The Ten Worst American Traitors

www.mandatory.com ^ | 6/21/12 | Tim Currie

[Borges]

Some interesting choices with a Number 2 that I never heard of.

[rockrr]

I’m pretty sure that #218 was a complete compendium of southron mythology.

[BroJoeK]

JCBreckenridge: "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."

Please also note the words "peaceful and constitutional" in Article 1.

JCBreckenridge: "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."

Southern Democrats were the nation's dominant political force from the founding of the Republic until beginning at their convention in April 1860 -- when they self-destructed due to Fire-Eaters walking out, refusing to support the Democrat's nominee, and eventually forming their own regional Southern Democrat party.

In all that, Southern Democrats were the initiators, the force of change, and so had a choice in every action they took.
Lincoln's election was simply the inevitable result to the Southern Democrats' political engineering.

JCBreckenridge: "Uh, you need to start looking up the electoral map. VA, TN and KY were democrat in ‘56 and democrat in ‘60."

Sorry FRiend, yes, I granted you the possibility that Wiki somehow got its popular vote counts wrong, and that Democrats actually received more votes than Wiki reports.
I doubt that seriously, but it's always possible.

However, there's no way to accept your claim that Constitutional Union candidate John Bell did not carry the Southern and Border states of Virginia, Tennessee and Kentucky.
Wiki cannot possibly be wrong on something that major, so it has to be your mistake -- so go back and recheck your sources.

The 1856 electoral vote:

Results by county:

JCBreckenridge: "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.

I've seen no evidence of outright voter fraud anywhere in 1860.
I'm saying Democrats self-suppressed their own voters by splitting the party in half and guaranteeing their own defeat.
Then as now, a certain percentage always votes for who they think will win, and those previous Democrat votes were lost in 1860.

Indeed, in those three Southern states (VA, NC, KY) where Constitutional Unionist John Bell won, he did so because Democrats split their votes between Southern Breckenridge and Northern Douglas.
Now that is Democrat voter self-suppression, I'd say.

JCBreckenridge: "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."

I didn't challenge your numbers because they make my case better than mine did -- that in 1860 Democrats had enough voter support to win the election had Southern Fire Eaters not self-destructed their party.
My numbers came from Wikipedia's report on the 1860 election, and since this is a widely read, frequently corrected public source, I suspect it's right and your numbers wrong -- but regardless, my point still stands.

JCBreckenridge referring to Democrats' claim that Thomas Jefferson was the "first Democrat": "And, they would be wrong. Jackson was the first democrat."

Of course, and in most ways, Jefferson was the opposite of a modern Democrat.
However, in terms of this particular discussion -- namely the lock on power of Southerners and Southern sympathizers over Washington, DC -- Jefferson and Jackson belonged to the same party: the Slave Power.
Both were slave-holders and protected slave-holder interests.

JCBreckenridge: "Doesn’t change the fact that Whig presidents can and were elected."

Of course, among the nation's first 15 Presidents, two were elected Whigs -- William Henry Harrison in 1840 and Zachary Taylor in 1848.
Both were slave-holders and supported slavery.
Both died in office, of illness by all accounts, and were succeeded by their VPs, John Tyler and Millard Fillmore.
All the others were Democrats and/or supporters of slavery.

Indeed, possibly excepting the two Adams (neither took any actions against slavery in the South), it's fair to say that Lincoln was the first openly anti-slavery president elected.
That's why the Slave-Power ruled in Washington, DC.

JCBreckenridge: "*sigh*. Whigs controlled the presidency with Harrison/Tyler, Taylor/Fillmore."

It's extraordinarily important to remember that Whigs were not anti-slavery.
Indeed the two (and only two) elected Whig Presidents, Harrison (1840) and Taylor (1848) were both slave-owners.
That's why the Slave-Power ruled in Washington, from the founding of the Republic until the election of Abraham Lincoln, in 1860.

JCBreckenridge: "From 1840-1860, they were in power for 8 years. Hardly shut out.
From 1840 onwards, non democrat parties dominated.

I'll say it again, more slowly:
Of the six presidents before Democrat Andrew Jackson, only the two Adams were not slave-owners and neither of them took any actions as president against Southern slavery.

Of the seven elected presidents from Jackson through Buchanan (Lincoln's predecessor), only two, Harrison and Taylor, were not Democrats, and both of those were slave-owners.
On slave-owner Whig Harrison's death in office, slave-owner John Tyler became president, and on slave-owner Taylor's death in office, Dough-Faced New Yorker Millard Fillmore filled out his term -- and served long enough to support expansion of slavery in the territories, and the pro-slavery Compromise of 1850.

Franklin Pierce, elected in 1852, was a Dough-Faced Northern Democrat who supported the expansion of slavery into the West, and even in the Ostend Manifesto for the conquest of Cuba!

James Buchanan, elected in 1856, was another Dough-Faced Northern Democrat, who strongly supported both the pro-slavery Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision and the pro-slavery Kansas Lecomption constitution.

JCBreckenridge: "As for congressional representation: 27th, 28th, 30th, 34th, 36th, that’s precisely half had non-democrat majorities."

Not quite. First remember that Whigs were not all anti-slavery, and there were many Southern Whigs, i.e., Henry Clay:

27th Congress 1841 to 1843 Whig majorities both houses, Whig President Harrison/Tyler, passed the "Black Tarriff" of 1842.

28th Congress 1843 to 1845 Democrats controlled the House, shrinking Whig majority in Senate, Whig President Tyler, admitted Florida as a slave-state, annexed Texas.

29th Congress 1845 to 1847, Democrats controlled both Houses, Democrat President Polk, admitted Texas slave, Iowa Free, declared war on Mexico, Walker Tarriff reduced rates from 32% to 25%.

30th Congress 1847 to 1849, Democrats controlled Senate, Whigs controlled House by shrinking margin, Democrat President Polk, ended Mexican-American War.

31st Congress 1849 to 1851, Democrats controlled both Houses, pro-slavery Whig Presidents Taylor / Fillmore, pro-slavery Compromise of 1850 and Fugitive Slave Law, California admitted as free-state.

