Posted on 06/24/2012 5:54:41 PM PDT by Borges
Some interesting choices with a Number 2 that I never heard of.
(Excerpt) Read more at mandatory.com ...
“Also, pig-iron didn’t fight the battles”
The point is that the north had many times greater industrial and agricultural output than the south. It also had twice the railroad mileage and a much better telegraph network.
A Union soldier had better clothing, food, tents, rubber blankets, transportation, utensils, and supplies.
The south was backward and underdeveloped. It could not even feed its soldiers.
“the Constitution does not authorize secession “at pleasure”, meaning for no good reason.”
And neither was the secession of the south ‘at pleasure’. They argued, and with due reason, that the federal government had overstepped their bounds. Sure, they lost, but the cost of such proved their case.
“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.”
The Democrat party wasn’t divided in the North in the 1860 election - only Douglas ran. Lincoln won an absolute majority in every Northern state. The only two states that he could have lost were CA (4 ECs) and OR (3 ECs). That would turn Lincoln’s 180- 123 into 172 - 130.
“Many northerners cared nothing about slavery and were happy to vote for Democrats who promised to hold the Union together.”
Many northerners supported slavery. Lincoln was elected on a majority with only 39 percent of the vote.
“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.”
Democrat voters altogether were 2.7 million in 1860. Their turnout wasn’t depressed, it increased. If you include Democrat + Southern Democrat only and no Bell, that’s still 2.1 million.
“In 1860 the election of Lincoln was not a foregone certainty.”
Insofar as Lincoln only needed the support of the North, yes, it was a foregone conclusion.
“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.”
Had Lincoln been willing to seek a peaceful resolution as Buchanan tried, secession would not have occurred. Lincoln was willing to use force to override the constitutional issues. This is the mandate that he received from the North.
Do you really believe that the man elected by just 39 percent of those who voted represented the republic?
“There were dozens and dozens of seized Federal properties in every seceding state”
You said every state, not every seceding state. If the property was bought, paid for and maintained by the state, then it’s not exactly federal property anymore is it?
Did the North compensate the South for the property in the North that they took with them that the South helped pay for?
“In some cases Federal officials were detained, in others threatened and in some fired on.”
And what of the North? Did they compensate the South for their contribution to the northern fortifications?
“But in no case was there direct killing by one side’s soldiers of the other’s soldiers”
But there were Southern Civilians killed by northern gun runners, like John Brown.
“The response of Buchanan was to recognise the south.
It was Lincoln who chose to go to war with the South.”
Exactly - there was no cause to go to war, except from Lincoln.
“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.”
Then you’d best read some actual history of the war. John Brown ran guns - that is what he was paid to do.
Look up the Pottowatomie Massacre. He had already been convicted of Massacring civilians in Kansas.
Then he raided Harpers Ferry in 1859. With Northern guns bought and sold for that purpose. He killed 5 civilians.
“What he did do was talk things over with various intermediaries, who passed on Buchanan’s words to Confederate emissaries.”
What he did not do, is declare war on them. Why not? Because he hoped for a peaceful solution to the whole affair. Even after Lincoln began his invasion of the South, he was negotiating trying to avert the ultimate tragedy of brother killing brother. He failed. Lincoln ‘succeeded’ if it can be called a ‘success’ in subduing the South, but at a cost to constitutional governance and the rights of the states.
“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.”
Given that the fort was no longer in his territory, this amounted to war.
“Lincoln chose nothing more than to repeat on a larger scale President Buchanan’s attempt to resupply Federal troops at Fort Sumter.”
Knowing full well, that the breach of Southern borders would trigger war.
“Confederate Declaration of War against the United States.”
Which occurred after Lincoln sent troops to the fort. Had Lincoln simply surrendered the fort, he could have averted the war.
“Whenever you seize by force property which is not yours, that’s aggression, FRiend.”
Oh, that’s not the case. If the north believed that seizing property was wrong, why did they seize the property of the south and devastate the Shenandoah and burn Atlanta? If they fought for the protection of property, they certainly forgot that was the case.
“You obviously know very little about the actual Civil War.”
How many battles were fought in Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, and New York? None.
The territory of the confederacy and the border states includes Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and New Mexico.
Show me a battle that was fought in Illinois, Ohio, Indiana or New York and I’ll concede the point.
“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 (voted to secede, overridden by the President). Pennsylvania (Gettysburg, already mentioned), West Virginia (part of Virginia which voted to secede) Kentucky, (Magoffin chose to be neutral, not Union territory until after the union invaded at the start of the war. Missouri, (voted to secede, overriden) Oklahoma (southern state, voted to secede). Kansas (see Bleeding Kansas), disputed territory. New Mexico, (southern state), Arizona, (southern state. Colorado (not at state).
“Pennsylvania was invaded three different times — in 1862, 1863 and 1864 or which Gettysburg was only the largest.”
As opposed to Virginia which was under continuous occupation from 1861 - 1865, with no fewer than several hundred skirmishes and 2/3rds of all the major battles of the war.
Sounds like an occupation to me.
“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.
Did so peacefully, through the state legislatures. If the federal government felt threatened by peaceful secession, enough so to declare war, then they provoked the war, not the south.
“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.”
All states, or parts of states that actually voted for secession. Technically these were southern states and part of the confederacy. When the North sent troops in to quash the secessionists, they began the occupation of the south.
“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.”
And where is Manassas? Manassas is in Virginia! How is it aggression to defend your territory from the invasion from the North. 1st Manassas was a Union invasion that was defeated. The whole point to 1st Manassas was to put a quick end to the war by massing troops and trying to storm Richmond. They failed.
“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”
Uh, no. The opening battle of the war was an invasion by the North of the South, in 1st Manassas, which is in Virginia. Look it up.
“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.”
Civilian casulties were some 50k Southerners.
The distinguished Civil War historian James McPherson has estimated that there were 50,000 civilian deaths during the war, and has concluded that the overall mortality rate for the South exceeded that of any country in World War I and all but the region between the Rhine and the Volga in World War II.
To the geographically challenged:
Manassas is in VA. 40 miles west of Washington-on-the-Potomac.
Which is why Lincoln invaded the south? The southerners were content with southern territory and their freedom.
Lincoln “invaded the south” in response to assaults on federal property.
Lincoln considered the entire south to be ‘federal property’. The south disagreed.
No he didn’t. At any rate the proper place for those discussions was Congress or the courts. The south chose the battlefield. Poor choice for them.
Lincoln chose the battlefield. The south chose the state legislatures.
Wow. That’s magnificent. Ike was a giant.
As a pretext to choosing the battlefield. Again poor choices for the south to make.
When you get invaded you really don’t have a choice.
Sure you do. the south chose the time, the place, and the pretext. They are singularly responsible for what followed. Piss-poor judgment if you ask me.
Then why didn’t Buchanan go to war with them?
Because he was a feckless coward who went along to get along.
No they didn't -- nothing of the kind.
That's all just after-the-fact self justification.
Go back and read their Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union.
The South Carolinians' argument includes just two points:
Finally it's utter nonsense because South Carolinians expressed no concern over the matter as long as Southern Democrats were in charge in Washington, DC, which they still were.
So their true concern was not over what Lincoln did do, but rather over what he might do in the future.
In short, in December 1860 there was no actual material breech-of-contract, and therefore South Carolinians declared their secession, in Madison's words, "at pleasure".
JCBreckenridge: "The Democrat party wasn’t divided in the North in the 1860 election - only Douglas ran."
True, but the fact is that hundreds of thousands of former Democrats (enough to win the election) voted for Republican Lincoln because they could well see that the Democrats were split and so bound to lose.
You surely remember that Democrats then (as now) considered themselves, and generally were, a natural majority -- bound to win every election if they held together under strong leadership.
And year after year, election after election, for decades that's just what they did.
But when Democrats met in April 1860, in Charleston South Carolina, the party split in two, and Republicans saw their opportunity -- for the first time since 1844 and only the third time since John Adams in 1796 -- to elect a non-Democrat President.
So a wave of enthusiasm swept over Republicans, and along with split & demoralized Democrats, political enthusiasm had the same effect in November 1860 as it does today -- enhanced Republican vote and suppressed the Democrats.
My point again is: Republican victory began with Democrats' self destruction.
JCBreckenridge: "Democrat voters altogether were 2.7 million in 1860. Their turnout wasn’t depressed, it increased.
If you include Democrat + Southern Democrat only and no Bell, that’s still 2.1 million."
Sorry, but I have to go by the numbers we have:
JCBreckenridge: "Insofar as Lincoln only needed the support of the North, yes, it was a foregone conclusion."
