The Lincoln-Douglas debates took place in 1858.
During the election of 1860, Lincoln studiously avoided saying or doing anything, though he did refer people to his past speeches, especially those debates.
The 1860 Republican platform contained no language opposing slavery in the South.
So my point is: there were no agenda items announced by either Lincoln or Republicans in 1860 that might conceivably amount to a "material breech of contract" with slave-holders in South Carolina.
JCBrekenridge: "Save for the fact that the Republican platform sought to abolish slavery unilaterally, without the consent of the states."
Wrong. Here is the actual 1860 Republican platform.
Read it, you'll see it says no such a thing.
JCBrekenridge: "The only northern states to switch were Illinois, Indiana and Pennsylvania."
Those three states alone held 51 electoral votes which would have shifted victory from Republicans to Democrats.
Add in 39 more electoral votes from normally Democrat Southerns states of Virginia, Tennessee and Kentucky, and there was a potential for Democrat landslide.
My point is: so even if Democrats lost a Northern state in 1860, they might still have won the election, had they played their cards right.
JCBrekenridge: "So in all actuality, looking at just PA and IN, the Democrat vote dropped just 9k."
Which certainly tells us the election was closer-run than many people want to admit.
Surely a united party with effective leadership would easily have added 10% to their totals, thus carrying several states they actually lost.
JCBrekenridge: "The first democrat was Jackson - presidents prior to Jackson weren’t democrats.
Van Buren was a Whig, as were WHH, Tyler, Buchanan, Fillmore, and Taylor."
Sorry FRiend, but you are very confused.
Ask any Democrat and they will tell you Thomas Jefferson was their first Democrat President.
And it's true in a sense, since Republican lineage begins with Federalists Washington (1788) and John Adams (1796), continues through anti-Democrat Whigs Harrison (1840) and Taylor (1844) before the first true Republican, Lincoln (1860).
Every other president, without exception, was a Democrat, including Thomas Jefferson (1800), James Madison (1808), James Monroe (1816), John Quincy Adams (1824), Andrew Jackson (1828), Martin Van Buren (1836), James Polk (1844), Franklin Pierce (1852) and James Buchanan (1856).
Whig Presidents Tyler and Fillmore were never elected, they inherited the office on the deaths of Harrison and Taylor respectively.
My key point here is: these were all Democrats, all were either slave-holding Southerners or highly sympathetic "Dough-Faced" Northerners (i.e., Buchanan), and along with controlling the Presidency they also controlled Congress and the Supreme Court.
That's why Southern secessionists had no legitimate claim of "breech of contract" against the Federal Government: they were the Federal Government.
JCBrekenridge: "Bullshit. Your numbers are wrong."
Sorry, I can't explain why your referenced numbers are different from mine, but..., your numbers make my case even better than my own numbers do: your numbers show Democrats actually carried the popular vote by nearly 380,000 more than Lincoln's total.
That suggests victory was not so difficult, had the Dems just played their cards right.
JCBrekenridge: "So Lincoln started the war. Thank you."
No, the Confederacy started the war, and then quickly formally declared war on the United States. Thank you.
What outgoing President Buchanan did was refuse to give the Confederacy the excuse they wanted to go to war.
JCBrekenridge: "And Lincoln chose war."
No. Lincoln chose to resupply Fort Sumter.
The Confederacy chose to start war, and then formally declare it.
JCBrekenridge: "Violating the territory of a sovereign nation is an act of war."
No it isn't, and the perfect example, as I've mentioned before, is those British forts on US Great Lakes territory which were not negotiated away until after the War of 1812.
Those British forts sat there on US territory, and were routinely resupplied, for over 35 years without causing a war between the countries.
Why?? For the obvious reason that the United States chose not to make them a casus belli.
But in 1860 the Confederacy chose to make Fort Sumter's resupply a reason for war.
It was their choice, and they chose, well, unwisely.
JCBrekenridge: "After secession the fort was no longer federal territory."
No matter how many times you repeat that, it still is not true, in any sense, except if the Confederacy went to war to make it true, which of course is just what happened.
JCBrekenridge: "And the South did not want to be represented by a man who didn’t even run in their states.
Who can blame them for that? Lincoln didn’t need their participation.
So why should they be governed by him?"
FRiend, if you will just come out and confess the truth of your views -- that you loathe the Constitution, and hate its provisions for electing presidents -- then we will begin making serious progress here.
But as long as you continue to pretend that you love and respect our Constitution, while at the same time making statement like yours here, well, we're not getting anywhere.
JCBrekenridge: "Then why wasn’t Lincoln on the ballots in the South? He is running for president of the united states, not ‘president of the North’."
I can't actually say precisely why Southern states did not allow a "Black Republican" on their ballots, but it's not real hard to imagine reasons.
JCBrekenridge: "That’s not what you said earlier.
You said that the confederacy seized property in every state.
Now we get the truth -"
I'd say you're working real hard to misunderstand what should have been obvious, given its context.
JCBrekenridge: "And paid for by the South through their taxes and tariffs.