32nd Congress 1851 to 1853, Democrats controlled both Houses, pro-slavery Whig President Fillmore.

33rd Congress 1853 to 1855, Democrats controlled both Houses, Democrat President Pierce who signed the Kansas-Nebraska Act with Popular Sovereignty over slavery.

34th Congress 1855 to 1857, Democrats controlled Senate, cooalition controlled House, pro-slavery Whig President Fillmore.

35th Congress 1857 to 1859, Democrats controlled both Houses, Democrat President Buchanan, Supreme Court's Dred Scott Decision, Minnesota and Oregon admitted as free-states.

36th Congress 1859 to 1861, Democrats controlled Senate, no majority in the House, Democrat President Buchanan, Kansas admitted as free-state, Deep South state conventions all declare secession.

JCBreckenridge: "Except for the other half the time when they weren’t the federal government."

Yes, from 1841 to 1843 -- not exactly "half the time", non-Democrats controlled House, Senate and Presidency.
All the other years, Democrats and/or pro-slavery Whigs controlled one, both or all three branches.

And as its 1857 Dred Scot decision proved, pro-Slavery Democrats also controlled the Supreme Court.

JCBreckenridge: "Obviously your unreferenced numbers are wrong."

I've posted my references before, and here it is again.
My guess is, it is correct and you are mistaken, FRiend. ;-)

JCBreckenridge: "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."

Nonsense -- I don't know whose numbers are "garbage", obviously I'd suspect yours, but since there's no proof, we have to agree to disagree about it.

However, your numbers support my case, which is that if Democrats had united under strong leadership, many who switched their votes to other parties, including the Bell's Constitutional Union Party could have been persuaded to vote Democrat again.

Republican victory in 1860 began with Democrat self-distruction.

JCBreckenridge: "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."

Republicans started in 1854 with just the anti-slavery faction of the old Whig party -- which btw is why, when you speak of Whigs you have to designate "pro" versus "anti" slavery Whigs.
The Whigs were, in Lincoln's famous phrase from the Bible (Mark 3:25 & others), the "House divided against itself".
So Republicans began in 1854 as a regional anti-slavery party.
I don't know if any effort was made by Republicans to get on ballots in the Deep South, but in one slave-state where they were, Maryland, Republicans got about 3% of the vote.

JCBreckenridge: "Again, you’re ignoring the salient fact that Lincoln didn’t even run in the south. He didn’t bother."

Wrong on all counts.
The fact of no Republicans on Deep-South ballots is not salient, for one thing, because they had never been on Deep-South ballots -- in 1856 for example -- and that did not prevent Democrats from winning the Presidency.
But more to the point, any Republican efforts to get on Deep-South ballots would have been a waste of time, since first: it would have been most difficult and second: where Republicans did get on ballots (i.e., Maryland) they received very few votes.

JCBreckenridge: "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."

Sorry, FRiend, but now you've wandered off into pure fantasy-land stuff. None of that is factual.

The Union certainly did not "cease to exist" just because some Deep-South slave-holders got together and declared their secession.
Nothing in the Constitution provides such a thing.
And in the minds of every US public official who had sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, these declarations of secession were of highly dubious constitutionality at best.
But when combined with numerous acts of obvious rebellion, insurrection and "domestic violence", secession fell into clear categories the Constitution was specifically intended to prevent.
Then, enhanced further by a Confederate Declaration of War on the United States, all doubt is removed from the minds of non-slave holding citizens.

As for who declared war on whom, I've already posted the links and quotes, but here they are again:

The Confederacy's Declaration of War on the United States, May 6, 1861.

Lincoln's First Inaugural address:
"In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, Is the momentous issue of civil war.
The government will not assail you.
You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors."

So, FRiend, your claims repeated however many times, over and over, that "The Union declared war on the Confederacy" are still without basis in fact.

JCBreckenridge: "The united states were restored with the surrender of Davis and Lee at Appattomatox."

In some metaphorical sense, perhaps.
Legally, what happened: a rebellion or insurrection as enumerated in the Constitution, was duly suppressed, just as the Constitution requires.

JCBreckenridge: "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."

In late 1860 and early 1861, even before Lincoln's inauguration, secessionists committed many acts of rebellion, insurrection and war against the United States.
Outgoing President Buchanan chose to ignore these many acts of casus belli, as did incoming President Lincoln.
Both maintained a policy of no reprisals or response to Confederate acts of war against the United States.
These included seizing dozens of Federal assets while Buchanan was president, plus even after Lincoln's inauguration, several forts in Texas and a navy sloop in Alabama.

Finally, in shipping resupplies to Fort Sumter, Lincoln promised South Carolina's Governor Pickens that no reinforcements would land if there was no resistance.

So, the Confederacy's actions in seizing and demanding surrender of Federal forces and properties were all acts of war -- cassus belli.
Lincoln's peaceful mission to resupply Fort Sumter was, in and of itself, not a cassus belli.
So the choice for war was made by the Confederacy.

JCBreckenridge: "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."

Secessionists violated Federal property and threatened Federal officers many times, while President Buchanan and then President Lincoln chose not to respond to these cassus belli.
Lincoln even announced his peaceful intentions to Governor Pickens on sending resupplies to Fort Sumter.
The Confederacy chose to see Lincoln's resupply mission to Fort Sumter as a cassus belli.
The Confederacy first chose war on April 14, and then officially declared war on May 6, 1861.
Those are all facts.

By the way, I've been looking for names of British forts on American territory after the Revolutionary War.
Here is one: Fort MacKinac, Michigan:

"Before 1763, the French used Fort Michilimackinac on the mainland south shore of the Straits of Mackinac to control the area.
After Treaty of Paris (1763), the British occupied the French fort but considered the wooden structure too difficult to defend.
In 1780/1781, its lieutenant governor Patrick Sinclair constructed a new limestone fort on the 150-foot limestone bluffs of Mackinac Island above the beautiful Straits of Mackinac.
The British held the outpost throughout the war.
After Treaty of Paris (1783), the British did not relinquish the fort to the United States until 1796."

Plus, according to this site, other British outposts in the US were held until after the War of 1812.

