Targeting Lost Causers

Old Virginia Blog ^ | 06/09/2009 | Richard Williams

[Davy Buck]

My oh my, what would the critics, the Civil War publications, publishers, and bloggers do if it weren't for the bad boys of the Confederacy and those who study them and also those who wish to honor their ancestors who fought for the Confederacy?

[BroJoeK]

from 1,887 DM: "You offered......."I doubt if it's fair to say that either North or South "needed" the other economically".

DM: "Of course you know the story about the talk of the city of New York joining in the secession..."

The correct quote, from 1,871 is:

"I doubt if it's fair to say that either North or South "needed" the other economically in the same way that, for example, today the world "needs" Mideastern oil. Both could turn to other customers and other sources of supply, though no doubt at less profit."

The proof of my statement is that for four years, the North was able to supply for itself all of the requirements of a vastly expensive Civil War without the benefits of Southern raw materials.

The South, of course, was not able to keep up. But let me just hazard a guess, which you are free to dispute if you can. Despite the effects of the Union naval blockade, I'll bet that Southern manufacturing in 1864 was considerably increased over 1860.

Point is, North and South could, if necessary, get along economically without each other, though no doubt economics was a strong motivator on both sides.

[BroJoeK]

from 1,902 rustbucket: "Old Fort Kearney wasn't in Texas. Here is a record of Old Fort Kearney being taken and retaken from an 1861 New York Times article. [Link] This is apparently the same incident I reported on above from a different newspaper."

The article references Nebraska City and "Old Fort" Kearney. Kearney and Nebraska City are both in Nebraska, not exactly a central theater of the Civil War.

Your point was that, in addition to the four forts selected by President Buchanan in 1861 to defend against Southern seizures -- Forts Pickens, Jefferson, Tyler and Sumter -- there may have been a fifth, "Old Fort Kearney."

I doubt if events at Old Fort Kearney represented anything other than exuberance of the fort's commander. At the time, some Nebraskans owned slaves, but it was a Union territory, and sent three regiments of cavalry to support the Union war effort.

[BroJoeK]

from 1,908 PeaRidge referring to 1,891:
"I do not see anything in your last post to me worth any commentary."

I take this to mean we agree. Have a great day! :-)

[BroJoeK]

from 1,909 PeaRidge referring to 1,893:
"Ditto on this post. You can do a google search and find the source you asked for."

I take this to mean we agree on my points, and that your alleged "quote" from Lincoln is nothing more than fabricated secessionist propaganda.

Have a great day! :-)

[rustbucket]

Here are two explanations of "Old Fort Kearney," which was apparently on the Missouri River, and Fort Kearney on the Platte River. Sounds like Old Fort Kearney had been abandoned in the 1840s: Old Fort Kearney vs Fort Kearney and Nebraska history.

[BroJoeK]

from 1,921 WIJG responding to BJK's remarks in 1,899: "As I have noted previously, if State secession was constitutional, then "insurrection" never occurred. But please feel free to explain to us - once a State had withdrawn from the union (secession), how could any action it took be considered "insurrection?"

"In fact, your (many & varied) arguments are self-contradictory..."

Sorry pal, but I think your arguments are a disgrace to the name you chose as your moniker: "John Galt." You need to pick out a more appropriate name for that mixture of insults and ridiculous nonsense you've been posting.

Let's see, Stand Waitie is appropriate for the Cherokee Colonel who fought with Confederate General van Dorn at Pea Ridge, Arkansas (March 6-8, 1862). Since Stand Waite and Pea Ridge are already taken, you could pick another Southern leader there -- how about Sterling Price, or the Texan Ben McCulloch, or that other Cherokee regiment commander, Albert Pike?

Any of those would be far more appropriate than disgracing the good name of "John Galt" with your ridiculous nonsense.

But I digress... ;-)

"Care to provide any citation from the Constitution, or the Federalist Papers, or the federal or State conventions, declaring that powers not even mentioned by the Constitution were somehow magically delegated to the federal government?

"Of course not. Your argument is simply not consistent with recorded history."

I'll repeat the historical facts & argument:
There is no discussion in any of those documents that I've ever found of such terms as "unilateral secession" or "unapproved withdrawal from the union."
But to suggest that, therefore, these are approved as "constitutional" is equivalent to saying "unprovoked murder of federal troops" is also approved, since that is also not mentioned.