Did Lincoln compensate the South for the property in the North to which Southern tariffs contributed?
No? Then neither is the South compelled to do the same."
I've answered this before:
JCBrekenridge: "Bullshit. South Carolina invoked nullification against tariffs that Jackson imposed on her cotton industry."
I'll say it again: no state government ever paid a tax to the Federal Government.
Only individuals and businesses paid taxes, and no individual ever can reclaim their paid taxes when the renounce their citizenship.
Where would such a crazy idea come from?
JCBrekenridge: "And nor does Lincoln have the right to seize their assets and cut them off...."
"...And neither did the federal government have the power to seize property owned by the South."
Again, you're obviously confused.
Lincoln seized nothing.
Beginning in December 1860, months before Lincoln took office, secessionists unlawfully seized by force every Federal property they could get their hands on.
JCBrekenridge: "The South was provoked by an act of terrorism against her prior to the war, by John Brown, who was executed for killing 5 southern civilians.
Aided and abetted by the north who supplied him his guns and weaponry."
Since Brown was lawfully tried and executed for his crimes, in what possible sense is that a "provocation"?
JCBrekenridge referring to an alleged "declaration of war" against the Confederacy: "Yes, he did."
Of course, you know better than that.
The Union never formally declared war on the Confederacy, but the Confederacy did formally declare war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.
Further, in every step along the way in preparing for war -- for example, in raising large numbers of troops for war -- the Confederacy was always a step ahead of the Union.
JCBrekenridge: "The right of a state to secede was a constitutional issue."
Sure, but the "right" of secessionists to seize Federal property, fire on Federal officials and formally declare war on the United States is not a "constitutional issue".
It is expressly covered under the Constitution's provisions for dealing with rebellion, insurrection, "domestic violence" and those engaging in war against the United States.
JCBrekenridge: "Decided by Lincoln over the battlefield rather than through the court of public opinion and the state legislatures via constitutional amendment.
What is established through force cannot be upheld forever through force.
It has no legal legitimacy.
There were other options.
Lincoln did not choose them."
FRiend, I'm sorry to say it, but you have a serious problem with truth-telling.
You just can't seem to do it, the words won't come out of your mouth, will they?
Here is the truth-telling of it: every alleged "constitutional issue", without exception, was utterly negated once the Confederacy formally declared war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.
Why can't you admit that?
JCBrekenridge: "Lincoln had many choices.
He could have chosen to cede the fort."
Lincoln chose to enforce the laws and protect Federal property. The Confederacy chose war.
JCBrekenridge: "As soon as the state voted to leave the property in the state became the property of the state and not the federal government."
No law of the time or since specifies such a thing.
JCBrekenridge: " The federal government cannot keep bound the will of a people for liberty should they choose to leave."
But if those people then start and formally declare war on the United States, they will suffer grievously the consequences of their foolishness.
JCBrekenridge referring to Federal property changing ownership: "It does when the state elects new representatives and chooses to leave."
OK, FRiend, you're on: cite the law. Better yet, cite the Constitutional language.
JCBrekenridge: "The US never owned the great lakes territory until it was purchased from Great Britain after the revolutionary war."
Now you're just making stuff up.
The US never "purchased" great lakes territory from Great Britain (are you possibly thinking of the Louisiana Purchase?).
The "Northwest Territories" were included, along with the 13 previous colonies, in the 1783 Treaty of Paris.
In short, that territory was part of the United States from Day One, and British forts on American territory remained there for more than 30 years without causing a war.
JCBrekenridge: "The revolutionaries claimed ownership of British forts and bases all through the 13 colonies, on the same basis that the confederacy did the same."
Yes, we can find some interesting comparisons and contrasts between the Revolutionary war and the Civil War.
Neo-confederates such as yourself insist it's an exact match, but the truth is, there are far more differences than similarities.
In this particular example, remember our Founders never declared war on Great Britain, and remained open to a negotiated settlement until the end, when the Brits finally came around to settle.
JCBrekenridge: "The union had no right to violate confederate territory without permission."
The Confederacy had no lawful right to deny Union forces access to their property.
But whether a right or not, the Confederacy was utterly foolish to start a war they could not win.
JCBrekenridge: "Why would they want to pick a fight with the Union? They simply wanted their freedom."
Obviously not true.
Every step they made demonstrated how much the Confederacy was, as we might say it today, "cruisin' for a bruisin'".
Of course they believed they would win any test of arms, but they miscalculated.
JCBrekenridge: "Aggressive? Which is why they fought a 4 year defensive war against a foe with superior arms, manpower and resources?"
Which is why the Confederacy started the war, formally declared war and sent military forces to invade every state and territory adjacent to the Confederacy-proper, plus some a considerable distance away.
JCBrekenridge: "If the South were the aggressor, why is it we do not see New York city burning and the Ohio river destroyed? the North started the war, and at a cost of 750k men, finished it."
It takes a certain moral blindness to maintain in the face of all evidence to the contrary that "the North started the war", FRiend.
