“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.