It was only a foregone conclusion after Southern Fire-Eaters walked out of their April 1860 convention, and refused to support the Democrats' nominee.
JCBreckenridge: "Had Lincoln been willing to seek a peaceful resolution as Buchanan tried, secession would not have occurred."
Again, you obviously don't know the real history here.
Buchanan opposed secession and was not willing to negotiate it with Confederate representatives.
Nor was he willing to turn over Forts Sumter and Pickens.
But he did not want to start a war, and so his strategy was, in effect, to "kick the can" into the next administration, which he did.
Lincoln's policies, as of March 1861 were the same as Buchanan's.
But Lincoln could in no way "kick the can" because Major Anderson in Fort Sumter soon informed Washington that he was running short of supplies -- and would be forced to surrender the Fort.
So Lincoln had to do something.
Lincoln chose to send resupply ships, just as Buchanan had attempted in January, but unlike Buchanan, Lincoln formally notified the South Carolina governor the ships were coming.
Resupplying Federal troops on Federal property is not an act of war.
But firing on those troops and seizing that property is, and that was the Confederacy's choice.
JCBreckenridge: "Lincoln was willing to use force to override the constitutional issues."
Wrong. Lincoln was willing to use force to protect Federal property.
There were no constitutional issues involved.
JCBreckenridge: "Do you really believe that the man elected by just 39 percent of those who voted represented the republic?"
Seriously, FRiend, what kind of a question is that?
Many if not most presidents in those days were elected with less than 50% of the popular vote.
The US Constitution does not provide one set of rules for presidents elected by over 50% and other rules for those with less than 50%.
The key facts are that the election was 1) 100% constitutional and 2) engineered by Southern Fire-Eaters who critically damaged the long-term Democrat majority.
JCBreckenridge: "You said every state, not every seceding state.
If the property was bought, paid for and maintained by the state, then it’s not exactly federal property anymore is it?"
All references to secessionists seizures of Federal property refer to Federal property within the seceding states.
"Federal property" means: lawfully owned by the Federal government.
In most cases we're talking about facilities built with Federal funds and manned by Federal employees, especially military.
JCBreckenridge: "Did the North compensate the South for the property in the North that they took with them that the South helped pay for?"
repeating himself: "And what of the North?
Did they compensate the South for their contribution to the northern fortifications?"
No state ever paid a tax to the Federal Government, only individuals and businesses pay taxes.
Nor does any citizen ever, on renouncing his citizenship, have the right to see his previously paid taxes returned to him.
So states had no lawful claim -- zero, zip, nada -- to seize by force property owned by the Federal government.
JCBreckenridge: "But there were Southern Civilians killed by northern gun runners, like John Brown."
John Brown was lawfully captured, tried, convicted and hanged for his crimes.
What precisely is your problem with that?
JCBreckenridge: graciously agreeing with himself: “The response of Buchanan was to recognise the south.
It was Lincoln who chose to go to war with the South.”
"Exactly - there was no cause to go to war, except from Lincoln."
JCBreckenridge referring to President Buchanan's response to secession: "What he did not do, is declare war on them."
Neither did President Lincoln, ever.
JCBreckenridge: "Lincoln ‘succeeded’ if it can be called a ‘success’ in subduing the South, but at a cost to constitutional governance and the rights of the states."
There was no constitutional issue.
Lincoln had no choice after the Confederacy formally declared war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.
War and rebellion are fully provided for in the US Constitution.
You can look it up, FRiend.
JCBreckenridge: "Given that the fort was no longer in his territory, this amounted to war."
Nonsense, and you know it.
First of all, no law requires Federal property to change ownership just because of a new government.
So the Federal Government had every legal right to protect its property.
Second, remember the British maintained forts on US Great Lakes territory from the time of the Revolution until after the War of 1812, and those forts were not a cause of war.
So Union resupplies to Federal forts were only cause for war if the Confederacy wanted them to be.
JCBreckenridge: "Which occurred after Lincoln sent troops to the fort. Had Lincoln simply surrendered the fort, he could have averted the war."
Possibly, temporarily, but most likely the Confederacy would simply have picked a fight somewhere else.
The fact is those secessionists were aggressive, belligerent and confident they could win any battle.
Indeed, Lincoln was willing to give up Fort Sumter, if that was the price for keeping Virginia in the Union.
It's only after he realized from negotiators in Richmond that this wouldn't happen, that Lincoln decided to attempt another resupply mission.
JCBreckenridge: "Oh, that’s not the case.
If the north believed that seizing property was wrong, why did they seize the property of the south and devastate the Shenandoah and burn Atlanta?"
Maybe you can answer this one yourself -- do you suppose the Confederacy's declaration of war on the United States, on May 6, 1861 had anything to do with it?
JCBreckenridge: "The territory of the confederacy and the border states includes Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and New Mexico."
The territory of the Confederacy did not include Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, New Mexico, Kansas, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Arizona or Colorado.
Those were all Union states or territories which Confederate forces invaded at some point.
JCBreckenridge: "Show me a battle that was fought in Illinois, Ohio, Indiana or New York and I’ll concede the point."
What point? Not my point.
My point of fact is: the Confederacy sent military forces into every state and territory adjacent to the Confederacy, and even some far removed -- i.e., Kansas, Arizona, Colorado.
These invasions clearly demonstrate that the Confederacy was every bit as aggressive as it could be, and only failed to invade other northern states because it lacked the strength to do so.
JCBreckenridge: "Sounds like an occupation to me."
The appropriate response to an entity which formally declares war on the United States.
JCBreckenridge:
Maryland was a Union state, never voted to secede.
Maryland sent 60,000 troops to the Union army, 25,000 to the Confederates.
Pennsylvania a Union state, is not adjacent to any Confederate state, was invaded three different times, in 1862, 1863 & 1864.
West Virginia officially became a Union state in 1863, but Confederate forces continued to fight there until the end of the war.
Kentucky was always a Union state, never voted to secede, but Confederate forces invaded and fought there throughout the war.
Missouri never voted to secede, was always a Union state, but Confederate forces fought there throughout the war.
Missouri supplied about 100,000 troops to the Union army, 40,000 to the Confederacy, roughly the same ratio as Maryland.
Oklahoma was a territory of the United States, could not vote to secede, was invaded by Confederate forces beginning in 1861.
Kansas was a Union state, never voted to secede, supplied about 20,000 troops for the Union army and was invaded several times by Confederate forces, which were each time defeated.
New Mexico was Union territory, could not vote to secede, supplied 8,000 troops to the Union army, invaded by Confederate forces in 1861.
They were eventually defeated and driven back to Texas.
Arizona was Union territory, part of New Mexico, invaded by Confederate forces in 1862. They were defeated.
The Federal Government never did declare war, but the Confederacy did, on May 6, 1861.
Prior to the Confederacy's declaration of war, no Southern soldier had been directly killed by any Union force, because of Lincoln's publicly announced policy that war could only come if the Confederacy started it.
JCBreckenridge: "All states, or parts of states that actually voted for secession.
Technically these were southern states and part of the confederacy.
When the North sent troops in to quash the secessionists, they began the occupation of the south."
Sorry, but none of those states ever voted for secession, all were technically and legally Union states, all supplied far more troops to the Union than Confederacy, all helped to defeat the Confederacy when it attempted to invade them.
JCBreckenridge: "1st Manassas was a Union invasion that was defeated."
In 1861 the Confederacy sent forces into the Union states or territories of West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, New Mexico and possibly Maryland (not certain on this one).
Until the end of the year, the Union had forces in only one Confederate State, Virginia, and there the Union was defeated.
JCBreckenridge: "Uh, no. The opening battle of the war was an invasion by the North of the South, in 1st Manassas, which is in Virginia. Look it up."
That was far from the war's first battle.
Before Manassas there were battles against invading Confederate forces in New Mexico, and Missouri.
Soon after, Confederates invaded Kentucky, Oklahoma, and by 1862 Maryland, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
JCBreckenridge: "The distinguished Civil War historian James McPherson has estimated that there were 50,000 civilian deaths during the war, and has concluded that the overall mortality rate for the South exceeded that of any country in World War I and all but the region between the Rhine and the Volga in World War II."
Yes, Confederate military death percentages were as high as many countries in WWII, but the civilian number is highly dubious.
First of all the number 50,000 is totally unjustified by anything other than statistical theoretical extrapolations of how many might have lived had there been no war.
Any actual list of names of Southern civilians killed by Union soldiers is minuscule to nonexistent.
Indeed, I've never seen such a list, if it exists, so I don't buy the figure of 50,000 civilian deaths caused by "military actions or crimes against humanity" -- which is what was counted for WWII.