JCBreckenridge: "Yes, violation of the territory of a sovereign nation is an act of war."

Not necessarily. It's only a cassus belli if the "violated" government chooses to make it so.
In the cases of British forts, the US government never did so chose.

JCBreckenridge: "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."

Uh, nice try but, no on both counts.
One: those forts were all on US territory as agreed to by the British in the 1783 Treaty of Paris.

And two: it is literally impossible to resupply a fort in US territory without setting foot in the United States.
Three: the British made no claim that these forts were rightfully theirs, they simply refused to evacuate them.
The question then is, what choices did the US government have?
Answer: they could chose war or they could chose peace.
Unlike the Confederacy, our Founding Fathers wisely chose peace.

JCBreckenridge: "Ugh. 1861. If you can’t get the year straight then you aren’t going to get the rationale straight."

Not really a typo, since South Carolina did decide in 1860 to begin forceful seizures of Federal properties in South Carolina, regardless of the consequences for war or peace.
In the case of Fort Sumter, it was only not seized because Federal troops occupied it, so South Carolina demanded its surrender.

President Buchanan said "no" and then attempted to resupply the fort, as a result of which South Carolina committed a cassus belli in firing on a Federal ship.
Buchanan ignored the cassus belli.

JCBreckenridge: "The Union violated the territorial integrity of the south by shipping munitions into the territory of the South, without asking or gaining prior permission."

Not necessarily true, but regardless if true or not, the choice of war or peace still belonged to the Confederacy.

JCBreckenridge: "Had Lincoln chosen to cede the fort then there would not have been any war."

As I've posted before, Lincoln was totally willing to cede the fort, but only in exchange for something valuable, such as a promise by Virginia to remain in the Union.
When Lincoln realized no such promise was forthcoming, he chose to resupply the fort instead.

JCBreckenridge: "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."

Under no law, then or now, is that true.
Federal property only becomes legally Confederate property if the Confederacy fights and wins a war to hold it, which is what they decided, very unwisely, to do.

JCBreckenridge: "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."

Once you begin to understand that Southern Fire-Eaters self-destructed their long-term-majority Democrat party, thus handing the minority Republicans an otherwise impossible victory, then you will begin to place the blame where it truly belongs, FRiend.
Republicans were a regional minority party who could not have won without major Fire-Eater support.
Question: Why did Fire-Eaters do it?
Answer: because they wanted secession and war, and saw electing Republicans as their quickest way to get those.

JCBreckenridge: "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?)"

all of the data below comes from here.

As I have explained before: Republicans were a brand new party in 1854.
Their first presidential election (1856) they lost the Union states of New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri and California.
That's 94 electoral votes, more than enough for Democrats to win again in 1860 -- if they had not first self-destructed.

map of 1856 electoral college votes:

In 1860 Republicans were on the ballot in Delaware (23%), Maryland (3%), Virginia (1%), Kentucky (1%) and Missouri (10%).
Precisely why Republicans were not on the ballot in other states I can't answer, but I notice that in 1860 no candidate from any of the four parties was on the ballot in all states:

Lincoln's Republicans: not on ballot in 10 of the 11 Confederate states.

Breckenridge's Southern Democrats: not on ballot in four Northern states of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York & Rhode Island.
In all other states Breckenridge competed directly against Northern Democrat Stephen Douglas, thus preventing Douglas from winning the majority and guaranteeing a Lincoln victory!

Douglas' Northern Democrats: not on the ballot in New Jersey or New York.
In all other states, Douglas competed directly against Breckenridge and Bell for the anti-Republican vote, thus handing victory on a silver platter to non-Democrats in California (4), Kentucky (12), Oregon (3), Tennessee (12), Virginia (15) and New Jersey by default (4).
Those are 50 more electoral votes squandered away by Fire-Eating Southern Democrats.
By themselves they would not have won the election, but they would have made it a serious horse race, and inspired many more to vote against the "Black Republican" candidate.

On top of all those, Illinois (50.7%), Indiana (51.1%) and Ohio (52.3%) were all carried by Republicans with margins below 53%.
Those states were ripe for picking, if Democrats had been united (Breckenridge ran in all) and put up a serious fight.

And that's another 47 electoral votes, enough to give the united Democrat candidate a blow-out victory.

JCBreckenridge: "39 percent is an indication that there are broad and deep divisions..."

Caused by Fire-Eater Democrats' totally unnecessary self destruction of their long-term majority party.
They did it to themselves, because they wanted to secede.

JCBreckenridge: "You have been making the case that Lincoln was not known to be an abolitionist, and here you are arguing the opposite."

No, no, FRiend. Don't work so hard to misunderstand me.
This is not so difficult.

Lincoln was certainly a well known abolitionist "Black Republican."
But during the campaign he made no statements, and the Republican platform in 1860 contained no planks to harm slavery in the South.

JCBreckenridge: "He cannot be said to govern with the consent of the governed, in the South since he never sought their consent."

As I pointed out above, none of the four candidates for President in 1860 ran in every state.
Indeed, I argue that Breckenridge, Douglas and Bell running against each other in northern states, split and suppressed the anti-Republican vote enough to lose the election.

JCBreckenridge: "Insofar as that property was in southern territory it was never union property. It was no longer federal property once the states seceded."

No law says what you here claim.

JCBreckenridge: "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."

Our Founding Fathers began seriously resisting the British crown with the Boston Tea Party in 1773.
The final Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783 -- 20 years later, and even then some British built forts on American territory remained occupied by British forces until after the War of 1812 -- another 30 years later.
That's 50 years from beginning to end.

By contrast, Deep-South secessionists with no actual grievances first called for a convention on November 10, 1860 met on December 17, declared secession on December 20, seized by military aggression Federal Fort Moultrie and Castle Pinckney on December 27, and committed an act of war by firing on a Federal ship on January 9.

So, where our Founders took 50 years to settle matters with the British, Deep-South secessionists wanted it all done and over with in about 50 days!

Confederate actions were extraordinarily unwise.

JCBreckenridge: "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."