But what those documents DO ENUMERATE are lawful methods for amending the Constitution -- methods which do NOT include secession. Also ENUMERATED are such definitely illegal / unconstitutional activities as, "insurrection," "rebellion," "domestic violence," "invasion" and "treason."

Article 1, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To... "To declare War,...To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;..."

Note: it's Congress, not the States, which declares war. Also note, the purpose of a "Militia" to "suppress Insurrections" is ENUMERATED even before "and repel Invasions."

Indeed, Constitutionally, the "Militia" can be used to enforce Federal laws. Did the South break NO Federal laws in seizing dozens of Federal forts, arsenals, customs houses and ships?

I'll say again the simple historical truth: there was no Civil War as a result of just States declaring "secession." The war itself only started when the South added Insurrections, Rebellion, "Domestic Violence" and Invasions of Federal Property.

Indeed, that first attack on Fort Sumter could, for sake of argument, be considered either an act of Insurrection as President Lincoln and Congress termed it, or it might be called an act of War, as the Confederate Congress and President insisted.

Either way, the issue was then to be settled by War, and not by legal methods spelled out in the US Constitution.

[BroJoeK]

from 1,925 thatdewd responding to 582:
"."(Ward Churchill, "A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the Present," City Lights Books, (1998))"

OMG! No Way, Deeeeeewwwwwwwwwd!!! You are NOT going to come on Free Republic and quote to me WARD F*****G CHURCHILL as your AUTHORITY for historical "facts." That cannot happen. GO TO YOUR ROOM. CLOSE THE DOOR. NO COMPUTER. YOU ARE GROUNDED FOR A MONTH. GO NOW.

:-)

While you're there, I'll give you one pass. Go to your library, and look up the history, take a piece of paper, and count them up, one by one:

• How many innocent white women and children were murdered by Indian warriors.
• How many innocent Indian women and children were murdered by white soldiers.
• How many Indians of any kind were murdered by white soldiers while OFF their reservations.
• What percentage of Indians who did NOT fight against Federal forces died of ANY unnatural cause?

Look pal, if you want to argue that Native Americans were sometimes badly mistreated, you'll get no debate from me. But if you want to compare what Americans did, to the Nazi Holocaust, then you clearly have NO UNDERSTANDING of what the real Holocaust was all about.

When you finish your homework, you can come out of your room. ;-)

[BroJoeK]

from 1,930 on the subject of US Army POWs in Texas, circa April 1861:
"Judge Garrison issued the writ, but as far as I know was powerless to enforce it against the army."

The usual method, especially in the beginning, was to hold POWs until they could be exchanged for captives held by the other side. As there were soon many captures on both sides, it was often not a long wait. Later on in the war, things changed drastically.

[BroJoeK]

from 2,020 rustbucket responding to 2,010:
"Van Tyne describes the instructions to the delegates from their various home states/conventions. They are revealing and not what one would expect if the Continental Congresses were more than simple defensive and diplomatic leagues. Here's a link. [Van Tyne] "

quoting from your link: "It is manifestly wrong, therefore, to look at the First Continental Congress as:

• coming together because of a national feeling,
• because of a desire to form a national state,
• and therfore to ascribe to it governmental powers.

"It was called because a joint appeal for relief would naturally be more effective than any single petition."

And yet, those first reasons were exactly how many deligates to the First Continental Congress of 1774 felt -- most notably the "Father of the Revolution," Boston's beer maker Saumuel Adams, close relation to revolutionary leader and future Presidents John Adams.

Obviously, as you argue, the First Continental Congress did not amount to very much -- just as, perhaps, the first few cells after conception "don't amount to much." But they arguably helped make the colonies "pregnant," with ideas of Revolution -- ideas which within just a few months broke out in War against the Evil Empire...

[BroJoeK]

from 2021 rustbucket responding to 2010:
"You will note that "We the People" did not ratify the Constitution, but the individual states did in their separate ratifying conventions. The "lumpen" people did not form the Union or ratify the Constitution."

True, but only up to a point. Both the Declaration -- "We hold these thruths to be self-evident that all men are created equal..." and the Constitution "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union..." both were written in the names of -- and appealed for support to -- all Americans, not just the Congress or of the States.