Second, even if the 50k figure were reasonably correct, and represents premature deaths due to exposure or shortages, it is still not comparable to WWII.
50,000 civilians is about 1/2 of 1% of the Confederate population (including slaves), and was matched or exceeded by many countries in WWII, including such western Europeans as Belgium, Netherlands, France and Greece.
“had neither done nor said anything to excite the South Carolina secessionists”.
I’m pretty sure the Lincoln-Douglas debates shaped their opinion of Lincoln. His speeches and opinions on slavery were widely known, which is why he was selected by the Republican party in the first place.
“South Carolinians declared their secession, in Madison’s words, “at pleasure”.”
Save for the fact that the Republican platform sought to abolish slavery unilaterally, without the consent of the states.
“True, but the fact is that hundreds of thousands of former Democrats’
Not so. The only northern states to switch were Illinois, Indiana and Pennsylvania. The Democrat party went from 50 percent vs divided Whig opposition in both Indiana and Pennsylvania in 1856 to 48 percent in Indiana and 42 in Pennsylvania. Their vote share increased in Illinois.
Indiana (1856) 235k voters, 119k democrats.
Indiana (1860) 272k voters, 132k democrats.
Pennsylvania (1856) 460k voters, 230k democrats.
Pennsylvania (1860) 476k voters, 208k democrats.
So in all actuality, looking at just PA and IN, the Democrat vote dropped just 9k.
“Republicans saw their opportunity — for the first time since 1844 and only the third time since John Adams in 1796 — to elect a non-Democrat President.”
The first democrat was Jackson - presidents prior to Jackson weren’t democrats. Van Buren was a Whig, as were WHH, Tyler, Buchanan, Fillmore, and Taylor.
“Sorry, but I have to go by the numbers we have”
Bullshit.
Your numbers are wrong.
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/index.html
States:
1,855,993 for Lincoln
1,381,944 for Douglas
851,844 for Breckinridge
590,946 for Bell
“Nor was he willing to turn over Forts Sumter and Pickens.
But he did not want to start a war, and so his strategy was, in effect, to “kick the can” into the next administration, which he did.”
So Lincoln started the war. Thank you.
“So Lincoln had to do something.”
And Lincoln chose war.
“Resupplying Federal troops on Federal property is not an act of war.”
Violating the territory of a sovereign nation is an act of war. Had Lincoln saught the permission of the state legislature, he would not have given a causus belli. If the state said no, Lincoln had a choice - to violate the territorial integrity and deliver the munitions, or to cede the fort. He chose to trigger war.
“But firing on those troops and seizing that property is, and that was the Confederacy’s choice”
After secession the fort was no longer federal territory.
“Wrong. Lincoln was willing to use force to protect Federal property.”
After secession it wasn’t federal territory anymore.
“Seriously, FRiend, what kind of a question is that?”
It’s a yes or no question.
“The US Constitution does not provide one set of rules for presidents elected by over 50% and other rules for those with less than 50%.”
And the South did not want to be represented by a man who didn’t even run in their states. Who can blame them for that? Lincoln didn’t need their participation. So why should they be governed by him?
“engineered by Southern Fire-Eaters who critically damaged the long-term Democrat majority.”
Then why wasn’t Lincoln on the ballots in the South? He is running for president of the united states, not ‘president of the North’.
“All references to secessionists seizures of Federal property refer to Federal property within the seceding states.”
That’s not what you said earlier. You said that the confederacy seized property in every state. Now we get the truth - which is that the confederacy only did this in states that voted to leave.
“In most cases we’re talking about facilities built with Federal funds and manned by Federal employees, especially military.”
And paid for by the South through their taxes and tariffs. Did Lincoln compensate the South for the property in the North to which Southern tariffs contributed? No? Then neither is the South compelled to do the same.
“No state ever paid a tax to the Federal Government”
Bullshit. South Carolina invoked nullification against tariffs that Jackson imposed on her cotton industry. If the North is not returning the tariffs that they collected from southern enterprises, then the south is entitled to their just compensation.
“Nor does any citizen ever, on renouncing his citizenship, have the right to see his previously paid taxes returned to him.”
And nor does Lincoln have the right to seize their assets and cut them off.
“to seize by force property owned by the Federal government.”
And neither did the federal government have the power to seize property owned by the South.
“What precisely is your problem with that?”
My problem is that said that the South was not provoked by the North. That is not true. The South was provoked by an act of terrorism against her prior to the war, by John Brown, who was executed for killing 5 southern civilians. Aided and abetted by the north who supplied him his guns and weaponry.
“Neither did President Lincoln, ever.”
Yes, he did.
“There was no constitutional issue.”
The right of a state to secede was a constitutional issue. Decided by Lincoln over the battlefield rather than through the court of public opinion and the state legislatures via constitutional amendment. What is established through force cannot be upheld forever through force. It has no legal legitimacy. There were other options. Lincoln did not choose them.
“Lincoln had no choice after the Confederacy formally declared war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.”
Lincoln had many choices. He could have chosen to cede the fort.
“Nonsense, and you know it.”
That’s what secession entails, the transference of the state from being a state to membership within the confederacy. As soon as the state voted to leave the property in the state became the property of the state and not the federal government.
The federal government cannot keep bound the will of a people for liberty should they choose to leave.
“First of all, no law requires Federal property to change ownership just because of a new government.”
It does when the state elects new representatives and chooses to leave.
“So the Federal Government had every legal right to protect its property.”
Not on confederate soil.
“Second, remember the British maintained forts on US Great Lakes territory”
The US never owned the great lakes territory until it was purchased from Great Britain after the revolutionary war. The revolutionaries claimed ownership of British forts and bases all through the 13 colonies, on the same basis that the confederacy did the same.
“So Union resupplies to Federal forts were only cause for war if the Confederacy wanted them to be.”
The union had no right to violate confederate territory without permission.
“Possibly, temporarily, but most likely the Confederacy would simply have picked a fight somewhere else.”
Why would they want to pick a fight with the Union? They simply wanted their freedom.
“The fact is those secessionists were aggressive, belligerent”
Aggressive? Which is why they fought a 4 year defensive war against a foe with superior arms, manpower and resources?
If the South were the aggressor, why is it we do not see New York city burning and the Ohio river destroyed? No, the aggressor is clear - the North started the war, and at a cost of 750k men, finished it.
“Indeed, Lincoln was willing to give up Fort Sumter”
But he did not, when that choice was fully his. He could have averted war. He chose war over the alternatives that were available to him.
“Maybe you can answer this one yourself — do you suppose the Confederacy’s declaration of war on the United States, on May 6, 1861 had anything to do with it?”
So you’re saying that destruction of property is ok when you do it. I see. So Lincoln did not fight the war to ‘preserve property.’ He fought it to subjugate the South.
“The territory of the Confederacy did not include Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, New Mexico, Kansas, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Arizona or Colorado.”
It included New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arizona, Missouri, West Virginia, Maryland and Kentucky at various points in time. Kansas was disputed territory. Colorado was not a state at the time. Pennsylvania remains the only state of the Union that saw any fighting. And they had one major battle, at Gettysburg.
“My point of fact is: the Confederacy sent military forces into every state and territory adjacent to the Confederacy, and even some far removed — i.e., Kansas, Arizona, Colorado.”
Arizona was claimed by the south and voted to secede. Same as the rest of the confederacy. Kansas, like Kentucky, voted eventually to stay but was considered to be disputed territory.
Colorado was never touched. The Confederates lost at Raton and never entered Colorado.
“Maryland was a Union state, never voted to secede.”
Maryland was the first part of the union invasion of the South. Lincoln put Maryland under martial law after the Baltimore riots and suspended Habeaus corpus.
When Maryland attempted to vote on secession, Lincoln had the legislature arrested. Well, only the secessionists were elected.
Delaware was also occupied in the same fashion. The opening salvos of the civil war was Lincoln’s occupation of the border states.
“West Virginia officially became a Union state in 1863, but Confederate forces continued to fight there until the end of the war.”
The constitution explicitly states that no state can be broken apart unless that state agrees to it. West Virginia was illegally split from Virginia and was confederate territory.
“Kentucky was always a Union state, never voted to secede, but Confederate forces invaded and fought there throughout the war.”
Nonsense. After Maryland was occupied, Kentucky declared it’s neutrality and seceded from the Union to form the republic of Kentucky under Magoffin. When Lincoln occupied it, it was brought back into the fold.
“Missouri never voted to secede, was always a Union state”
Missouri voted to secede, and send ordinances of secession to the Union. Missouri stated that they would not leave, unless the Union were to invade the south. The Union did just that, so Missouri left. It wasn’t until the Union sacked the capital of Missouri, that Missouri was occupied by the Union.
