Posted on 03/20/2011 6:47:46 AM PDT by ml/nj
Just wondering what people might have to say about this.
Both would say they tried to preserve their union. Both employed military might to do so and killed lots of their own citizens.
ML/NJ
“If what you’re arguing about is whether Southerners and Southerners alone, Democrats and Democrats alone, were behind the development of modern American liberalism or progressivism, the answer is no.”
BigIffy has been selling the story that Progressivism, Populism, and its modern variants all hark back to the Confederacy and the Democratic Party of the South.
“the answer is no. There were enough Northern Democrats as well as Progressive Northern Republicans. Even among Wilson’s appointees and supporters, Southerners probably weren’t a majority. And among the progressives of his day, plenty had Northern or Republican roots.”
That’s my argument.
“If you’re arguing about whether Northerners and only Northerners were responsible for today’s liberalism or progressivism the answer is also no. “
Not an issue. Thanks for your input.
And what 'federal property' would that be? That phrase is like 'government money'., there's no such thing. The federal government held property in trust for the collective States. It 'owned' nothing.
They are one in the same...a collective hive of brain-less haters of the founders and those who held the union together.
Obduracy always was your long suit, but thanks for making my point for me. The structures and the ground it sits on belongs to the federal government - which is the collective states - and not South Carolina, not Charleston, and certainly not the rebels.
It was seized by force from its rightful owners, and that action precipitated the war that followed.
Well, why not begin with people that actually agreed with his quotes as you present them:
During the Lincoln-Douglas debates the year before Stephens' speech, Abraham Lincoln had said this: ". . . anything that argues me into . . . [the] idea of perfect social and political equality with the negro is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse chestnut to be a chestnut horse. . . .
“I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position."
In another speech later that year, he said: "I will say, then, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way, the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters of the free negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold office, or having them to marry white people. I will say in addition, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which, I suppose, will forever forbid the two races living together upon terms of social and political equality, and inasmuch as they cannot so live, that while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, that I as much as any other man am in favor of the superior position being assigned to the white man."
The following are excerpts from a speech given in New York by a politician addressing the Union Meeting on December 19, 1859: “As a white nation, we made our Constitution and laws, vesting all political rights in that race. They, and they alone, constituted, in every political sense, the American people.
“As to the negro, why, we allowed him to live under the shadow and protection of our laws. We gave him, as we were bound to, protection against wrong and outrage but we denied to him political rights, or the power to govern. “
"We left him in the condition of a bondman. Now, gentlemen, to that condition the negro is assigned by nature."
“Experience shows that his race cannot prosper—that they become extinct in any cold, or in any very temperate clime; but in the warm, his race can be perpetuated, and with proper guardianship, may prosper.
“He has ample strength, and is competent to labor, but nature denies to him either the intellect to govern or the willingness to work. Both were denied him.
“That same power which deprived him of the will to labor, gave him, in our country, as a recompense, a master to coerce that duty, and convert him into a useful and valuable servant.
“I maintain that it is not injustice to leave the negro in the condition in which nature placed him; in this there is no injustice. The master can compel him to labor, and thereby afford to that master a just compensation in return for the care and talent employed in governing him. In this way alone is the negro enabled to render himself useful to himself and to the society in which he is placed.”
Union troops were not rightful owners.
It did not preclude the state of South Carolina and the Federal government from working out some compensation plan to reimburse the Union for the sale of Ft. Sumter to the city of Charleston.
And, of course, that takes this discussion to the fact that President Lincoln refused to negotiate a peaceful resolution, and immediately sent Union warships to Charleston harbor to initiate hostilities.
Continue to believe that if you wish. It is incorrect and fairly dishonest, but I understand your emotional attachment.
Union troops were not rightful owners.
I never claimed that they were, but they had a preeminent right and duty to be there and it was blatantly illegal to interfere with them and fire upon them.
And, of course, that takes this discussion to the fact that President Lincoln refused to negotiate a peaceful resolution, and immediately sent Union warships to Charleston harbor to initiate hostilities.
As was his right and responsibility. The south initiated hostilities and reaped the whirlwind of their own construction.
I see you’ve attracted a stalker. Not to worry, it’s probably harmless...;-)
It is not clear what about those facts you consider "dishonest or incorrect", but if you will consult "Days of Defiance" by Maury Klein, or most any author you would choose, you will find that Ft. Sumter was seized by Union Major Robert Anderson on December 26, 1860. It can be verified that he was warned just before this movement not to make any "vain attempt to save (his command) ", and that "this was not the President’s wishes."