Lawfully, the Confederacy had no serious claim to Federal property, and they well knew it, which is why they chose to start a war -- to establish by contest of arms "legal rights" they otherwise couldn't prove.

JCBreckenridge: "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."

State governments did not pay those taxes, only individual citizens did.

Of course the South (indeed all farmers) objected to high tariffs on imported goods.
That's why in 1845, when Southern Democrats regained control of Congress and the Presidency, they quickly moved to reduce the "Black Tariff" rates from 32% to 25%.
By 1857 Democrats had further reduced tariffs to around 18%.
But none of these tariffs were paid by states, only by individuals.

JCBreckenridge: "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."

I'm certain you know that Jackson's words on this subject have been posted many times on these Civil War threads.
In 1830, when a visitor from South Carolina asked if Jackson had any message he wanted relayed to his friends back in the state. Jackson’s reply was:

"Yes I have; please give my compliments to my friends in your State and say to them, that if a single drop of blood shall be shed there in opposition to the laws of the United States, I will hang the first man I can lay my hand on engaged in such treasonable conduct, upon the first tree I can reach."

JCBreckenridge: "Yes, he seized everything he could possibly get his hands on to prevent it from going to the Confederacy."

OK FRiend, you're on: produce the list of "Confederate properties" allegedly "seized" by President Lincoln before April 14, 1861, when the Confederacy assaulted Fort Sumter and then declared war, on May 6, 1861.

JCBreckenridge: "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."

In many states throughout the South, some Federal properties were seized even before formal declarations of secession.
In the past I've posted long lists of actual seizures, and could do so again, if necessary, but for just a few examples:

1. Alabama voted to secede on January 11, 1861, but already on January 4, it began by seizing the US Arsenal at Mobile Bay.

2. Florida voted to secede on January 10, but already on January 6 it began by seizing the US Arsenal at Apalachicola.

3. Georgia voted to secede on January 19, waiting until January 22 before seizing Northern ships, then on January 24, the US Arsenal at Augusta.

4. Louisiana voted to secede on January 26, but already on January 10 began by seizing the US Arsenal and barracks at Baton Rouge.

5. Texas voters did not ratify secession until February 23, but already on February 16, Texas began by seizing the US Arsenal in San Antonio.

6. Arkansas voted to secede on May 6, but already on February 8 they began by seizing US Arsenal at Little Rock.

7. North Carolina voted to secede on May 20, but already on January 9, they began by seizing Federal Fort Johnson.

8. Missouri never did vote to secede, but on May 4 Confederates seized US ordnance stores in Kansas City.

These are only the first seizures of Federal property that I can find for each state.
Many others followed, some of them still before formal declarations of secession.

JCBreckenridge: "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."

From South Carolina's declaration of secession on December 20, 1860 until the Confederacy's Declaration of War on May 6, 1861 the Federal government "seized" nothing belonging to the Confederacy.
After the Confederacy declared war, and launched its forces into non-Confederate states and territories, then the Union responded by destroying the Confederacy.

What's your problem with that?

JCBreckenridge: "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."

Totally wrong. Lincoln took no aggressive military moves -- zero, zip, nada -- against the Confederacy until after the Confederacy declared war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.

JCBreckenridge: "Lincoln never fought over private property - he fought to subjugate the South."

After the Confederacy declared war on the United States, the Union fought to utterly destroy the Confederacy as a political and military force.

OK, this seems to be about a third of the way down your post, but will have to stop here.
Will pick up again as time permits with your complaints against John Brown's moldy corpse. ;-)

[rockrr]

And we’re only up to May 6, 1861. Nice job! ;-)

[BroJoeK]

Thanks. Btw sorry for the typo on those first electoral vote maps.
Those are obviously for the 1860 election, not as labled 1856.

***{1st test of post from new galaxy note}*** :-D

[Partisan Gunslinger]

Why would there be any doubt in your mind? Of course it was LBJ and J Edgar Hoover. Even a complete idiot can figure only those two could have pulled off the crime of the century.

It was done for the Domino Theory. All involved thought they were saving the US from the Soviet Union. It was a lot more than two guys cooking it up. LBJ and Bill Clinton are tied for the most corrupt presidents in US history, that came in handy in 1963 in LBJ's case when it was necessary to employ the lowest scum of society to take care of their problem.

They tricked Oswald to actually think he was an agent to end Castro's regime up until the very end when he realized there was a whole other operation going on and he was the patsy.

Oswald was a marine and deserves to have the facts looked at before the word "traitor" is directed his way. Even the House investigation concluded there was more than three shots. Again, search "Jim Braden".

[BroJoeK]

JCBreckenridge referring to John Brown: "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."

I'm certain that you well know: Harper's Ferry was not "Confederate territory" in 1859.
Indeed, on the border of West Virginia and Maryland, it remained Union territory except during interludes of Confederate army invasions, most notably in September 1862.

And, you have no evidence of Federal support for Brown, especially since between 1856 and his hanging in 1859, Southern and Dough-Faced Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, the Presidency, Supreme Court and military units lead by Robert E. Lee and Thomas Jackson.
So the Federal Government is blameless in this affair.

Yes, Brown did have northern financial supporters, most notoriously a group from Boston who became known as the "Secret Six".
After Brown's raid, the six were exposed, most had to flee to Canada to avoid arrest, one checked into an insane asylum and one soon died from tuberculosis.

Curiously, the Brown supporter who checked himself into the insane asylum -- his name was Gerrit Smith -- also in 1867 sent money to help post bail for another imprisoned luminary: Jefferson Davis.

Talk about crazy! ;-)

JCBreckenridge: "The confederacy never declared war on the United states."

Here yet again is the Confederacy's formal declaration of war.

JCBreckenridge: "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."

No Confederate soldier was killed directly by any Union force until after the Confederacy declared war, on May 6, 1861.
No Union force made any move to "invade" the South until after the Confederacy declared war.
Just as Lincoln had promised in his Inaugural speech on March 4, there could be no war unless the Confederacy started it, and that's just what they did.

JCBreckenridge: "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."