As for Oklahoma, one of the most famous confederate generals was from there - Stand Waitie - the Native tribes from Oklahoma stood with the Confederacy all through the war.
Kansas was never legally admitted into the Union until after the war - the Wyandotte constitution was only passed by the Senate after the Southern Senators left. Ergo, it was disputed territory who’s status was only settled after the end of the war.
“Prior to the Confederacy’s declaration of war, no Southern soldier had been directly killed by any Union force”
Yes, they were, in Maryland.
“Lincoln’s publicly announced policy that war could only come if the Confederacy started it.”
And like Wilson he kept the US out of war by starting one.
“Sorry, but none of those states ever voted for secession”
All of the ones you list did - save Kansas who was only admitted after the Southern Senators left - meaning that the bill admitting Kansas did not have quorum.
“all helped to defeat the Confederacy when it attempted to invade them.”
True - after the Union occupied them.
“In 1861 the Confederacy sent forces into the Union states or territories of West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, New Mexico and possibly Maryland (not certain on this one).”
Again, New Mexico voted to leave the Union, as did Oklahoma. Kentucky voted to leave but remained neutral. Missouri voted to leave - and were defeated by the Union late in 1861 when Jefferson city was occupied. Kentucky followed later in 1862.
West Virginia was admitted in 1862 through an illegal partition of Virginia.
Gettysburg is the only time the South ever touched a Union state in four years of war.
Like I said, 1st Manassas was the invasion of the confederacy by the Union, which was their first defeat in the civil war. The union won the opening moves of the civil war by occupying Kansas, Missouri, New Mexico, Arizona, Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia and, most importantly, Kentucky. That’s 7 states right there.
Then they continued their invasion hoping to end the war within the year by defeating the confederacy in Virginia. They failed. After that the frontlines stabilized. The union eventually conquered Tennessee the following year, and after that, the frontlines collapsed, and they were able to defeat the entire confederacy.
Lincoln’s most successful prosecution of the civil war was in the very first year.
Until the end of the year, the Union had forces in only one Confederate State, Virginia, and there the Union was defeated.
“That was far from the war’s first battle.”
Uh, First Manassas was fought in July of 1861. It was, by far the largest battle fought up to that time.
“Yes, Confederate military death percentages were as high as many countries in WWII, but the civilian number is highly dubious.”
Seeing as you can’t get Manassas in the right state or year, your opinion has little merit.
“First of all the number 50,000 is totally unjustified by anything other than statistical theoretical extrapolations of how many might have lived had there been no war.”
Applying those same assumptions to the first and second world war, leads to a statistical comparison that is useful.
“Any actual list of names of Southern civilians killed by Union soldiers is minuscule to nonexistent.”
Bullshit.
“it is still not comparable to WWII.”
Even London under the Blitz was not as bad. Sure, the eastern front vs Russia and all of Germany was worse - but the Civil war was much harsher on the South than the first world war was on Europe. Given the 50 year difference in technology - the Union really did try to devastate the south. When they couldn’t win on the battlefield, they won through scorched earth.
The Lincoln-Douglas debates took place in 1858.
During the election of 1860, Lincoln studiously avoided saying or doing anything, though he did refer people to his past speeches, especially those debates.
The 1860 Republican platform contained no language opposing slavery in the South.
So my point is: there were no agenda items announced by either Lincoln or Republicans in 1860 that might conceivably amount to a "material breech of contract" with slave-holders in South Carolina.
JCBrekenridge: "Save for the fact that the Republican platform sought to abolish slavery unilaterally, without the consent of the states."
Wrong. Here is the actual 1860 Republican platform.
Read it, you'll see it says no such a thing.
JCBrekenridge: "The only northern states to switch were Illinois, Indiana and Pennsylvania."
Those three states alone held 51 electoral votes which would have shifted victory from Republicans to Democrats.
Add in 39 more electoral votes from normally Democrat Southerns states of Virginia, Tennessee and Kentucky, and there was a potential for Democrat landslide.
My point is: so even if Democrats lost a Northern state in 1860, they might still have won the election, had they played their cards right.
JCBrekenridge: "So in all actuality, looking at just PA and IN, the Democrat vote dropped just 9k."
Which certainly tells us the election was closer-run than many people want to admit.
Surely a united party with effective leadership would easily have added 10% to their totals, thus carrying several states they actually lost.
JCBrekenridge: "The first democrat was Jackson - presidents prior to Jackson weren’t democrats.
Van Buren was a Whig, as were WHH, Tyler, Buchanan, Fillmore, and Taylor."
Sorry FRiend, but you are very confused.
Ask any Democrat and they will tell you Thomas Jefferson was their first Democrat President.
And it's true in a sense, since Republican lineage begins with Federalists Washington (1788) and John Adams (1796), continues through anti-Democrat Whigs Harrison (1840) and Taylor (1844) before the first true Republican, Lincoln (1860).
Every other president, without exception, was a Democrat, including Thomas Jefferson (1800), James Madison (1808), James Monroe (1816), John Quincy Adams (1824), Andrew Jackson (1828), Martin Van Buren (1836), James Polk (1844), Franklin Pierce (1852) and James Buchanan (1856).
Whig Presidents Tyler and Fillmore were never elected, they inherited the office on the deaths of Harrison and Taylor respectively.
My key point here is: these were all Democrats, all were either slave-holding Southerners or highly sympathetic "Dough-Faced" Northerners (i.e., Buchanan), and along with controlling the Presidency they also controlled Congress and the Supreme Court.
That's why Southern secessionists had no legitimate claim of "breech of contract" against the Federal Government: they were the Federal Government.
JCBrekenridge: "Bullshit. Your numbers are wrong."
Sorry, I can't explain why your referenced numbers are different from mine, but..., your numbers make my case even better than my own numbers do: your numbers show Democrats actually carried the popular vote by nearly 380,000 more than Lincoln's total.
That suggests victory was not so difficult, had the Dems just played their cards right.
JCBrekenridge: "So Lincoln started the war. Thank you."
No, the Confederacy started the war, and then quickly formally declared war on the United States. Thank you.
What outgoing President Buchanan did was refuse to give the Confederacy the excuse they wanted to go to war.
JCBrekenridge: "And Lincoln chose war."
No. Lincoln chose to resupply Fort Sumter.
The Confederacy chose to start war, and then formally declare it.
JCBrekenridge: "Violating the territory of a sovereign nation is an act of war."
No it isn't, and the perfect example, as I've mentioned before, is those British forts on US Great Lakes territory which were not negotiated away until after the War of 1812.
Those British forts sat there on US territory, and were routinely resupplied, for over 35 years without causing a war between the countries.
Why?? For the obvious reason that the United States chose not to make them a casus belli.
But in 1860 the Confederacy chose to make Fort Sumter's resupply a reason for war.
It was their choice, and they chose, well, unwisely.
JCBrekenridge: "After secession the fort was no longer federal territory."
No matter how many times you repeat that, it still is not true, in any sense, except if the Confederacy went to war to make it true, which of course is just what happened.
JCBrekenridge: "And the South did not want to be represented by a man who didn’t even run in their states.
Who can blame them for that? Lincoln didn’t need their participation.
So why should they be governed by him?"
FRiend, if you will just come out and confess the truth of your views -- that you loathe the Constitution, and hate its provisions for electing presidents -- then we will begin making serious progress here.
But as long as you continue to pretend that you love and respect our Constitution, while at the same time making statement like yours here, well, we're not getting anywhere.
JCBrekenridge: "Then why wasn’t Lincoln on the ballots in the South? He is running for president of the united states, not ‘president of the North’."
I can't actually say precisely why Southern states did not allow a "Black Republican" on their ballots, but it's not real hard to imagine reasons.
JCBrekenridge: "That’s not what you said earlier.
You said that the confederacy seized property in every state.
Now we get the truth -"
I'd say you're working real hard to misunderstand what should have been obvious, given its context.
JCBrekenridge: "And paid for by the South through their taxes and tariffs.
Did Lincoln compensate the South for the property in the North to which Southern tariffs contributed?
No? Then neither is the South compelled to do the same."
I've answered this before:
JCBrekenridge: "Bullshit. South Carolina invoked nullification against tariffs that Jackson imposed on her cotton industry."
I'll say it again: no state government ever paid a tax to the Federal Government.
Only individuals and businesses paid taxes, and no individual ever can reclaim their paid taxes when the renounce their citizenship.
Where would such a crazy idea come from?
JCBrekenridge: "And nor does Lincoln have the right to seize their assets and cut them off...."