As for invading New York -- did you ever hear of the battles of Sharpsburg/Antietam and Gettysburg?
So Confederate military forces never reached New York city, however, Confederate sympathizers within New York did help burn a part of the city, in July 1863.
JCBrekenridge referring to Lincoln's March 1861 offer to surrender Fort Sumter, in exchange for Virginia remaining in the Union: "But he did not, when that choice was fully his.
He could have averted war.
He chose war over the alternatives that were available to him.
Lincoln was willing to give up something valuable -- Fort Sumter -- in exchange for something valuable, a guarantee of Virginia's loyalty to the Union.
But Virginia said "no deal", and so Lincoln decided to defend what the law and his oath of office required him to.
JCBrekenridge: "So you’re saying that destruction of property is ok when you do it. I see.
So Lincoln did not fight the war to ‘preserve property.’
He fought it to subjugate the South."
Tell us, please, what exactly is your problem with understanding the fact of a Confederate Declaration of War on the United States?
Why does the concept not sink in?
Why do you have no clue as to the consequences of such an act?
Why do you not comprehend that it makes all of your other arguments utter rubbish?
JCBrekenridge referring to the Confederacy's borders: "It included New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arizona, Missouri, West Virginia, Maryland and Kentucky at various points in time.
Kansas was disputed territory.
Colorado was not a state at the time.
Pennsylvania remains the only state of the Union that saw any fighting.
And they had one major battle, at Gettysburg."
Sorry FRiend, but that is just rubbish talk.
None of those states or territories were ever part of the Confederacy-proper, except maybe in somebody's meglomaniacial wet dreams.
The Confederacy-proper consisted of 11 states, period: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, North Carolina, Virginia, Arkansas and Tennessee.
No other state ever legitimately voted to join the Confederacy, and no territory could lawfully vote to leave the Union, nor did any.
JCBrekenridge: "Arizona was claimed by the south and voted to secede."
Confederate "claims" had no legal validity, none.
The territory of Arizona could not vote, and did not vote to secede.
Some slave-holders got together and declared their fantasy secession, but the territorial governor did not support them and helped organize opposition to the Confederacy's military invasions.
By war's end the legislature abolished slavery in Arizona and the state provided 8,000 troops for the Union Army.
So it was never a Confederate territory.
JCBrekenridge: "Kansas, like Kentucky, voted eventually to stay but was considered to be disputed territory."
Both Kansas and Kentucky were only disputed by invading Confederate forces.
Neither ever voted to join the Confederacy, both supplied large numbers of troops to the Union army.
JCBrekenridge: "Colorado was never touched.
The Confederates lost at Raton and never entered Colorado."
Colorado, like other areas, including even California, had gorilla forces operating with the intention of raiding and stealing supplies for the Confederacy.
These were generally not successful, but it wasn't for lack of trying.
JCBrekenridge: "When Maryland attempted to vote on secession, Lincoln had the legislature arrested.
Well, only the secessionists were elected."
Maryland never voted to secede, even when it easily could have, before Lincoln was inaugurated.
It's General Assembly's later resolution unanimously opposed secession, and the state supplied more than double the number of troops to the Union as the Confederacy.
Clearly, even though a slave state, Maryland was and remained by a large majority pro-Union.
JCBrekenridge: "Delaware was also occupied in the same fashion.
The opening salvos of the civil war was Lincoln’s occupation of the border states."
In fact, Delaware was the least slave of all slave states, and from the very beginning -- on January 3, 1861 -- voted against secession.
Like other border states, Delaware supplied far more troops to the Union than to the Confederacy.
Lincoln did not "occupy" Border States -- they were Union States subject to invasions and gorilla actions by Copperheads and Confederate armies.
Lincoln protected those states against the Confederacy's War of Aggression on the United States.
JCBrekenridge: "The constitution explicitly states that no state can be broken apart unless that state agrees to it.
West Virginia was illegally split from Virginia and was confederate territory."
Such constitutional provisions cannot possibly apply to political entities which have formally declared war on the United States.
Of course there was a Unionist government of Virginia, which did approve the formation of West Virginia.
JCBrekenridge: "Nonsense. After Maryland was occupied, Kentucky declared it’s neutrality and seceded from the Union to form the republic of Kentucky under Magoffin.
When Lincoln occupied it, it was brought back into the fold."
Once again, you don't know the real history.
Kentucky was solidly pro-Union from the beginning, and eventually supplied 60 regiments to the Union army versus nine to the Confederacy.
In free elections in 1861 pro-Confederate candidates were soundly defeated and the state legislature had veto-proof pro-Union majorities, to overrule Governor Magoffin's neutrality measures.
Kentucky's "neutrality" was violated first not by President Lincoln, but by invasions from Confederate armies in Tennessee.
These armies became the headquarters of the unelected "Confederate government" of Kentucky, and when those armies were defeated, Kentucky's "Confederate government" became non-functional.
JCBrekenridge: "Missouri voted to secede, and send ordinances of secession to the Union.
