to be at that cost but it was the southern fire-eaters that chose that particular path.
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.