"...And neither did the federal government have the power to seize property owned by the South."
Again, you're obviously confused.
Lincoln seized nothing.
Beginning in December 1860, months before Lincoln took office, secessionists unlawfully seized by force every Federal property they could get their hands on.
JCBrekenridge: "The South was provoked by an act of terrorism against her prior to the war, by John Brown, who was executed for killing 5 southern civilians.
Aided and abetted by the north who supplied him his guns and weaponry."
Since Brown was lawfully tried and executed for his crimes, in what possible sense is that a "provocation"?
JCBrekenridge referring to an alleged "declaration of war" against the Confederacy: "Yes, he did."
Of course, you know better than that.
The Union never formally declared war on the Confederacy, but the Confederacy did formally declare war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.
Further, in every step along the way in preparing for war -- for example, in raising large numbers of troops for war -- the Confederacy was always a step ahead of the Union.
JCBrekenridge: "The right of a state to secede was a constitutional issue."
Sure, but the "right" of secessionists to seize Federal property, fire on Federal officials and formally declare war on the United States is not a "constitutional issue".
It is expressly covered under the Constitution's provisions for dealing with rebellion, insurrection, "domestic violence" and those engaging in war against the United States.
JCBrekenridge: "Decided by Lincoln over the battlefield rather than through the court of public opinion and the state legislatures via constitutional amendment.
What is established through force cannot be upheld forever through force.
It has no legal legitimacy.
There were other options.
Lincoln did not choose them."
FRiend, I'm sorry to say it, but you have a serious problem with truth-telling.
You just can't seem to do it, the words won't come out of your mouth, will they?
Here is the truth-telling of it: every alleged "constitutional issue", without exception, was utterly negated once the Confederacy formally declared war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.
Why can't you admit that?
JCBrekenridge: "Lincoln had many choices.
He could have chosen to cede the fort."
Lincoln chose to enforce the laws and protect Federal property. The Confederacy chose war.
JCBrekenridge: "As soon as the state voted to leave the property in the state became the property of the state and not the federal government."
No law of the time or since specifies such a thing.
JCBrekenridge: " The federal government cannot keep bound the will of a people for liberty should they choose to leave."
But if those people then start and formally declare war on the United States, they will suffer grievously the consequences of their foolishness.
JCBrekenridge referring to Federal property changing ownership: "It does when the state elects new representatives and chooses to leave."
OK, FRiend, you're on: cite the law. Better yet, cite the Constitutional language.
JCBrekenridge: "The US never owned the great lakes territory until it was purchased from Great Britain after the revolutionary war."
Now you're just making stuff up.
The US never "purchased" great lakes territory from Great Britain (are you possibly thinking of the Louisiana Purchase?).
The "Northwest Territories" were included, along with the 13 previous colonies, in the 1783 Treaty of Paris.
In short, that territory was part of the United States from Day One, and British forts on American territory remained there for more than 30 years without causing a war.
JCBrekenridge: "The revolutionaries claimed ownership of British forts and bases all through the 13 colonies, on the same basis that the confederacy did the same."
Yes, we can find some interesting comparisons and contrasts between the Revolutionary war and the Civil War.
Neo-confederates such as yourself insist it's an exact match, but the truth is, there are far more differences than similarities.
In this particular example, remember our Founders never declared war on Great Britain, and remained open to a negotiated settlement until the end, when the Brits finally came around to settle.
JCBrekenridge: "The union had no right to violate confederate territory without permission."
The Confederacy had no lawful right to deny Union forces access to their property.
But whether a right or not, the Confederacy was utterly foolish to start a war they could not win.
JCBrekenridge: "Why would they want to pick a fight with the Union? They simply wanted their freedom."
Obviously not true.
Every step they made demonstrated how much the Confederacy was, as we might say it today, "cruisin' for a bruisin'".
Of course they believed they would win any test of arms, but they miscalculated.
JCBrekenridge: "Aggressive? Which is why they fought a 4 year defensive war against a foe with superior arms, manpower and resources?"
Which is why the Confederacy started the war, formally declared war and sent military forces to invade every state and territory adjacent to the Confederacy-proper, plus some a considerable distance away.
JCBrekenridge: "If the South were the aggressor, why is it we do not see New York city burning and the Ohio river destroyed? the North started the war, and at a cost of 750k men, finished it."
It takes a certain moral blindness to maintain in the face of all evidence to the contrary that "the North started the war", FRiend.
As for invading New York -- did you ever hear of the battles of Sharpsburg/Antietam and Gettysburg?
So Confederate military forces never reached New York city, however, Confederate sympathizers within New York did help burn a part of the city, in July 1863.
JCBrekenridge referring to Lincoln's March 1861 offer to surrender Fort Sumter, in exchange for Virginia remaining in the Union: "But he did not, when that choice was fully his.
He could have averted war.
He chose war over the alternatives that were available to him.
Lincoln was willing to give up something valuable -- Fort Sumter -- in exchange for something valuable, a guarantee of Virginia's loyalty to the Union.
But Virginia said "no deal", and so Lincoln decided to defend what the law and his oath of office required him to.
JCBrekenridge: "So you’re saying that destruction of property is ok when you do it. I see.
So Lincoln did not fight the war to ‘preserve property.’
He fought it to subjugate the South."
Tell us, please, what exactly is your problem with understanding the fact of a Confederate Declaration of War on the United States?
Why does the concept not sink in?
Why do you have no clue as to the consequences of such an act?
Why do you not comprehend that it makes all of your other arguments utter rubbish?
JCBrekenridge referring to the Confederacy's borders: "It included New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arizona, Missouri, West Virginia, Maryland and Kentucky at various points in time.
Kansas was disputed territory.
Colorado was not a state at the time.
Pennsylvania remains the only state of the Union that saw any fighting.
And they had one major battle, at Gettysburg."
Sorry FRiend, but that is just rubbish talk.
None of those states or territories were ever part of the Confederacy-proper, except maybe in somebody's meglomaniacial wet dreams.
The Confederacy-proper consisted of 11 states, period: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, North Carolina, Virginia, Arkansas and Tennessee.
No other state ever legitimately voted to join the Confederacy, and no territory could lawfully vote to leave the Union, nor did any.
JCBrekenridge: "Arizona was claimed by the south and voted to secede."
Confederate "claims" had no legal validity, none.
The territory of Arizona could not vote, and did not vote to secede.
Some slave-holders got together and declared their fantasy secession, but the territorial governor did not support them and helped organize opposition to the Confederacy's military invasions.
By war's end the legislature abolished slavery in Arizona and the state provided 8,000 troops for the Union Army.
So it was never a Confederate territory.
JCBrekenridge: "Kansas, like Kentucky, voted eventually to stay but was considered to be disputed territory."
Both Kansas and Kentucky were only disputed by invading Confederate forces.
Neither ever voted to join the Confederacy, both supplied large numbers of troops to the Union army.
JCBrekenridge: "Colorado was never touched.
The Confederates lost at Raton and never entered Colorado."
Colorado, like other areas, including even California, had gorilla forces operating with the intention of raiding and stealing supplies for the Confederacy.
These were generally not successful, but it wasn't for lack of trying.
JCBrekenridge: "When Maryland attempted to vote on secession, Lincoln had the legislature arrested.
Well, only the secessionists were elected."
Maryland never voted to secede, even when it easily could have, before Lincoln was inaugurated.
It's General Assembly's later resolution unanimously opposed secession, and the state supplied more than double the number of troops to the Union as the Confederacy.
Clearly, even though a slave state, Maryland was and remained by a large majority pro-Union.
JCBrekenridge: "Delaware was also occupied in the same fashion.
The opening salvos of the civil war was Lincoln’s occupation of the border states."
In fact, Delaware was the least slave of all slave states, and from the very beginning -- on January 3, 1861 -- voted against secession.
Like other border states, Delaware supplied far more troops to the Union than to the Confederacy.
Lincoln did not "occupy" Border States -- they were Union States subject to invasions and gorilla actions by Copperheads and Confederate armies.
Lincoln protected those states against the Confederacy's War of Aggression on the United States.
JCBrekenridge: "The constitution explicitly states that no state can be broken apart unless that state agrees to it.
West Virginia was illegally split from Virginia and was confederate territory."
Such constitutional provisions cannot possibly apply to political entities which have formally declared war on the United States.
Of course there was a Unionist government of Virginia, which did approve the formation of West Virginia.
JCBrekenridge: "Nonsense. After Maryland was occupied, Kentucky declared it’s neutrality and seceded from the Union to form the republic of Kentucky under Magoffin.
When Lincoln occupied it, it was brought back into the fold."
