Posted on 01/11/2014 11:16:07 AM PST by Davy Buck
However if one truly wants to make such a big deal out of what we call the armed conflict which occurred in America from 1861 to 1865 , and if its historical accuracy and honesty that one truly seeks, then I think Douglas Southall Freeman is, perhaps, the truest to historical accuracy in coining the proper term . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...
I will argue under duress they(colonies) formed a "hang to together pact" in the face of war with GB. After the war, the English Crown recognized each individual colony as an independent state. It was in this environment the USC was ratified without the perpetual union non sense.
Well, under British law, they did not have a right to independence. But then again, the patriots of 1776 did not appeal to British law to justify their revolution. They cited Natural law as justification for rebelling as a last resort against intolerable oppression.
I have seen nothing in the words of the Southern rebels of 1861 that cites either Natural law (which they in fact rejected) as a justification nor claiming intolerable oppression as an excuse.
Lincoln had the legal right to free slaves in the Rebelling states via executive order as necessary in the conduct of the war. He had no such power in loyal states. To end slavery throughout the United States required a Constitutional amendment, which Lincoln supported and eventually got through Congress.
Analogies are always so troublesome because they are always so inexact. If my motorcycle was in your hotel room and you decided to take ownership of the room - including my motorcycle - do I have an obligation to surrender it? The answer would be no, unless you present a clear and present danger to my safety.
Sumter was built on ground ceded IN PERPETUITY to the federal government. The structure itself was paid for by federal monies. It did not belong to South Carolina. Even though it stood within the boundaries of the state it wasn’t state property before the insurrection and it wasn’t cornfederate property after the insurrection. Because it was seized as an act of war it was considered booty until the federal government reclaimed it.
Perhaps we should rightly call it the War of Southron Aggression.
That’s so inapt as to be ridiculous. The federal government wasn’t anything like what we have today. Yes, it did grow in response to the necessities of the war - but not comparable to the cobbled up government that the cornfederates put together. You want to see what Fascism looks like? Take a look at what jeff davis’s threw together.
Lees Army of Northern Virgina made it all the way north to Gettysburg PA. Seems to me he was planning on defeating the Union army, cut off Washington DC and maybe keeping heading east towards Philadelphia and then maybe on to New York and Boston. In any event had he prevailed at Gettysburg Jeff Davis would have been in a position to dictate terms to Lincoln. Sounds like a plan to control things to me Reb. And lets not forget 4/12/61 and who fired first.
Any port in a storm, eh cva? Do you understand the context of Spooner's declaration? He was furious because the federal government hadn't raised an army sooner and come south to lay it to waste. He was indifferent to the notion of unity or protecting the Union - he just wanted to see slavers persecuted. Does that really sound like an ally to your cause?
You can check out, and there are plenty of other hotels you can go to. What you can't do is just announce that half the hotel is now a different hotel and then start shooting when the management doesn't vacate all the rooms you've claimed.
It's nice to think that somehow the CSA or the antebellum US were just a bunch of anti-government guys who only wanted to do as they pleased before bad old Abe came along and made everything dictatorial, but they were governments (or aspired to be governments) and some who came under their own power had as many legitimate grievances as subjects ever do.
The bigger issue is being deprived of a vote in the Congress; see the linked articles [in the previous post] on the events surrounding the 14th Amendment, which is supported by congressional records.
How so? Plenty of immigrants went through Baltimore or New Orleans (as well as New York, Philadelphia, and Boston). Shipping companies decided that New York was the most convenient port, but I don't see that the federal government had anything to do with it.
There were also tariffs and laws to make it hard for southern states to ship their goods directly, requiring them to go through northern businesses.
That was more a matter of convenience for the parties involved. New York was a major shipping and financial center. If somebody had wanted to build Charleston or Wilmington or Savannah up to the same degree they had that option. As it was, New Orleans was the second busiest port in the country by 1850 -- fourth busiest in the world, by one account.
The industrialized and commercialized north had decided that the southern states were to remain poor and agricultural and to be subservient to them for finished and imported goods.
Well, no. Southern planters wanted to remain predominantly agricultural. They didn't want heavy industry or large cities which threatened social disruption. The planters and the Southern economy were riding high in the 1850s. That's why secession was so popular. Cotton was king and the plantation economy was seen as the wave of the future.
Planters were happy to remain rich and agricultural and "subservient" to Britain and Europe for finished goods. Look up Louis Wigfall's famous "We are a peculiar people" speech: "We want no manufactures: we desire no trading, no mechanical or manufacturing classes."
Study the timeline. The South fought south of the Potomac until Gettysburg. Gettysburg was a tactical move to get behind the union army, force it to surrender, and thus make the North leave the South the hell alone.
Had the Lincoln not wanted a war, there would have been no war. That is a simple, clear fact.
Nonsense. Federal property? There was no more federation that included South Carolina. You sound like an aggressive northerner. You sure do love the concept of that all powerful federal government.
FIFY
Note that the North had no more rightful claim to federal property than the South did. When you get divorced joint ownership ceases and property is divided. One spouse does not get to claim everything, just because it was once mutually owned.
Also note that the South didn’t attempt to garrison Northern forts or claim areas outside of the Confederacy.
Simply declaring themselves unilaterally disassociated from the union didn’t free them from their obligations or give them carte blanche to steal whatever they felt like stealing.
Unless or until legally resolved to mutual satisfaction the fort and the ground it say on belonged to the United States.
Lamer insults notwithstanding.
It wasn't the north that ran away.
Also note that the South didn’t attempt to garrison Northern forts or claim areas outside of the Confederacy.
Nonsense. The cornfederacy attempted to lay claim to property all across the southwest and up into the northwest territories.
Steal? Who says? Lincoln could have sent negotiators to decide how much of the standing navy, army, western lands, etc. rightfully was due to be turned over to the South (in addition to the obvious areas within their borders), but he wanted war. That’s aggression.
The slavers had no desire to negotiate - they were all about making belligerent demands. There was no reason why Lincoln should be compelled to negotiate - but he did try anyway. His attempts were rebuffed by the belligerents.
What about the battle of Antietam?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.