Posted on 08/05/2010 6:01:30 AM PDT by Michael Zak
Yes, Confederate troops were pulled from Charleston on February 17, 1865, for potential use against Sherman's troops in North Carolina [Source: The Bombardment of Charleston, 1863-1865 by W. Chris Phelps]. On February 17th Sherman's troops were busy burning Columbia. Sherman's troops did not come to Charleston, but Gilmore's troops, who had been bombarding Charleston civilians for 18 months, did.
With Confederate troops gone, Gilmore's troops did what they did best and looted Charleston. From the Official Records:
Major General Gillmore (Union) to General Hatch (Union), South Carolina, Mar. 1, 1865: "I hear from all sides very discouraging accounts of the state of affairs in Charleston; that no restraint is put upon the soldiers; that they pilfer and rob houses at pleasure; that large quantities of valuable furniture, pictures, statuary, mirrors, &c., have mysteriously disappeared ..."
Even after that, the city was subjected to further looting by Northerners [Source: Loot Link]:
Northern "tourists," many of whom were members of Rev. Henry Ward Beecher's congregation from Brooklyn, New York, looted other material from both public and private repositories in Charleston in April 1865.
I do find it amusing that you are so caught up with a government entities rights (a states right to secede from the union) but apparently see no problem with people’s rights (the only ones who actually have rights) to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (you know, that whole slavery thing) that is clearly defined in the Declaration of Independence. I guess in your view the state (government entity) had a greater right to secede than slaves (i.e. people) had to be free from tyranny.
I believe as you believe a state must secede via an act of congress similar in process to becoming a state, the whole of the nation’s representatives in both houses of congress must vote to allow secession of any individual state, anything else is tantamount to a rebellion and an act of war.
Agreed. Don’t you find it amusing that the South apologists want to equate a state’s right over the federal government’s right. As if either of them had any rights to begin with. Yet, they ignore the people who actually had rights (the slaves).
How many times in the federalist papers is it talked about the rights of the minority (be they political minorities or anything else) and how we as a people need to protect their rights. But I guess the South’s “right” to secede trumped all of that...
Thank you, James Madison.
Can your county secede from your state? Can your block secede from the union? What is the fundamental particle of government?
What other country had a segment willing to launch a deadly civil war to protect slavery?
An interesting question, which nobody asks because it is basically radioactive in today’s environment, is: What if some compromise could have been reached that would have ended slavery without bloodshed, say, ten years later, around 1875
The problem with that is that you would have to have the support of those owning the slaves. They would have to be willing to see slavery end on those terms. That did not exist in the U.S. in 1860. They were not willing to see slavery end on any terms.
Looks like a majority of Senators decided that it wasn't needed.
In a divorce there is a third party making sure that the interests and rights of both sides of the divorce are protected. What third party would do that in your secession scenario?
I find it hysterical to watch the extent to which they will bend even their own opinions to protect the so called right to secede.
Any student of history knows that the tariffs inflicted on the south were punitive in nature, designed to punish the southern states for continuing slavery as was the 3/5 compromise was crafted to force the southern states to free their slaves.
Every grievance the south had against the federal government was directly linked to their continuation of the practice of slavery and yet neo confederate will do handstands on razor blades to avoid saying the south seceded to maintain slavery.
It is the type of hypocrisy I would normally expect out of a die hard liberal.
But the power to admit states and to approve any change in status once allowed to join was granted to the other states. Shouldn't that include leaving as well?
Given that SC was/is supposed to be a sovereign state and there were foreign troops were occupying a portion of SC, was SC justified in using force to remove them?
Considering the property in question did not belong to SC then I would say "No".
What machinery would that be?
What machinery would that be?
There were few slave holders and there were almost as many slaveholders in the North as in the South. Thus, the Missouri Compromise.
You are aware that the Missouri Compromise was passed in 1820? Forty years before the Southern rebellion? And that according to the 1860 census there were four or five times as many slave holders in the rebelling states than in those which remained loyal to the Union?
Slaves sold for around $2,000 dollars each depending on age, health, gender, and the needs of the buyer. How much is that in today's dollars?
That's a heck of a lot of money in today's dollars. So please tell us what other investment could the slave-owner put his money in to which was as valuable and as liquid as a slave?
Add to that feeding them, clothing them, and taking care of their health.
So...should they have done away with their horses, too? They had to feed and shelter and care for those as well?
How convenient an OPINION is that?
The Supreme Court ruled that secession as practiced by the rebel states was not.
And clearly the Southern states were so inclined but the lacked the power to successfully rise up and shake off the existing government.
“If the wife wants to leave her husband and, rather than going to court, she shoots him, the odds are she will be spending jail time.”
Depends on the circumstances. There is ample evidence of women attacking their husbands to protect themselves because they were left with no alternative, and they were not indicted.
Madison opposed secession, but he also conceded it was an option of last resort to escape from intolerable oppression (though he said such an act, while perhaps justified, would constitute revolution).
To wit: West Virginia.
As for counties seceding from a state this is not relevant to this particular thread unless you consider the va counties seceded from va prior to becoming West Virginia state. That would be an interesting discussion.
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.