Once again, you don't know the real history.
Kentucky was solidly pro-Union from the beginning, and eventually supplied 60 regiments to the Union army versus nine to the Confederacy.
In free elections in 1861 pro-Confederate candidates were soundly defeated and the state legislature had veto-proof pro-Union majorities, to overrule Governor Magoffin's neutrality measures.
Kentucky's "neutrality" was violated first not by President Lincoln, but by invasions from Confederate armies in Tennessee.
These armies became the headquarters of the unelected "Confederate government" of Kentucky, and when those armies were defeated, Kentucky's "Confederate government" became non-functional.
JCBrekenridge: "Missouri voted to secede, and send ordinances of secession to the Union.
Missouri never voted to secede, a rump government in exile in Marshall, Texas, issued illegal orders of secession and joined the Confederacy.
That unlawful Confederate "government" did not actually governed any part of Missouri, and became irrelevant.
Missouri remained a Union state.
JCBrekenridge: "Kansas was never legally admitted into the Union until after the war."
Congress admitted Kansas to the Union as a Free State on January 29, 1861.
JCBrekenridge referring to the fact than no Confederate soldier was killed directly by any Union force before the Confederacy declared war on the United States: "Yes, they were, in Maryland."
No Confederate soldiers -- zero, zip, nada -- were killed directly (meaning in battle) by any Union force before May 6, 1861.
Yes, some Union soldiers did die at the hands of a pro-secession mob in Baltimore, but those were in no sense "Confederate soldiers".
JCBrekenridge claiming non-Confederate states voted to secede: "All of the ones you list did - save Kansas who was only admitted after the Southern Senators left - meaning that the bill admitting Kansas did not have quorum."
A few slave-holders gathering to issue ordinances of secession cannot possibly represent their entire states.
Listen carefully: in no state outside the Confederacy-proper was there any valid vote to secede or join the Confederacy.
As for your allegation of "no quorum" in Congress for admitting Kansas, well, first of all that's flat out false, since a quorum in Congress means half, and still well over half of Congress was there, including some Deep South representatives.
But more to the point, if those missing representatives were now citizens of "another country" then there was no Constitutional need for their presence anyway.
JCBrekenridge: "Gettysburg is the only time the South ever touched a Union state in four years of war."
Of course the Confederacy-proper itself was an unlawful, unconstitutional fiction, but to the degree it existed at all, it consisted of only 11 states, and that's it.
Everything else was Union country subject to frequent invasions by Confederate forces.
Pennsylvania alone was invaded three different times, in 1862, 1863 and 1864.
JCBrekenridge: "The union won the opening moves of the civil war by occupying Kansas, Missouri, New Mexico, Arizona, Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia and, most importantly, Kentucky. That’s 7 states right there."
All of those were Union states or territories protected by the Union army against frequent invasions by Confederate forces.
JCBrekenridge: "Uh, First Manassas was fought in July of 1861.
It was, by far the largest battle fought up to that time."
But every battle before Manassas was "the largest battle fought up to that time."
By the time of Manassas Confederate forces were on the move in many Union states and territories near the Confederacy-proper.
JCBrekenridge: "Seeing as you can’t get Manassas in the right state or year, your opinion has little merit."
FRiend, I know exactly when and where Manassas was fought, I've been there.
What made you suppose otherwise?
BJK: “Any actual list of names of Southern civilians killed by Union soldiers is minuscule to nonexistent.”
JCBrekenridge: "Bullshit."
OK, FRiend, you're on: produce the list.
I've never seen such a list, and every report I have seen of actual civilian deaths talks about one here or two there, always accidental due to stray musket balls striking civilians who happened to be too close to a battlefield.
I've never seen long lists of names of civilians such as exist for WWII of those "Civilian deaths due to military activity and crimes against humanity"
JCBrekenridge: "the Union really did try to devastate the south."
There is no disputing that fact, though the actual scale of destruction of property is not established.
My point of fact is: the numbers of civilians murdered by troops (Union or Confederate) by all lists I've seen are very small and amounts mostly to occasional accidents.
“The Lincoln-Douglas debates took place in 1858. During the election of 1860, Lincoln studiously avoided saying or doing anything, though he did refer people to his past speeches, especially those debates.”
Yeah, and? You think people were stupid back then? He was well known as an ardent abolitionist who was opposed to the Missouri Compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska act.
As for the 1860 platform of the Republican party:
“1. That the history of the nation during the last four years has fully established the propriety and necessity of the organization and perpetuaion of the Republican party and the causes which brought it into existence are permanent in their nature demand it’s peaceful and constitutional triump.
2. That the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence and embodied in teh Federal Constitution, that All Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights that among these are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers through the consent of the governed, is essential to the preservation of our Republican institution, and that the Federal Constitution, the Rights of the States and the Union of the States shall be preserved. “
Seems pretty clear to me. The republican party wanted to establish the right that all men are created equal constitutionally. It’s all right there.
Given that support of the north was sufficient to procure the constitutional change, the South had no choice once Lincoln won election on that platform.
“Those three states alone held 51 electoral votes which would have shifted victory from Republicans to Democrats.
Add in 39 more electoral votes from normally Democrat Southerns states of Virginia, Tennessee and Kentucky, and there was a potential for Democrat landslide.”
Uh, you need to start looking up the electoral map. VA, TN and KY were democrat in ‘56 and democrat in ‘60.
“Which certainly tells us the election was closer-run than many people want to admit.”
So you admit that there is no evidence of voter turnout suppression among the Democrats? Their vote share went down, even as their total votes went up.
“Surely a united party with effective leadership would easily have added 10% to their totals”
Why 10? Why not 20? 30? 55?
In your opinion only. You said that their vote totals dropped, and I showed that no, that wasn’t the case at all. Democrat voters increased in number from 1856 to 1860, and were flat even in the two states that flipped.
“Ask any Democrat and they will tell you Thomas Jefferson was their first Democrat President.”
And, they would be wrong. Jackson was the first democrat.
“Whig Presidents Tyler and Fillmore were never elected, they inherited the office on the deaths of Harrison and Taylor respectively.”
Doesn’t change the fact that Whig presidents can and were elected.
“and along with controlling the Presidency they also controlled Congress and the Supreme Court.”
*sigh*. Whigs controlled the presidency with Harrison/Tyler, Taylor/Fillmore.
From 1840-1860, they were in power for 8 years. Hardly shut out. From 1840 onwards, non democrat parties dominated.
As for congressional representation:
27th, 28th, 30th, 34th, 36th, that’s precisely half had non-democrat majorities.
“they were the Federal Government.”
Except for the other half the time when they weren’t the federal government.
“Sorry, I can’t explain why your referenced numbers are different from mine”
Obviously your unreferenced numbers are wrong.
“your numbers make my case even better than my own numbers do: your numbers show Democrats actually carried the popular vote by nearly 380,000 more than Lincoln’s total.”
So rather than admit that your numbers were garbage, now you’re using my numbers to prove your case. Sorry. Reread the numbers again - they show, decisively, why Lincoln won. He had the support of the north and that is all he needed. He didn’t need any southern representation or support to secure the presidency. Which is why he didn’t even show up on the ballot there.
“That suggests victory was not so difficult, had the Dems just played their cards right.”
Again, you’re ignoring the salient fact that Lincoln didn’t even run in the south. He didn’t bother.
“No, the Confederacy started the war, and then quickly formally declared war on the United States.”
What United States? The United States ceased to exist after the secession of the South. The Union declared war on the Confederacy, invaded the south and attemped to defeat the confederacy. They failed at 1st Manassas, and the Confederacy fought back to defend their territory for 4 years before their final defeat.
The united states were restored with the surrender of Davis and Lee at Appattomatox.
“What outgoing President Buchanan did was refuse to give the Confederacy the excuse they wanted to go to war.”
It’s called casus belli. When you try to ship munitions into the south against the desires of the south, then yes, you are declaring war. And that’s exactly what Lincoln chose to do.
“No. Lincoln chose to resupply Fort Sumter. “
Fort Sumpter was in Confederate territory. He had to enter Confederate territory to delivery munitions. By entering confederate territory, they were violating the jurisdiction of the South.
The Confederacy chose to start war, and then formally declare it.
“No it isn’t”
Yes, violation of the territory of a sovereign nation is an act of war.
“Those British forts sat there on US territory, and were routinely resupplied, for over 35 years without causing a war between the countries.”
Uh, one those forts weren’t in American territory. Two, they could be resupplied from Canada without crossing into American territory. Neither of which applied to Fort Sumpter.
“But in 1860 the Confederacy chose to make Fort Sumter’s resupply a reason for war.”