Missouri never voted to secede, a rump government in exile in Marshall, Texas, issued illegal orders of secession and joined the Confederacy.
That unlawful Confederate "government" did not actually governed any part of Missouri, and became irrelevant.
Missouri remained a Union state.
JCBrekenridge: "Kansas was never legally admitted into the Union until after the war."
Congress admitted Kansas to the Union as a Free State on January 29, 1861.
JCBrekenridge referring to the fact than no Confederate soldier was killed directly by any Union force before the Confederacy declared war on the United States: "Yes, they were, in Maryland."
No Confederate soldiers -- zero, zip, nada -- were killed directly (meaning in battle) by any Union force before May 6, 1861.
Yes, some Union soldiers did die at the hands of a pro-secession mob in Baltimore, but those were in no sense "Confederate soldiers".
JCBrekenridge claiming non-Confederate states voted to secede: "All of the ones you list did - save Kansas who was only admitted after the Southern Senators left - meaning that the bill admitting Kansas did not have quorum."
A few slave-holders gathering to issue ordinances of secession cannot possibly represent their entire states.
Listen carefully: in no state outside the Confederacy-proper was there any valid vote to secede or join the Confederacy.
As for your allegation of "no quorum" in Congress for admitting Kansas, well, first of all that's flat out false, since a quorum in Congress means half, and still well over half of Congress was there, including some Deep South representatives.
But more to the point, if those missing representatives were now citizens of "another country" then there was no Constitutional need for their presence anyway.
JCBrekenridge: "Gettysburg is the only time the South ever touched a Union state in four years of war."
Of course the Confederacy-proper itself was an unlawful, unconstitutional fiction, but to the degree it existed at all, it consisted of only 11 states, and that's it.
Everything else was Union country subject to frequent invasions by Confederate forces.
Pennsylvania alone was invaded three different times, in 1862, 1863 and 1864.
JCBrekenridge: "The union won the opening moves of the civil war by occupying Kansas, Missouri, New Mexico, Arizona, Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia and, most importantly, Kentucky. That’s 7 states right there."
All of those were Union states or territories protected by the Union army against frequent invasions by Confederate forces.
JCBrekenridge: "Uh, First Manassas was fought in July of 1861.
It was, by far the largest battle fought up to that time."
But every battle before Manassas was "the largest battle fought up to that time."
By the time of Manassas Confederate forces were on the move in many Union states and territories near the Confederacy-proper.
JCBrekenridge: "Seeing as you can’t get Manassas in the right state or year, your opinion has little merit."
FRiend, I know exactly when and where Manassas was fought, I've been there.
What made you suppose otherwise?
BJK: “Any actual list of names of Southern civilians killed by Union soldiers is minuscule to nonexistent.”
JCBrekenridge: "Bullshit."
OK, FRiend, you're on: produce the list.
I've never seen such a list, and every report I have seen of actual civilian deaths talks about one here or two there, always accidental due to stray musket balls striking civilians who happened to be too close to a battlefield.
I've never seen long lists of names of civilians such as exist for WWII of those "Civilian deaths due to military activity and crimes against humanity"
JCBrekenridge: "the Union really did try to devastate the south."
There is no disputing that fact, though the actual scale of destruction of property is not established.
My point of fact is: the numbers of civilians murdered by troops (Union or Confederate) by all lists I've seen are very small and amounts mostly to occasional accidents.
“The Lincoln-Douglas debates took place in 1858. During the election of 1860, Lincoln studiously avoided saying or doing anything, though he did refer people to his past speeches, especially those debates.”
Yeah, and? You think people were stupid back then? He was well known as an ardent abolitionist who was opposed to the Missouri Compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska act.
As for the 1860 platform of the Republican party:
“1. That the history of the nation during the last four years has fully established the propriety and necessity of the organization and perpetuaion of the Republican party and the causes which brought it into existence are permanent in their nature demand it’s peaceful and constitutional triump.
2. That the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence and embodied in teh Federal Constitution, that All Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights that among these are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers through the consent of the governed, is essential to the preservation of our Republican institution, and that the Federal Constitution, the Rights of the States and the Union of the States shall be preserved. “
Seems pretty clear to me. The republican party wanted to establish the right that all men are created equal constitutionally. It’s all right there.
Given that support of the north was sufficient to procure the constitutional change, the South had no choice once Lincoln won election on that platform.
“Those three states alone held 51 electoral votes which would have shifted victory from Republicans to Democrats.
Add in 39 more electoral votes from normally Democrat Southerns states of Virginia, Tennessee and Kentucky, and there was a potential for Democrat landslide.”
Uh, you need to start looking up the electoral map. VA, TN and KY were democrat in ‘56 and democrat in ‘60.
“Which certainly tells us the election was closer-run than many people want to admit.”
So you admit that there is no evidence of voter turnout suppression among the Democrats? Their vote share went down, even as their total votes went up.
“Surely a united party with effective leadership would easily have added 10% to their totals”
Why 10? Why not 20? 30? 55?