And all Americans eventually responded -- indeed, if you look at the percentages, nearly half as many Americans served & died voluntarily in the Revolutionary War as conscripted Southerners served and died in the Civil War. Think about that...

"That makes a total of seven states, a majority of the then Union. More states than that eventually ratified the Tenth Amendment."

Just so we're clear here, I don't dispute the 10th Amendment in any way, except the claim by secessionists that it somehow provides a "get out of Union free card," to any state whenever it wakes up in the morning with political PMS. ;-)

Sorry, pal, but I just don't buy that, for reasons which we've reviewed here time and again...

[BroJoeK]

from 2,048 WIJG referring to 2,045:
"The US Constitution says "three fourths," not "all parties." Read the Constitution some time, you freaking idiot. And if Mr. Lincoln actually stated what you claimed he stated (which is highly doubtful, in my opinion), then he was just as ignorant - and as big a liar - as you..."

I just love it when people go nuts. Most entertaining. Sadly, it means you've lost what little power of logical thought you may have had, and you again disgrace the name of "John Galt," but, such is life... :-(

Lincoln's First Inaugural Address:

"...Again, if the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade, by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it -- break it, so to speak; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?..."

Of course, Lincoln knew very well the US Constitution does not require ALL parties to make a change. But it does require 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states. So, how many of those approved the South's secession in 1861?

[BroJoeK]

from 2,053 rustbucket referring to 2,042, quoting Capt. Baron:

"I understand that some of the forces which have assembled here from other States will in a short time return to their homes, in consequence of the armistice established by these papers."

Again, I question the word "armistice" in this context.
Suppose we use your more colorful example: a gang of armed "pirates" shows up at your house one day, a house which has been in your "family" for now "four score and seven years." The pirates claim it's no longer your house, and you must evacuate immediately.

So, legally, how valid is ANY agreement you might make with these pirates? Can they later take you to court and claim you somehow didn't live up to some provision of your "agreement"? I don't think so. But this is exactly the situation at places like Forts Pickens and Sumter.

"The South offered to negotiate for a fair compensation for the forts, armories, etc., in their territory and a division of the public debt and property."

Not really. First of all, what they offered to discuss was only those matters which might be of interest to themselves. But more important, it was a totally desultory and perfunctory exercise, when you consider that:

• In 1757 Benjamin Franklin was first sent as Pennsylvania's representative to the British government for the purpose of negotiating grievances. He was there 18 YEARS before returning in in frustration in May 1775, just as the Revolution started.

• After the Battle of Yorktown in 1781 it took Franklin two more YEARS to negotiate the Treaty of Paris, 1783, which supposedly withdrew British forces in the US.

• Even then, Brits kept their forts in the "Northwest Territories" (Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin) until the Jay Treaty of 1794 -- 13 YEARS after Yorktown.

• And even THEN, according to this article:
  "Britain ceded the area north of the Ohio River and west of the Appalachians to the United States at the end of the American Revolutionary War with the Treaty of Paris (1783), but the British continued to maintain a presence in the region as late as 1815, the end of the War of 1812."
  That's 34 YEARS after the Revolution, Brits still occupied US territory.

So the whole idea that Confederate representatives got mad and went home after just a few WEEKS in 1861 -- it's ludicrous to suggest they made any kind of serious effort at peacekeeping.

[BroJoeK]

from 2,065 rustbucket referring to :
"Here are two explanations of "Old Fort Kearney," which was apparently on the Missouri River, and Fort Kearney on the Platte River..."

Obviously, we are talking about a Fort in Nebraska which, unlike Pickens, Taylor, Jefferson and Sumter, play no major role in the Civil War.

[BroJoeK]

BJK from 2067: "How many Indians of any kind were murdered by white soldiers while OFF their reservations."

Sorry, typo, should read: "How many Indians of any kind were murdered by white soldiers while ON their reservations?"

[BroJoeK]

from 2,054 DM to NS:
"It appears that you no longer are attempting to refute the presence of the Revenue Cutter ‘Harriet Lane’ on the evening of April 11, or that she fired at the civilian steamer ‘Nashville’, attempting its regularly scheduled landing at Charleston, or the fact that that ship and others like her anchored off the entrance to the harbor due to the presence of a hostile Union naval flotilla."