Just a few examples of the Confederacy's rush to war:

1. One day after Lincoln's election on November 6, 1860, South Carolina authorities arrested a Federal official they caught in the act of transferring military supplies from Charleston arsenal to Fort Moultrie.

2. Six days later, November 13, at a time when the entire US Army totaled around 17,000 troops, most scattered in posts out west, South Carolina's legislature authorized raising an army of 10,000 troops.

3. On December 27, seven days after declaring secession, South Carolina forces seized Federal Forts Moultrie and Castle Pinckney.

4. In the next several weeks, dozens of Federal properties were seized throughout the Confederacy.

5. On March 3, less than a month after taking office, and still a day before Lincoln's inauguration, Confederacy President Jefferson Davis ordered preparations to assault and seize Fort Sumter.

6. Three days later on March 6, while the US Army is still only 17,000 strong, still mostly scattered out west, the Confederate Congress authorized raising a 100,000 man army.

7. On April 6, President Lincoln informed South Carolina Governor Pickens of the coming resupply mission to Fort Sumter.
   Lincoln promised there would be no military reinforcements if the mission is not interfered with.

8. In response, the Confederacy immediately begins final preparations to assault and seize Fort Sumter.

9. The day following Fort Sumter's surrender to Confederate forces, President Lincoln announced a state of insurrection and called for 75,000 troops for three months to suppress it.
   At this point, Confederate forces still outnumber Union.

10. On April 23, before formally declaring war, Confederate President Davis offered aid to Confederate forces in Union Missouri.
    On the same day, still before formally declaring war, Union officers seized in San Antonio, Texas are treated as POWs.

11. On April 29, the Confederate Congress granted war-powers to Jefferson Davis.

12. On May 3, President Lincoln called for 42,000 three year volunteers, bringing the Union total to 156,000 soldiers.
    For the first time, at least on paper, the Union army outnumbered Confederates.
    But not for long...

13. On May 6, the Confederacy formally declares war on the United States, and three days later, Davis authorizes another 400,000 3-year Confederate soldiers.

14. On July 4, Lincoln asks Congress to authorize another 400,000 soldiers, thus matching Davis' request of May 6.

15. Finally, at the Battle of First Bull Run / Manassas, the two sides were evenly matched (18,000 actually engaged on each side) and suffered roughly the same numbers of casualties.

As for some of the other largest battles:

1. Bragg nearly matched Rosecrans at Stone's River in 1862, and outnumbered him at Chicamaugua, which Bragg won.

2. Lee was nearly always grossly outnumbered by Pope, Hooker, McClelland and Grant, but against Meade at Gettysburg, Lee's forces nearly matched him overall, and outnumbered the Union in some engagements.

JCBreckenridge: "Yes, it was very much a constitutional issue, revolving around the relationship between the federal government and the states."

Once the Confederacy formally declared war on the United States, all "constitutional issues" disappeared.

JCBreckenridge: "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."

Of couse, the Constitution itself says nothing about secession.
The Founders understood and expressed their Original Intent that secession was authorized by mutual consent or by, in effect, a material breech of contract.
Neither condition existed in early November 1860, when South Carolina first called for a secession convention.

JCBreckenridge: "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."

Lincoln chose to resupply Federal troops in Fort Sumter.
The Confederacy chose to use that as an excuse to start and then formally declare war.

JCBreckenridge: "Again, the Confederacy never engaged in war against the United States."

Once again, you've wandered into anti-historical fantasy land.

JCBreckenridge: "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."

No British fort in United States territory -- not one -- somehow magically became US property just because our Founders declared their independence.
Every British asset had to be taken by force of arms, and some were never taken -- i.e., those Great Lakes forts, some of which remained in British hands for another 30 years after the Revolutionary War formally ended.

JCBreckenridge: "The forts in the confederacy were confederate territory when the states seceded.
Union action to matinain the forts was an occupation of confederate territory."

Just as with those British forts, Federal forts in Confederate territory could become property of the Confederacy through negotiations or through war.
The Confederacy chose war, obviously because it would be much quicker and easier than spending months or years trying to negotiate a peaceful solution.

JCBreckenridge: "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."

The lessons of history are pretty clear: if you declare war on the United States, your life will not improve as a result.

JCBreckenridge: "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."

It is nearly always foolish to chose war when war is not necessary.
Nothing forced the Confederacy to seize Fort Sumter, or to formally declare war on the United States.

JCBreckenridge: "Sorry, you are right. It was not purchased. It was ceded to the US after the treaty of Ghent in 1814."

Sorry, but you are still confused.
What were then called the "Northwest Territories" included current states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin.
This area was assigned to the United States by the 1786 Treaty of Paris.
Some British forts in this territory were not finally evacuated until after the War of 1812.

JCBreckenridge: "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."

So the bottom line is: our Founders resolved a forts issue with the British through complex negotiations over a period of decades.
By contrast, the Confederacy tried to "resolve" its forts issues with the United States by first demanding surrender, and then starting war, all in a matter of weeks in 1860 & 1861.

JCBreckenridge referring to the fact that our Founders never declared war on Great Britain: "Bullshit. Got anymore fairy tales?"

OK FRiend, you're on: produce the alleged document where the Founders declared war on Britain.

JCBreckenridge: "It was never owned by the Union.
The Union did not build it or construct it."

Federal properties throughout the nation were built, paid for and Federally owned through funds appropriated by Congress from the Federal treasury.
Fort Sumter is especially interesting because it was built on seventy thousand tons of granite imported from New England to build up a sand bar in the entrance to Charleston Harbor.

JCBreckenridge: "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."

Utter nonsense.
From the beginning, slave-holding secessionists were the aggressors against the United States, aggression that neither Presidents Buchanan nor Lincoln seriously responded to until after the Confederacy took Fort Sumter and declared war on the United States.

JCBreckenridge: "Then why didn’t they ravage the North the way the North ravaged the South? They did not want war."

But of course, they did exactly that, and they did want war, as I've explained now in some detail.
During the war, especially in the beginning, the Confederacy-proper (11 states) invaded or had forces operating in every state and territory adjacent to the Confederacy, and some a considerable distance away.

JCBreckenridge: "Who said this? Davis? No. He believed they would lose."