In your opinion only. You said that their vote totals dropped, and I showed that no, that wasn’t the case at all. Democrat voters increased in number from 1856 to 1860, and were flat even in the two states that flipped.
“Ask any Democrat and they will tell you Thomas Jefferson was their first Democrat President.”
And, they would be wrong. Jackson was the first democrat.
“Whig Presidents Tyler and Fillmore were never elected, they inherited the office on the deaths of Harrison and Taylor respectively.”
Doesn’t change the fact that Whig presidents can and were elected.
“and along with controlling the Presidency they also controlled Congress and the Supreme Court.”
*sigh*. Whigs controlled the presidency with Harrison/Tyler, Taylor/Fillmore.
From 1840-1860, they were in power for 8 years. Hardly shut out. From 1840 onwards, non democrat parties dominated.
As for congressional representation:
27th, 28th, 30th, 34th, 36th, that’s precisely half had non-democrat majorities.
“they were the Federal Government.”
Except for the other half the time when they weren’t the federal government.
“Sorry, I can’t explain why your referenced numbers are different from mine”
Obviously your unreferenced numbers are wrong.
“your numbers make my case even better than my own numbers do: your numbers show Democrats actually carried the popular vote by nearly 380,000 more than Lincoln’s total.”
So rather than admit that your numbers were garbage, now you’re using my numbers to prove your case. Sorry. Reread the numbers again - they show, decisively, why Lincoln won. He had the support of the north and that is all he needed. He didn’t need any southern representation or support to secure the presidency. Which is why he didn’t even show up on the ballot there.
“That suggests victory was not so difficult, had the Dems just played their cards right.”
Again, you’re ignoring the salient fact that Lincoln didn’t even run in the south. He didn’t bother.
“No, the Confederacy started the war, and then quickly formally declared war on the United States.”
What United States? The United States ceased to exist after the secession of the South. The Union declared war on the Confederacy, invaded the south and attemped to defeat the confederacy. They failed at 1st Manassas, and the Confederacy fought back to defend their territory for 4 years before their final defeat.
The united states were restored with the surrender of Davis and Lee at Appattomatox.
“What outgoing President Buchanan did was refuse to give the Confederacy the excuse they wanted to go to war.”
It’s called casus belli. When you try to ship munitions into the south against the desires of the south, then yes, you are declaring war. And that’s exactly what Lincoln chose to do.
“No. Lincoln chose to resupply Fort Sumter. “
Fort Sumpter was in Confederate territory. He had to enter Confederate territory to delivery munitions. By entering confederate territory, they were violating the jurisdiction of the South.
The Confederacy chose to start war, and then formally declare it.
“No it isn’t”
Yes, violation of the territory of a sovereign nation is an act of war.
“Those British forts sat there on US territory, and were routinely resupplied, for over 35 years without causing a war between the countries.”
Uh, one those forts weren’t in American territory. Two, they could be resupplied from Canada without crossing into American territory. Neither of which applied to Fort Sumpter.
“But in 1860 the Confederacy chose to make Fort Sumter’s resupply a reason for war.”
Ugh. 1861. If you can’t get the year straight then you aren’t going to get the rationale straight. The Union violated the territorial integrity of the south by shipping munitions into the territory of the South, without asking or gaining prior permission.
“It was their choice, and they chose, well, unwisely.”
Had Lincoln chosen to cede the fort then there would not have been any war.
“it still is not true”
As soon as the legislature of South Carolina voted to leave, then yes, it became the property of the state of South Carolina, and by extension the Confederacy.
, in any sense, except if the Confederacy went to war to make it true, which of course is just what happened.
“FRiend, if you will just come out and confess the truth of your views — that you loathe the Constitution, and hate its provisions for electing presidents — then we will begin making serious progress here.”
Where do I loathe the constitution? I loathe that Lincoln did not run in the South. The constitution only requires 50 percent plus one of the electoral college, and he was able to obtain that without running in the south.
Surely you can agree with me, that a president who refuses to even run in the South is telling them that he does not want their votes or their support in his administration. Do you think that it is healthy for the president to only represent 50 percent plus one and be elected on 39 percent of the popular vote? (which, BTW, is the lowest percentage of any president?)
39 percent is an indication that there are broad and deep divisions within the nation that were not going to be healed by Lincoln. Instead or reconciliation, he chose to rip them apart.
“I can’t actually say precisely why Southern states did not allow a “Black Republican” on their ballots, but it’s not real hard to imagine reasons.”
And those reasons being? You have been making the case that Lincoln was not known to be an abolitionist, and here you are arguing the opposite. His positions were very well known. He cannot be said to govern with the consent of the governed, in the South since he never sought their consent.
“I’d say you’re working real hard to misunderstand what should have been obvious, given its context.”
It’s not obvious, which is why I asked. If you meant only the states that seceded, then state just that. When you state ‘every state’, that’s going to get called out.
“Secessionists began seizing dozens of Federal properties in December 1860, three months before Lincoln became President.”
Insofar as that property was in southern territory it was never union property. It was no longer federal property once the states seceded.