Ugh. 1861. If you can’t get the year straight then you aren’t going to get the rationale straight. The Union violated the territorial integrity of the south by shipping munitions into the territory of the South, without asking or gaining prior permission.
“It was their choice, and they chose, well, unwisely.”
Had Lincoln chosen to cede the fort then there would not have been any war.
“it still is not true”
As soon as the legislature of South Carolina voted to leave, then yes, it became the property of the state of South Carolina, and by extension the Confederacy.
, in any sense, except if the Confederacy went to war to make it true, which of course is just what happened.
“FRiend, if you will just come out and confess the truth of your views — that you loathe the Constitution, and hate its provisions for electing presidents — then we will begin making serious progress here.”
Where do I loathe the constitution? I loathe that Lincoln did not run in the South. The constitution only requires 50 percent plus one of the electoral college, and he was able to obtain that without running in the south.
Surely you can agree with me, that a president who refuses to even run in the South is telling them that he does not want their votes or their support in his administration. Do you think that it is healthy for the president to only represent 50 percent plus one and be elected on 39 percent of the popular vote? (which, BTW, is the lowest percentage of any president?)
39 percent is an indication that there are broad and deep divisions within the nation that were not going to be healed by Lincoln. Instead or reconciliation, he chose to rip them apart.
“I can’t actually say precisely why Southern states did not allow a “Black Republican” on their ballots, but it’s not real hard to imagine reasons.”
And those reasons being? You have been making the case that Lincoln was not known to be an abolitionist, and here you are arguing the opposite. His positions were very well known. He cannot be said to govern with the consent of the governed, in the South since he never sought their consent.
“I’d say you’re working real hard to misunderstand what should have been obvious, given its context.”
It’s not obvious, which is why I asked. If you meant only the states that seceded, then state just that. When you state ‘every state’, that’s going to get called out.
“Secessionists began seizing dozens of Federal properties in December 1860, three months before Lincoln became President.”
Insofar as that property was in southern territory it was never union property. It was no longer federal property once the states seceded.
“Secessionists made no efforts to wait until negotiations might settle such issues peacefully.”
Bullshit. The state legislatures issued ordinances of secession. Lincoln refused to negotiate. If Lincoln is unwilling to negotiate a peaceful resolution then the blame lies with him. He had other options, but chose not to exercise them in favor of war.
“Most important: when you renounce your citizenship, you never ever get your previously paid taxes back.”
Then the Union has no right to their property in the Confederacy. They have chosen not to become citizens of the Confederacy, ergo, they have lost their claims.
“I’ll say it again: no state government ever paid a tax to the Federal Government.”
And you have to read up on Nullification. Yes, states did pay taxes to the federal government. The reason these tariffs were so odious is that it was taxation on the South and only the south.
This is why South Carolina invoked nullification in the first place. Jackson, setting the precedent for Lincoln managed to negotiated a peaceful settlement in modifying the tariff. He didn’t declare war on South Carolina. He didn’t crush the state legislature under the power of the federal government. He negotiated, and he succeeded in doing what Lincoln could not.
“Where would such a crazy idea come from?”
Read what Calhoun has to say about that whole affair.
“Lincoln seized nothing.”
Yes, he seized everything he could possibly get his hands on to prevent it from going to the Confederacy.
“secessionists unlawfully seized by force every Federal property they could get their hands on.”
First, this didn’t happen until after the ordinances were filed, which happened in the Spring of 1861. Though seeing as you keep putting 1860 for 61, it’s understandable.
Two, they claimed only equipment within the borders of the confederacy, the same thing that the Union did in the North. Why could the union take control of things in the north, while the south could not do so in the south? If the north has the right to unilaterally seize forts for their own purpose, than the South has the right to do the same.
Three, not only did Lincoln claim northern war material, he invaded southern states in’61 and seized southern war material from these states. He did so, despite the concerns over property, because the greater good was to ‘prevent them from being used by the Confederacy.
Lincoln never fought over private property - he fought to subjugate the South. If it meant the destruction of private property, then that is what it took. Orders were given to Sheridan to devastate the Shenandoah in an effort to cripple Virginia. These are not the actions of the party with moral certitude. Lincoln may have believed that the ends justified the means, but committing atrocities will only further serve, as they have, to embitter the South.
“Since Brown was lawfully tried and executed for his crimes, in what possible sense is that a “provocation”?”
The fact that he was in Confederate territory and was gun running for the North in the first place. Those civilians never should have died, least of all at the hands of a terrorist supported by the federal government.
“The Union never formally declared war on the Confederacy, but the Confederacy did formally declare war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.”
The confederacy never declared war on the United states.
The Union had already launched their invasion of the South. The war was already on by this point. Lincoln did not believe in issuing a formal declaration of war - but he declared war through is actions.
“Further, in every step along the way in preparing for war for example, in raising large numbers of troops for war the Confederacy was always a step ahead of the Union.”
Which is why the Union army outnumbered the Confederates at 1st Manassas? Bullshit. The union never fought an engagement where they were outnumbered the entire war.
Where are you getting this stuff from?
“Sure, but the “right” of secessionists to seize Federal property,”
Property that was legally theirs after secession within the boundaries of the confederacy,
“fire on Federal officials”
Who had refused to peacefully leave Confederate territory.
“formally declare war on the United States”
They never formally declared war on the United States.
“is not a “constitutional issue”.”
Yes, it was very much a constitutional issue, revolving around the relationship between the federal government and the states.
“It is expressly covered under the Constitution’s provisions for dealing with rebellion”
The same Constitution which guarantees the right of the state to leave should the state be forced to do something contrary to the pact between the states. Which makes sense, unless you believe that the federal government should be able to override the states and strip them of their constitutional rights whenever it wants.
Like Lincoln did. Had Lincoln settled the issue peaceably, and constitutionally, the issue would have been resolved without bloodshed. But he chose to go to war.
“those engaging in war against the United States.”
Again, the Confederacy never engaged in war against the United States.
“every alleged “constitutional issue”, without exception, was utterly negated once the Confederacy formally declared war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.”
Absolutely not. Action in accordance with constitutional rights cannot be overridden through the use of force. At least not de jure. They can be overridden de-facto as they were by the end of the war.
In order to remove the constitutional right for a state to secede, Lincoln would have had to pass a constitutional amendment to do so. He did not. No such amendment abrogating the privileges of the states has ever been passed.
“Why can’t you admit that?”
Because it’s simply not true.
“Lincoln chose to enforce the laws and protect Federal property. The Confederacy chose war.”
And in doing so, became responsible in the death of 750 thousand americans? Was it worth it?
“No law of the time or since specifies such a thing.”
Why then did Washington do the same in the war of independence. Forts within American territory became the property of the United States, not that of Britain. Or do you not consider the continued presence of Brtiain in the United States in defending the forts an ‘occupation’? You can’t have it both ways.
The forts in the confederacy were confederate territory when the states seceded. Union action to matinain the forts was an occupation of confederate territory.
“But if those people then start and formally declare war on the United States, they will suffer grievously the consequences of their foolishness.”
Again, the will of the people for liberty cannot be quenched through force. They can try, but that will not extinguish it. They can hammer the south into pebbles, but they cannot quench this desire.
Was it foolishness that they stood up for themselves and for liberty against the North? Hardly. The union had no right to force them to stay against their will.
“The US never “purchased” great lakes territory from Great Britain (are you possibly thinking of the Louisiana Purchase?).”
Sorry, you are right. It was not purchased. It was ceded to the US after the treaty of Ghent in 1814.
“In short, that territory was part of the United States from Day One, and British forts on American territory remained there for more than 30 years without causing a war.”
Actually, the situation is very much more complicated than how you are portraying it. The territory wasn’t actually ceded in perpetuity to the US until Ghent. It was awarded by the Treaty of Paris, but ceded at Ghent. Britain didn’t control some of the territory, and some of the territory wasn’t known until later (which was the point of the Jay territory).
The British had to negotiate with the Native tribes first before the territory could be ceded over to the Americans. The treaty of Paris did not stipulate the cessation of the territory until the British were satisfied.
“Neo-confederates such as yourself insist it’s an exact match, but the truth is, there are far more differences than similarities.”
It is an exact match. Yankees can’t bear to be treated the same way that they treated the loyalists. Their cause was right and just and the cause of the South, by definition, cannot.
“remember our Founders never declared war on Great Britain”
Bullshit. Got anymore fairy tales?
“The Confederacy had no lawful right to deny Union forces access to their property.”
It was never owned by the Union. The Union did not build it or construct it.