So you accuse Confederate leaders of utter stupidity, to the point of insanity?
That they would start a war they expected to lose?
How crazy is that?

Of course, I agree: they were both stupid and insane, but naturally I wouldn't expect you to say such a thing.
I would have expected more respect from you for them.

JCBreckenridge: "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."

Once again you accuse the Confederate leadership of stupidity and insanity!
Frankly, I'm absolutely amazed to learn we share such opinions.
I would never have expected it.

JCBreckenridge: "We disagree, vehemently, on what constitutes confederate territory.
You don’t even believe that Virginia was confederate!"

Of course, the entire "Confederacy" was an unconstitutional and unlawful fiction, but I gladly set that aside for purposes of this discussion.

Factually speaking, the Confederacy-proper eventually consisted of 11 states which formally voted to secede and join.
This Confederacy-proper then immediately began claiming, invading, assaulting and occupying every Union state and territory adjacent to the Confederacy-proper.
Those are just facts.
And that's why the war began as a War of Confederate Aggression against the United States.

JCBreckenridge: "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."

Sorry, but that's false.
The Confederacy was always "on offense", where-ever when-ever it could be, even late in the war.
And early in the war it had the advantages of skilled leadership with highly motivated troops, resulting in unexpected victories.
As I've repeated now many times: Confederate aggression took its armies into every Union state and territory adjacent to the Confederacy-proper.

JCBreckenridge: "Antietam was fought on confederate territory..."

As explained now several times: neither Maryland nor any other state and territory adjacent to the Confederacy-proper ever formally voted to join the confederacy.
In Maryland's case, Unionists outnumbered Confederates by more than two to one, judging from military enlistments.

JCBreckenridge: "So you’re arguing that because the North invaded the South, the South never touched areas like New York? Thank you."

In fact, the Confederacy invaded every Union state and territory it could physically reach. Thank you.

JCBreckenridge: "Uh, BULLSHIT.
The draft riots were from Northern citizens who were upset that other northerners were buying their way out of the draft."

Then as now, New York had many citizens highly sympathetic to America's enemies.

JCBreckenridge: "Would Lincoln trade the state of New York for Fort Donaldson? No.
Then why would he expect the confederacy to do the same?"

At the time -- March 1861 -- Virginia had not voted to join the Confederacy, and seemed apparently inclined to stay in the Union.
Lincoln wanted assurances that Virginia would stay Union if / when push might come to shove.
Virginians would not provide such assurances, and indeed when the time came they quickly declared secession and joined Confederacy.

JCBreckenridge: "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."

As I've explained now at great length, your understandings of basic facts of history are deeply flawed.

JCBreckenridge: "The Union had already invaded the south prior to May 8th."

If you refer to Lincoln's resupply mission to Fort Sumter, that was in no sense an "invasion."
So what other "invasion" are you referring to?

JCBreckenridge: "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."

Actually, you've never referred to the date May 8 before, and since May 6, 1861 was the date of the Confederacy's declaration of war, I don't know why you do now.
Regardless, just what exactly is it you think you "went to great lengths" to show?

JCBreckenridge: "‘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."

No state or territory outside the "Confederacy-proper" ever passed a valid declaration of secession.
Yes, in several states and territories a few slave-holders got together over drinks and declared their secession, but none of them represented the states' voters.

And that will have to do it for tonight.
We seem to be about two-thirds of the way through your post.
Perhaps the next effort will complete it.

Looks like Maryland tops the list for next time. ;-)

[TBall]

Did Roberts make the top five?

[donmeaker]

“...As went Virginia, so went Lee”

Right up until the Confederacy asked for his services, then he was just fine with leaving the service of Virginia, and serving the pretended confederacy.

He applied for a pardon- indicating that he admitted his wrong.

[donmeaker]

I can show Lee honor in front of anyone except those who support treason.

They need us to show them that we know what they are about.

[donmeaker]

When it reached the Supreme Court, in Texas v. White, it was ruled that the southern legislatures did not have authority to secede, that therefore they had not.

Of course the southern slave power knew that there was no state legislature authority to secede with out cause. They knew their cause was wrong, but they thought they could win on the battlefield. That is why the hotheads fired on Ft Sumter. Because of that great wrong, put together with the other great wrongs of the southern slave power cause, some 40 regiments of southern men served in the Union army.

[BroJoeK]

BJK: "This area was assigned to the United States by the 1786 Treaty of Paris."

Sorry, yet another typo.
The Treaty of Paris ending the Revolutionary War was signed in 1783 -- about 30 years before those British-built forts in US Northwest Territory were all finally evacuated by the Brits.

[BroJoeK]

JCBreckenridge attempting to define the word "Confederacy": "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)..."

OK, let's talk about Maryland.

First of all, in 1860 Maryland had a population of 670,000 of whom 25% were black, but only half of those were slaves.
The other half were free blacks.
So Maryland was not your typical "slave state", it was a Border State.

Second, as judged by military service, Maryland Unionists outnumbered Confederates by more than two-to-one.
Unionists included its "Know-Nothing" party Governor, Thomas Hicks.

Third, Maryland assemblies voted twice against secession, and on no occasion voted to secede.

1. February 19, 1861 before Lincoln's inauguration Maryland's secession convention in Baltimore voted no secession at that time.

2. April 29, after Lincoln's inauguration and surrender of Fort Sumter, but still before the Confederacy's formal declaration of war on the United States, the Maryland state legislature meeting in Frederick, voted 53 to 13 for no new secession convention.

3. Five months later -- in September 1861 -- after the Confederacy's formal declaration of war on the United States, the constitutional issue of secession was settled, since legally advocating secession now fell under its definition of "treason":
   "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

   Accordingly, the Federal government had pro-Confederate legislators arrested in September, and Maryland's secession convention ended.

JCBreckenridge: "Missouri, where he invaded and crushed the secessionist legislature..."

OK, let's talk about Missouri.

Larger than Maryland, but comparable otherwise, Missouri's population in 1860 was 1.2 million, of which 10% were slaves.
But unlike Maryland, Missouri had no large numbers of free blacks -- only 3% of blacks were free.
Further, in Missouri slavery was generally unprofitable, and slave populations declining as a percent of the totals -- so, in over 85% of Missouri counties, farmers had no slaves.