“Secessionists made no efforts to wait until negotiations might settle such issues peacefully.”
Bullshit. The state legislatures issued ordinances of secession. Lincoln refused to negotiate. If Lincoln is unwilling to negotiate a peaceful resolution then the blame lies with him. He had other options, but chose not to exercise them in favor of war.
“Most important: when you renounce your citizenship, you never ever get your previously paid taxes back.”
Then the Union has no right to their property in the Confederacy. They have chosen not to become citizens of the Confederacy, ergo, they have lost their claims.
“I’ll say it again: no state government ever paid a tax to the Federal Government.”
And you have to read up on Nullification. Yes, states did pay taxes to the federal government. The reason these tariffs were so odious is that it was taxation on the South and only the south.
This is why South Carolina invoked nullification in the first place. Jackson, setting the precedent for Lincoln managed to negotiated a peaceful settlement in modifying the tariff. He didn’t declare war on South Carolina. He didn’t crush the state legislature under the power of the federal government. He negotiated, and he succeeded in doing what Lincoln could not.
“Where would such a crazy idea come from?”
Read what Calhoun has to say about that whole affair.
“Lincoln seized nothing.”
Yes, he seized everything he could possibly get his hands on to prevent it from going to the Confederacy.
“secessionists unlawfully seized by force every Federal property they could get their hands on.”
First, this didn’t happen until after the ordinances were filed, which happened in the Spring of 1861. Though seeing as you keep putting 1860 for 61, it’s understandable.
Two, they claimed only equipment within the borders of the confederacy, the same thing that the Union did in the North. Why could the union take control of things in the north, while the south could not do so in the south? If the north has the right to unilaterally seize forts for their own purpose, than the South has the right to do the same.
Three, not only did Lincoln claim northern war material, he invaded southern states in’61 and seized southern war material from these states. He did so, despite the concerns over property, because the greater good was to ‘prevent them from being used by the Confederacy.
Lincoln never fought over private property - he fought to subjugate the South. If it meant the destruction of private property, then that is what it took. Orders were given to Sheridan to devastate the Shenandoah in an effort to cripple Virginia. These are not the actions of the party with moral certitude. Lincoln may have believed that the ends justified the means, but committing atrocities will only further serve, as they have, to embitter the South.
“Since Brown was lawfully tried and executed for his crimes, in what possible sense is that a “provocation”?”
The fact that he was in Confederate territory and was gun running for the North in the first place. Those civilians never should have died, least of all at the hands of a terrorist supported by the federal government.
“The Union never formally declared war on the Confederacy, but the Confederacy did formally declare war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.”
The confederacy never declared war on the United states.
The Union had already launched their invasion of the South. The war was already on by this point. Lincoln did not believe in issuing a formal declaration of war - but he declared war through is actions.
“Further, in every step along the way in preparing for war for example, in raising large numbers of troops for war the Confederacy was always a step ahead of the Union.”
Which is why the Union army outnumbered the Confederates at 1st Manassas? Bullshit. The union never fought an engagement where they were outnumbered the entire war.
Where are you getting this stuff from?
“Sure, but the “right” of secessionists to seize Federal property,”
Property that was legally theirs after secession within the boundaries of the confederacy,
“fire on Federal officials”
Who had refused to peacefully leave Confederate territory.
“formally declare war on the United States”
They never formally declared war on the United States.
“is not a “constitutional issue”.”
Yes, it was very much a constitutional issue, revolving around the relationship between the federal government and the states.
“It is expressly covered under the Constitution’s provisions for dealing with rebellion”
The same Constitution which guarantees the right of the state to leave should the state be forced to do something contrary to the pact between the states. Which makes sense, unless you believe that the federal government should be able to override the states and strip them of their constitutional rights whenever it wants.
Like Lincoln did. Had Lincoln settled the issue peaceably, and constitutionally, the issue would have been resolved without bloodshed. But he chose to go to war.
“those engaging in war against the United States.”
Again, the Confederacy never engaged in war against the United States.
“every alleged “constitutional issue”, without exception, was utterly negated once the Confederacy formally declared war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.”
Absolutely not. Action in accordance with constitutional rights cannot be overridden through the use of force. At least not de jure. They can be overridden de-facto as they were by the end of the war.
In order to remove the constitutional right for a state to secede, Lincoln would have had to pass a constitutional amendment to do so. He did not. No such amendment abrogating the privileges of the states has ever been passed.
“Why can’t you admit that?”
Because it’s simply not true.
“Lincoln chose to enforce the laws and protect Federal property. The Confederacy chose war.”
And in doing so, became responsible in the death of 750 thousand americans? Was it worth it?
“No law of the time or since specifies such a thing.”
Why then did Washington do the same in the war of independence. Forts within American territory became the property of the United States, not that of Britain. Or do you not consider the continued presence of Brtiain in the United States in defending the forts an ‘occupation’? You can’t have it both ways.
The forts in the confederacy were confederate territory when the states seceded. Union action to matinain the forts was an occupation of confederate territory.