“But whether a right or not, the Confederacy was utterly foolish to start a war they could not win.”
They were invaded by a superior power who sought to crush them. The South had no choice. They had to fight as best as they could as long as they could.
“Obviously not true.”
Then why didn’t they ravage the North the way the North ravaged the South? They did not want war. Are you assuming that they were stupid? Hardly so. If they were stupid, then why were they able to defeat the North and extend the war out to 4 years?
Was the North incompetent?
“Of course they believed they would win any test of arms”
Who said this? Davis? No. He believed they would lose. Jackson? No, he believed the same. Lee? No, he believed they would lose.
Give me one confederate general who believed they could defeat the union.
“Which is why the Confederacy started the war”
It makes no logical sense. It makes logical sense, that the Union, with the manpower, logistical and supply advantages to invade the South to crush them. And that is exactly what happened.
“territory adjacent to the Confederacy-proper, plus some a considerable distance away.”
We disagree, vehemently, on what constitutes confederate territory. You don’t even believe that Virginia was confederate!
“It takes a certain moral blindness”
Facts are facts. The North invaded the South, and the South fought a 4 year defensive war. You might not like that but it’s the truth.
“As for invading New York — did you ever hear of the battles of Sharpsburg/Antietam and Gettysburg?”
What about them? Antietam was fought on confederate territory, in Maryland and Gettsburg in southern Pennsylvania, the only invasion the North ever suffered.
So you’re arguing that because the North invaded the South, the South never touched areas like New York? Thank you.
“however, Confederate sympathizers within New York did help burn a part of the city, in July 1863.”
Uh, BULLSHIT. The draft riots were from Northern citizens who were upset that other northerners were buying their way out of the draft. The draft riots had nothing to do with the South, and everything to do with Northern corruption.
“Lincoln’s March 1861 offer to surrender Fort Sumter, in exchange for Virginia remaining in the Union”
Would Lincoln trade the state of New York for Fort Donaldson? No. Then why would he expect the confederacy to do the same?
“Tell us, please, what exactly is your problem with understanding the fact of a Confederate Declaration of War on the United States?”
Because the Confederacy never declared war on the United States. They couldn’t. After the secession of the Confederacy, the United States no longer existed as a legal entity. The Union did exist, and because the Union won the war, the United States was restored at the end of the war.
“Why do you have no clue as to the consequences of such an act?”
Because it’s not sinking in with you the actual facts of the diplomatic relations. The Union had already invaded the south prior to May 8th.
“Why do you not comprehend that it makes all of your other arguments utter rubbish?”
Which is why you are clinging to pure fantasy. Fact of the matter was, the was was already on by May 8th, and I went to great lengths in the previous post to show why this was the case.
“None of those states or territories were ever part of the Confederacy-proper”
And there we go again. ‘Confederacy-proper’. That’s a qualifier. I am not using a qualifier. I am including all the states and territories that at some point after South Carolina seceded, passed an ordinance of secession in the state legislature.
That is an empirical definition. Yes, it includes states like Maryland who Lincoln suppressed the legislature by illegally arresting the secessionists (and only the secessionists), Missouri, where he invaded and crushed the secessionist legislature, Kentucky (where he violated the neutrality of Kentucky), Kansas, which he unilaterally overrode the Senate to declare it a state despite lack of quorum.
Lincoln didn’t care very much about the rights of the states. He did everything he could to suppress them and their right to leave. He abused the power of the federal government in all of these instances to overcome secessionist votes that seceded or to prevent votes from even taking place.
I realize you don’t like this history, but it’s all true. Lincoln did all of these things in 1861. He justified saying that it was for the greater good.
“The Confederacy-proper consisted of 11 states, period: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, North Carolina, Virginia, Arkansas and Tennessee.”
So you don’t consider Stand Waitie a confederate general. Interesting.
“No other state ever legitimately voted to join the Confederacy”
Since you don’t accept that any state could legitimately vote to join the confederacy and leave the union then the number of ‘real confederate states’, is exactly zero.
Why the qualifier? Legitimate or no, Missouri, Maryland, Kentucky, Arizona, New Mexico all voted to secede.
“and no territory could lawfully vote to leave the Union, nor did any.”
And Stand Waitie was a Union General. I see. What other fiction have they taught you?
“Confederate “claims” had no legal validity, none.”
What, is that your opinion? If the confederate claims are illegitimate than so are the claims of the north over southern territory.
“Some slave-holders got together and declared their fantasy secession”
So, the citizens of the state did in fact vote to secede. Thank you.
“So it was never a Confederate territory.”
Except for that nasty little business of an actually voting for secession. ;) Odd that.
“Both Kansas and Kentucky were only disputed by invading Confederate forces.”
Kansas was admitted without quorum in the Senate as a state.
Kentucky declared itself neutral. Lincoln invaded the state to conquer it in 1861, and defeated the Kentuckian forces.
“Colorado, like other areas, including even California, had gorilla forces operating with the intention of raiding and stealing supplies for the Confederacy.”
Bullshit. There were no battles faught on Colorado soil. The closest they got was in Raton, where the confederacy was defeated.
“Maryland never voted to secede, even when it easily could have, before Lincoln was inaugurated.”
Then why did Lincoln have the secessionists arrested when they tried to vote? That’s a violation of the rights of the state of Maryland.
“Like other border states, Delaware supplied far more troops to the Union than to the Confederacy.”
So, why does that matter? Just because some people in the state fought for the union doesn’t mean that the state wasn’t at one point, part of the confederacy.
This is why the whole term of the border states came about. Delaware is a border state, just like all the other states you are arguing against, because it was part of both.
“Lincoln did not “occupy” Border States — they were Union States”
Then why did he invade Kentucky after Kentucky declared themselves Neutral?
“Lincoln protected those states against the Confederacy’s War of Aggression on the United States.”
I’m sure he did. Did he ask for their lunch money to pay for the ‘protection’.
“Such constitutional provisions cannot possibly apply to political entities which have formally declared war on the United States.”
Can and do, they are called states. The Union set fire to the constitution and declared it null and void. They were willing to do whatever it took to win, constitutional or no. They won, but at terrible cost, not just in men, but in the actual constitution.
Today that results in the federal government telling we the people that we have to buy contraception and we have to pay for abortion.
Was it really worth 750k Americans for this ‘liberty’?
“Kentucky was solidly pro-Union from the beginning”
Then why was Kentucky Neutral, and why did Lincoln invade Kentucky and violate their neutrality?
“Kentucky’s “neutrality” was violated first not by President Lincoln, but by invasions from Confederate armies in Tennessee.”
Nope, it was Lincoln who occupied them and defeated the legitimate state government.
“Missouri never voted to secede, a rump government in exile in Marshall, Texas, issued illegal orders of secession and joined the Confederacy.”
Gee, so they did vote and they did join. Thank you.
“As for your allegation of “no quorum” in Congress for admitting Kansas, well, first of all that’s flat out false.”
There was no quorum. Statehood had been brought up before the Senate and rejected. The rump Senate brought it up again without legal quorum, and passed what had been legally rejected prior.
Ergo, Kansas was not legitimately a state until after 1865.
“Of course the Confederacy-proper itself was an unlawful, unconstitutional fiction”,
Well of course it was - there we have it. That ‘fiction’ was why Lincoln crushed them in 1861 and the boys were home by Christmas. ;)
“All of those were Union states or territories protected by the Union army against frequent invasions by Confederate forces.”
Lincoln invaded all of them successfully in the opening salvos of the war, either through troops (Arizona and New Mexico, Kentucky, Missouri), through suppressing the legislature and arresting legal state representatives (Maryland), unconstitutionally splitting a state and backing it up with an occupation, (west virginia).
Lincoln had lots of unconstitutional tricks in his bag to get what he wanted.
“But every battle before Manassas was “the largest battle fought up to that time.”
Great we have a bullshit comedian. 1st Manassas, fought in 1861 in Virginia, not 1860 in Maryland, was the first significant battle of the war with armies of more than several thousand.
This is basic, basic civil war facts. It was an invasion of the south in an attempt to end the war quickly.
“FRiend, I know exactly when and where Manassas was fought, I’ve been there.”
Because you stated that it wasn’t in confederate territory and that it took place in 1860. Neither of which is true.
Great we have a bullshit comedian.
Confederate States of America - “the Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White that secession was illegal, and that the Confederacy had never legally existed.” “Concerning the international status and nationhood of the Confederate States of America, in 1869 the United States Supreme Court in Texas v. White ruled Texas’ declaration of secession was legally null and void.”[73] “Once the war with the United States began, the Confederacy pinned its hopes for survival on military intervention by Britain and France.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America
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.