A result was: like Maryland, Missouri's pro-Union population outnumbered its Confederates by more than two to one.

Like Maryland, Missouri never legitimately voted for secession.

1. March 22, 1861, after Lincoln's inauguration but before Fort Sumter's surrender, Missouri's elected secession convention, despite Governor's Jackson's efforts for the Confederacy, voted for no secession.

2. April 23, after Fort Sumter's surrender, but before formally declaring war on the United States, Jefferson Davis offers aid to Confederates in Missouri if they will attack and seize the arsenal in St. Louis.

3. July 22, 10 weeks after the Confederacy's formal declaration of war, Missouri's elected state convention voted overwhelmingly for the Union.

4. On October 30, a rump legislature (about 30%, less than quorum) in exile, illegally (according to Missouri law, never mind the US Constitution) passed and Governor Jackson signed a declaration of secession.
   The Missouri legislature was not legally authorized to declare secession, only the elected Secession Convention could do that, and it had already voted overwhelmingly for the Union.

JCBreckenridge: "Kentucky (where he violated the neutrality of Kentucky),"

OK, let's talk about Kentucky.

Like Maryland and Missouri, Kentucky was a Border State, with 20% slaves of its 1.2 million population.
And like other Border States, Kentucky was strongly anti-secession, providing well over two-to-one soldiers for the Union versus Confederacy.

In the 1860 elections, Kentucky voted for Tennessean John Bell's Constitutional Union candidacy, and in 1861 overwhelmingly voted out pro-secessionist candidates for the state legislature.
So Kentucky's General Assembly consistently voted against secession, beginning on December 27, 1860.
On May 20, 1861 they declared its "neutrality", which was actually respected by both sides until,
September 4, when Confederate General Leonidas Polk sent General Pillow to occupy Columbus, Kentucky.
Two days later Union General Grant occupied Peducah.

Now Confederate sympathizing Governor Magoffin wanted both sides condemned, but the pro-Union assembly refused, only condemning the Confederates and over-riding Magoffin's veto.
Magoffin eventually grew frustrated and resigned.

In the mean time, some miscellaneous unelected slave-holders got together at a bar in southwestern Russellville, on November 18, declared their "secession" and were recognized by the Confederacy on December 10.
Those Kentucky slave-holders were a political joke and had no effect on the course of events.

JCBreckenridge: "Kansas, which he unilaterally overrode the Senate to declare it a state despite lack of quorum."

Kansas is easily settled: your historical information about an alleged "lack of quorum" is simply false.
Kansas was admitted as a free state in January 1861, before most of the Deep South declared secession and their Congressmen had walked out.
And there could no "lack of quorum" even if those Deep-South Congress-gents had been unaccountably absent for the vote.

Indeed, this whole "lack of quorum" nonsense is actually a psychological "projection" by neo-Confederates of the true lack of quorum in declaring Missouri's secession.
Claiming that Kansas was admitted "without a quorum" simply provides them with psychological "balance" to the Missouri's true lack of quorum (yes, no extra charge for psychological services here ;-) )

JCBreckenridge: "I realize you don’t like this history, but it’s all true."

Sorry FRiend, but virtually nothing in your neo-Confederate mythology is historically factual.

JCBreckenridge: "So you don’t consider Stand Waitie a confederate general. Interesting."

Stand Waitie and many other Confederate officers, troops and irregulars operated in every Union state and territory adjacent to the Confederacy-proper, and in some areas quite far removed.

JCBreckenridge: "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."

The Confederacy-proper was a political reality based on actual votes (however constitutionally legitimate, or not) in eleven states.
Indeed, in some of those states -- Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Arkansas come to mind -- the governments went the extra mile in calling for voter referendums on secession.
Those are facts.
But it's also a fact that no such vote ever took place in any state outside the Confederacy-proper.

Indeed most of those states decidedly voted against secession -- more than once.
Nor was any United States territory (i.e., Oklahoma, New Mexico) legally authorized to vote themselves in-or-out of the Union, regardless of their sympathies.
So the Confederacy's invasions of those territories were all acts of aggression against the United States.

JCBreckenridge: "Why the qualifier? Legitimate or no, Missouri, Maryland, Kentucky, Arizona, New Mexico all voted to secede."

The states of Missouri, Maryland and Kentucky never voted to secede, period.
Whatever some drunken slave-holders got together and declared amongst themselves amounted to nothing legal in their states.

The United States territories of New Mexico and Arizona had no lawful authority to vote on secession, regardless of how "legitimate" those votes may-or-may-not have been.

JCBreckenridge: "And Stand Waitie was a Union General. I see. What other fiction have they taught you?"

Sorry FRiend, but you are the only one here just making stuff up out of thin air.
I have never claimed that "Stand Waitie was a Union General."

JCBreckenridge: "What, is that your opinion?
If the confederate claims are illegitimate than so are the claims of the north over southern territory."

"The North" made no "claims" over "southern territory".
Only the Confederacy made "claims" over every Union state and territory adjacent to the Confederacy-proper.

What the Union did was defeat the Confederate War of Aggression against the United States.

JCBreckenridge: "So, the citizens of the state did in fact vote to secede. Thank you."

Some rowdy & drunken slave-holders put their names on ridiculous documents which represented nothing legitimate except their own personal opinions.
Outside the Confederacy-proper, there was no -- zero, zip, nada -- legitimate vote to secede.

JCBreckenridge: "Bullshit. There were no battles faught on Colorado soil.
The closest they got was in Raton, where the confederacy was defeated."

Friend, the best I can do to improve your abysmal ignorance of true history is point you to it -- I can't force you to learn.
Here again is the history of Colorado in the Civil War.
If you read it, you'll see that, just as I've said, there were Confederate gorilla forces in operation there throughout most of the war.

JCBreckenridge: "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."