“But if those people then start and formally declare war on the United States, they will suffer grievously the consequences of their foolishness.”
Again, the will of the people for liberty cannot be quenched through force. They can try, but that will not extinguish it. They can hammer the south into pebbles, but they cannot quench this desire.
Was it foolishness that they stood up for themselves and for liberty against the North? Hardly. The union had no right to force them to stay against their will.
“The US never “purchased” great lakes territory from Great Britain (are you possibly thinking of the Louisiana Purchase?).”
Sorry, you are right. It was not purchased. It was ceded to the US after the treaty of Ghent in 1814.
“In short, that territory was part of the United States from Day One, and British forts on American territory remained there for more than 30 years without causing a war.”
Actually, the situation is very much more complicated than how you are portraying it. The territory wasn’t actually ceded in perpetuity to the US until Ghent. It was awarded by the Treaty of Paris, but ceded at Ghent. Britain didn’t control some of the territory, and some of the territory wasn’t known until later (which was the point of the Jay territory).
The British had to negotiate with the Native tribes first before the territory could be ceded over to the Americans. The treaty of Paris did not stipulate the cessation of the territory until the British were satisfied.
“Neo-confederates such as yourself insist it’s an exact match, but the truth is, there are far more differences than similarities.”
It is an exact match. Yankees can’t bear to be treated the same way that they treated the loyalists. Their cause was right and just and the cause of the South, by definition, cannot.
“remember our Founders never declared war on Great Britain”
Bullshit. Got anymore fairy tales?
“The Confederacy had no lawful right to deny Union forces access to their property.”
It was never owned by the Union. The Union did not build it or construct it.
“But whether a right or not, the Confederacy was utterly foolish to start a war they could not win.”
They were invaded by a superior power who sought to crush them. The South had no choice. They had to fight as best as they could as long as they could.
“Obviously not true.”
Then why didn’t they ravage the North the way the North ravaged the South? They did not want war. Are you assuming that they were stupid? Hardly so. If they were stupid, then why were they able to defeat the North and extend the war out to 4 years?
Was the North incompetent?
“Of course they believed they would win any test of arms”
Who said this? Davis? No. He believed they would lose. Jackson? No, he believed the same. Lee? No, he believed they would lose.
Give me one confederate general who believed they could defeat the union.
“Which is why the Confederacy started the war”
It makes no logical sense. It makes logical sense, that the Union, with the manpower, logistical and supply advantages to invade the South to crush them. And that is exactly what happened.
“territory adjacent to the Confederacy-proper, plus some a considerable distance away.”
We disagree, vehemently, on what constitutes confederate territory. You don’t even believe that Virginia was confederate!
“It takes a certain moral blindness”
Facts are facts. The North invaded the South, and the South fought a 4 year defensive war. You might not like that but it’s the truth.
“As for invading New York — did you ever hear of the battles of Sharpsburg/Antietam and Gettysburg?”
What about them? Antietam was fought on confederate territory, in Maryland and Gettsburg in southern Pennsylvania, the only invasion the North ever suffered.
So you’re arguing that because the North invaded the South, the South never touched areas like New York? Thank you.
“however, Confederate sympathizers within New York did help burn a part of the city, in July 1863.”
Uh, BULLSHIT. The draft riots were from Northern citizens who were upset that other northerners were buying their way out of the draft. The draft riots had nothing to do with the South, and everything to do with Northern corruption.
“Lincoln’s March 1861 offer to surrender Fort Sumter, in exchange for Virginia remaining in the Union”
Would Lincoln trade the state of New York for Fort Donaldson? No. Then why would he expect the confederacy to do the same?
“Tell us, please, what exactly is your problem with understanding the fact of a Confederate Declaration of War on the United States?”
Because the Confederacy never declared war on the United States. They couldn’t. After the secession of the Confederacy, the United States no longer existed as a legal entity. The Union did exist, and because the Union won the war, the United States was restored at the end of the war.
“Why do you have no clue as to the consequences of such an act?”
Because it’s not sinking in with you the actual facts of the diplomatic relations. The Union had already invaded the south prior to May 8th.
“Why do you not comprehend that it makes all of your other arguments utter rubbish?”
Which is why you are clinging to pure fantasy. Fact of the matter was, the was was already on by May 8th, and I went to great lengths in the previous post to show why this was the case.
“None of those states or territories were ever part of the Confederacy-proper”
And there we go again. ‘Confederacy-proper’. That’s a qualifier. I am not using a qualifier. I am including all the states and territories that at some point after South Carolina seceded, passed an ordinance of secession in the state legislature.
That is an empirical definition. Yes, it includes states like Maryland who Lincoln suppressed the legislature by illegally arresting the secessionists (and only the secessionists), Missouri, where he invaded and crushed the secessionist legislature, Kentucky (where he violated the neutrality of Kentucky), Kansas, which he unilaterally overrode the Senate to declare it a state despite lack of quorum.