Basic facts about Harriet Lane seem pretty clear:

"She departed New York 8 April and arrived off Charleston 11 April.

"The next day she fired a shot across the bow of United States Mail Steamer Nashville on her monthly route from New York with passengers and merchandise to Charleston,[2][3][4] when that merchantman appeared with no colors flying.

"Nashville avoided further attack by promptly hoisting the United States ensign.

"When Major Robert Anderson surrendered Fort Sumter 13 April, USRC Harriet Lane withdrew with her sister ships.

"According to Captain H. D. Smith, Lieutenant W. D. Thompson fired the first naval shot of the Civil with the thirty-two pounder he commanded on the deck of the USRC Harriet Lane at the [United States Mail Steamer] Nashville"

That a shot was fired by Harriet Lane is not in dispute.
That it was the first shot of the war is ludicrous, especially since at the time, the Nashville was still a Union ship. The Nashville did not first become a Confederate blockade runner until some days later.

So, it was a Union on Union action, having NOTHING TO DO with the Civil War.

[rustbucket]

That it was the first shot of the war is ludicrous, especially since at the time, the Nashville was still a Union ship.

Not for long. Link

April 14.--From 4 to 8 a. m.: ... The steamer Nashville ran in for the harbor and when near hoisted the Palmetto flag.

Some sources say the Confederates seized her. In any event the Confederates paid the owners $100,000 for her.

[rustbucket]

Just so we're clear here, I don't dispute the 10th Amendment in any way, except the claim by secessionists that it somehow provides a "get out of Union free card," to any state whenever it wakes up in the morning with political PMS. ;-)

Sorry, pal, but I just don't buy that, for reasons which we've reviewed here time and again...

Conventions that ratified the Constitution said their state could reassume their own governance and people such as John Marshall said during ratification that "does not a power remain till it is given away?" This was at a time when the states were exercising their power to secede from the Union set up by the Articles of Confederation. Where in the Constitution was the power to secede surrendered by the states?

Surely you can understand why I trust what the ratifiers said more than I trust your unsubstantiated assertions.

We hold these thruths to be self-evident that all men are created equal..

That is a noble and great statement by Thomas Jefferson, and one I believe in. All men should indeed be equal before the law and have equal rights. But most people forget that the Declaration also says this about the king: "He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us." This refers to Lord Dunmore's Proclamation:

And I hereby further declare all indented servants, Negroes, or others (appertaining to Rebels) free, that are able and willing to bear arms, they joining His Majesty's Troops, as soon as may be, for the more speedily reducing the Colony to a proper sense of their duty, to this Majesty's crown and dignity.

In other words, the Declaration says in essence that all men are created equal but leave our slaves alone.

[Non-Sequitur]

Some sources say the Confederates seized her. In any event the Confederates paid the owners $100,000 for her.

If true then that's one of the only times I'm aware of that the confederates paid for any of the property they stole.

[BroJoeK]

from 2,067 BJK: "WARD F*****G CHURCHILL"

Sorry, another unfortunate typo, that should read:

"WARD F******G CHURCHILL" (didn't intend to curse) ;-)

[rustbucket]

If true then that's one of the only times I'm aware of that the confederates paid for any of the property they stole.

There are sites on the web that mention the $100,000 payment for the ship. From the following site [Link]:

Witnessing the surrender of the Fort and the lowering of the U.S. flag, the Nashville was immediately involved in the conflict. In early May, 1861 her owners communicated their intent to the new Confederate government to outfit the ship as a privateer. However, the Confederate government had plans of its own. Needing a fast vessel to bring needed supplies from England and possibly transport Confederate Commissioners to England, the new nation authorized the purchase of the vessel for $100,000.

Teddy Roosevelt's uncle, James D. Bulloch, whose job it was to procure and equip cruisers for the Confederates in Europe, also states that the Nashville was purchased in his book, "The Secret Service of the Confederate States in Europe, or How the Confederate Cruisers Were Equipped."

I know that Confederate troops sometimes paid for what they took, typically in Confederate money.

Receipts were issued by the Confederates for a number of the forts and equipment that were taken. I read in "Portals to Hell" by Lonnie R. Speer, that in 1860 or early 1861 Union Lt. Richard Meade declined to take any South Carolina receipts for Castle Pinckney in Charleston Harbor.