In fact, as I pointed out above, the Maryland state legislature in Frederick voted for the second time against secession, in April 1861.
At that time, no arrests had been made -- zero, zip, nada -- and that was before the Confederacy formally declared war on the United States.
After the Confederacy declared war, on May 6, 1861, the Federal government waited four months before arresting those legislators who supported the Confederacy.
Maryland's pro-Confederacy legislators were never the majority and never carried a vote for secession.

JCBreckenridge: "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."

No person in Delaware -- not one -- ever voted to secede from the United States.
So Delaware was never, in any sense "part of the confederacy".

Yes, Delaware did supply some troops to the Confederacy, but far fewer than to the Union.

JCBreckenridge: "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."

Neither Delaware nor any other Border State were ever "part of both."

In 1787, Delaware was the first state to ratify the US Constitution, and in 1861 it was the first state to reject the Confederacy.
So Delaware has never changed its mind about the United States.

JCBreckenridge: "Then why did he invade Kentucky after Kentucky declared themselves Neutral?"

Lincoln never "invaded" Kentucky.
In September 1861, Confederate Generals Polk, Pillow, Johnson & Buckner invaded Kentucky, were condemned by the Kentucky Assembly and ordered out again.
By contrast, the responding Union forces under Grant and Thomas were welcomed and supported.
Kentuckians who served in the Union army outnumbered those in the Confederate army several to one.
It was not even close.

JCBreckenridge: "Can and do, they are called states. The Union set fire to the constitution and declared it null and void."

If you form a political entity which declares war on the United States, you will no longer be fully protected by the Constitution's provision.
That's a fact.

JCBreckenridge: "Nope, it was Lincoln who occupied them and defeated the legitimate state government."

Only in your own fantasy history.
In actual true history, when push came to shove, in the summer of 1861, Kentucky chose the Union by very wide margins.

JCBreckenridge: "Gee, so they did vote and they did join. Thank you."

Sure, a few drunken slave-holders singing Dixie at a bar and signing their names to worthless pieces of paper.
The truth is, there was never a legitimate vote for secession in Missouri.

JCBreckenridge: "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."

Sorry FRiend, but you are simply psychologically "projecting" the real secession declaring "rump assembly" in Missouri onto the United States Congress -- and there's nothing factual about it.

The United States 36th Congress served from March 4, 1859 to March 4, 1861.
It voted to admit Kansas as a state on January 29, 1861.
Congress began with 303 total Congressmen and Senators.
It ended, after Confederate representatives walked out, with 265 or 87% of the total.
Since a "quorum" in Congress is defined as 51%, there was never a lack of quorum in the 36th Congress.

JCBreckenridge: "Lincoln had lots of unconstitutional tricks in his bag to get what he wanted."

Constitutional protections do not fully apply to political entities which declare war on the United States.
Indeed, the Constitution specifically defines such behavior as "treason".

JCBreckenridge: "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."

If you can find a quote where I claimed Manassas is in Maryland, I'll gladly correct it.
I've been to Manassas, know exactly were it is, and would not knowingly mis-identify its location.

Here's the key point: Manassas / Bull Run was the largest battle to that point, but there were several battles all across the country before it.
All occurred after the Confederacy's declaration of war on May 6, 1861.
They included:

1. June 1: Arlington Mills and Fairfax Court House, Virginia.

2. June 3: Philippi in western Virginia.

3. June 10: Big Bethel, Virginia

4. June 14: Seneca Falls, Maryland

5. June 16: Laurel Hill, western Virginia

6. June 17: Boonville, Missouri

7. June 19: Cole Camp, Missouri

8. June 26: Patterson Creek, Western Virginia

9. June 27: Mathias Point, Virginia

10. June 29: Harpers Ferry, Virginia

11. July 2: Hoke's Run, western Virginia

12. July 5: Carthage Missouri

13. July 7: Laurel Hill, western Virginia

14. July 8: Florida, Missouri

15. July 10: Rich Mountain & Beverly Western Virginia

16. July 13: Cricksford, western Virginia

OK, I think that'll have to do it.
This has been fun, but far more work than usual.

Hopefully our good moderators won't find all this so objectionable they delete it -- would just hate to have to do it over again... ;-)

[JCBreckenridge]

Yep, the problem is that the treaty gave the Brits time to evacuate the forts at their own discretion. That, plus they were supposed to negotiate with the native tribes and compensate them, rather than the US which didn’t want to have to deal with it. These deficiencies were addressed in 1816.

[BroJoeK]

BJK: "34th Congress 1855 to 1857, Democrats controlled Senate, coalition controlled House, pro-slavery Whig President Fillmore."

Sorry, yet another "typo" :-(

Should read:

34th Congress 1855 to 1857, Democrats controlled Senate, coalition controlled House, Democrat President Pierce.

[donmeaker]

The Confederates also invaded Vermont from Canada, raiding ane robbing a bank at St. Albans. Canada refused to treat the robbers as criminals because of a determination that they acted under military orders from the pretended confederacy, though Canada did return part of the money stolen. The unreturned funds appear to have been cached by the robbers before they got to Canada, so the robbers had a touch of ‘free enterprise’ to go along with their orders.

[BroJoeK]

donmeaker: "The Confederates also invaded Vermont from Canada..."

Interesting, I'll add that to my growing list of "Confederate attacks in states not directly adjacent to the Confederacy-proper".
So far I have California, Arizona, Colorado, Kansas and now Vermont.

I also question how many Confederate-sympathizers were involved in the New York City draft riots of 1863.
My reasons are: a) the number of blacks who were lynched -- what's up with that? plus b) the overall destruction seems more than the occasion itself called for, and c) strong pre-war commercial ties between NYC and the South, lots of people thrown out of work by the war.

Now, change history just a little bit, and put those NYC draft riots in the context of a Robert E. Lee victory at Gettysburg, imagine Lee has met his first objective and now sits encamped on the railroad junctions at Harrisburg, PA -- and don't things start to look pretty ugly?

I'm just saying... ;-)

[catfish1957]

I have read in a couple of places that if Lee had won Gettysburg, it was then to DC to negotiate a peace settlement, ending the war, and recognition of the CSA.

Whether that really would have happened, considering probable additional battles in PA, we will never know.