Lincoln didn’t care very much about the rights of the states. He did everything he could to suppress them and their right to leave. He abused the power of the federal government in all of these instances to overcome secessionist votes that seceded or to prevent votes from even taking place.
I realize you don’t like this history, but it’s all true. Lincoln did all of these things in 1861. He justified saying that it was for the greater good.
“The Confederacy-proper consisted of 11 states, period: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, North Carolina, Virginia, Arkansas and Tennessee.”
So you don’t consider Stand Waitie a confederate general. Interesting.
“No other state ever legitimately voted to join the Confederacy”
Since you don’t accept that any state could legitimately vote to join the confederacy and leave the union then the number of ‘real confederate states’, is exactly zero.
Why the qualifier? Legitimate or no, Missouri, Maryland, Kentucky, Arizona, New Mexico all voted to secede.
“and no territory could lawfully vote to leave the Union, nor did any.”
And Stand Waitie was a Union General. I see. What other fiction have they taught you?
“Confederate “claims” had no legal validity, none.”
What, is that your opinion? If the confederate claims are illegitimate than so are the claims of the north over southern territory.
“Some slave-holders got together and declared their fantasy secession”
So, the citizens of the state did in fact vote to secede. Thank you.
“So it was never a Confederate territory.”
Except for that nasty little business of an actually voting for secession. ;) Odd that.
“Both Kansas and Kentucky were only disputed by invading Confederate forces.”
Kansas was admitted without quorum in the Senate as a state.
Kentucky declared itself neutral. Lincoln invaded the state to conquer it in 1861, and defeated the Kentuckian forces.
“Colorado, like other areas, including even California, had gorilla forces operating with the intention of raiding and stealing supplies for the Confederacy.”
Bullshit. There were no battles faught on Colorado soil. The closest they got was in Raton, where the confederacy was defeated.
“Maryland never voted to secede, even when it easily could have, before Lincoln was inaugurated.”
Then why did Lincoln have the secessionists arrested when they tried to vote? That’s a violation of the rights of the state of Maryland.
“Like other border states, Delaware supplied far more troops to the Union than to the Confederacy.”
So, why does that matter? Just because some people in the state fought for the union doesn’t mean that the state wasn’t at one point, part of the confederacy.
This is why the whole term of the border states came about. Delaware is a border state, just like all the other states you are arguing against, because it was part of both.
“Lincoln did not “occupy” Border States — they were Union States”
Then why did he invade Kentucky after Kentucky declared themselves Neutral?
“Lincoln protected those states against the Confederacy’s War of Aggression on the United States.”
I’m sure he did. Did he ask for their lunch money to pay for the ‘protection’.
“Such constitutional provisions cannot possibly apply to political entities which have formally declared war on the United States.”
Can and do, they are called states. The Union set fire to the constitution and declared it null and void. They were willing to do whatever it took to win, constitutional or no. They won, but at terrible cost, not just in men, but in the actual constitution.
Today that results in the federal government telling we the people that we have to buy contraception and we have to pay for abortion.
Was it really worth 750k Americans for this ‘liberty’?
“Kentucky was solidly pro-Union from the beginning”
Then why was Kentucky Neutral, and why did Lincoln invade Kentucky and violate their neutrality?
“Kentucky’s “neutrality” was violated first not by President Lincoln, but by invasions from Confederate armies in Tennessee.”
Nope, it was Lincoln who occupied them and defeated the legitimate state government.
“Missouri never voted to secede, a rump government in exile in Marshall, Texas, issued illegal orders of secession and joined the Confederacy.”
Gee, so they did vote and they did join. Thank you.
“As for your allegation of “no quorum” in Congress for admitting Kansas, well, first of all that’s flat out false.”
There was no quorum. Statehood had been brought up before the Senate and rejected. The rump Senate brought it up again without legal quorum, and passed what had been legally rejected prior.
Ergo, Kansas was not legitimately a state until after 1865.
“Of course the Confederacy-proper itself was an unlawful, unconstitutional fiction”,
Well of course it was - there we have it. That ‘fiction’ was why Lincoln crushed them in 1861 and the boys were home by Christmas. ;)
“All of those were Union states or territories protected by the Union army against frequent invasions by Confederate forces.”
Lincoln invaded all of them successfully in the opening salvos of the war, either through troops (Arizona and New Mexico, Kentucky, Missouri), through suppressing the legislature and arresting legal state representatives (Maryland), unconstitutionally splitting a state and backing it up with an occupation, (west virginia).
Lincoln had lots of unconstitutional tricks in his bag to get what he wanted.
“But every battle before Manassas was “the largest battle fought up to that time.”
Great we have a bullshit comedian. 1st Manassas, fought in 1861 in Virginia, not 1860 in Maryland, was the first significant battle of the war with armies of more than several thousand.
This is basic, basic civil war facts. It was an invasion of the south in an attempt to end the war quickly.
“FRiend, I know exactly when and where Manassas was fought, I’ve been there.”
Because you stated that it wasn’t in confederate territory and that it took place in 1860. Neither of which is true.