Then just following Anderson's unauthorized move, in a letter to Major Anderson dated 27 December 1860, Buchanan's Secretary of War John B. Floyd wrote,
"Intelligence has reached here this morning that you have abandoned Fort Moultrie, spiked your guns, burned the carriages, and gone to Fort Sumter, It is not believed, because there is no order for any such movement".
In a meeting between President Buchanan, and Senators Jefferson Davis and Robert Hunter who were demanding an explanation of Anderson’s move, the President said, “You gentlemen know better than anybody that this is not only without but against my orders. It is against my policy.”
Given these facts, perhaps, you can provide something other than your opinion to further clarify these events.
I never claimed that they were (Union troops were not rightful owners), but they had a preeminent right and duty to be there and it was blatantly illegal to interfere with them and fire upon them.
So, as you can readily understand, the Union troops that occupied Sumter were not under orders to do so, and therefore had no "preeminent right" or "duty" to be there.
I will leave it to you to provide the facts, not your emotional opinions, to support your assertion that the Charleston harbor defenses did not have the right to fire on them when the Union fleet appeared on the horizon on the evening of April 11, 1861.
You know better than this. Anderson's orders were to hold all the United States forts around Charleston, and to use his judgement about how to do that. He felt that the best place to hold with his meager force was Sumter. But it's absurd to say that he seized it when it was already under his command.
It put a new picture on the cover as well I see.
Committee on Federal Relations
In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:
"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.
"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.
"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.
"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:
"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
"In Senate, December 21st, 1836"Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:
Jacob Warly, C. S.
This means that it wasn't South Carolina's to fool with. Pickens knew it (just like you do) but relied on a feckless Buchanan to steal what clearly didn't belong to him.
Anderson was charged with defending several garrisons, including Sumter. It was his responsibility. He was there by order. He didn't "seize anything because the fortification was in his charge. His orders came from Buell on Dec. 11, 1860:
... you are to hold possession of the forts in this harbor, and if attacked you are to defend yourself to the last extremity. The smallness of your force will not permit you, perhaps, to occupy more than one of the three forts, but an attack on or attempt to take possession of any one of them will be regarded as an act of hostility, and you may then put your command into either of them which you may deem most proper to increase its power of resistance. You are also authorized to take similar steps whenever you have tangible evidence of a design to proceed to a hostile act.
So, as you can readily understand, the Union troops that occupied Sumter were under orders to do so, and therefore had a perfect "preeminent right" or "duty" to be there. The rebels did not.
Stephens promoted the idea of the perpetuation and expansion of the institution of slavery as a positive good.
Lincoln was elected on a platform of preventing its expansion with the eventual goal of its abolition due to its being a great evil.
If there was no difference between these two positions, why did the southern states feel compelled to secede to protect their peculiar institution when Lincoln was elected?
I’m still waiting for anybody to post contemporaneous southern disagreement with the Cornerstone Speech, which I contend received no such disagreement because it perfectly expressed the conventional wisdom in the South.
If the South was indeed moving towards eventual abolition, such disagreement shouldn’t be hard to find.
Good luck.
However, since you defer to Anderson's orders and say: "He felt that the best place to hold..."...
Of course that was not his order.
With regard to the word "seize" with which you seem to have a problem, there was an armistice in existence that prohibited military improvements by either side. He was not authorized to move his command to the neutral site, where he established a military post, pointing cannon at downtown Charleston.
That was seizure, and the people of the time knew it.
Commentary of the time is more accurate than your opinion....
Anderson's move to Sumter did not play well with South Carolinians. From page 8 of the Jan. 1, 1861, New York Times, reporting an article from the Charleston Courier of Dec. 28, 1860. (Italics as reported in the Times):
The newspaper offices were besieged, the hotel halls were thronged, and even the grave and serious gentlemen composing the State Convention shared in the general excitement. On all hands anger and indignation was expressed at the supposed perfidious conduct of the Federal authorities, at whose instance it was first thought the movement was made. The people were greatly incensed at the idea of a willful breach of those assurances of non action which had been volunteered by the Government at Washington and upon which so much reliance and confidence had been placed by the entire population, that every impulse to take the necessary precautions for their own safety had been restrained.
Instinctively men flew to arms. Orders were immediately issued to the following Companies to hold themselves in readiness for service: Washington Light Infantry, Capt. C. H. Simonton; Carolina Light Infantry, Capt. B. G. Pinckney; Meagher Guards, Capt. Ed. McCready, Jr.; altogether forming a portion of the Regiment of Rifles, commanded by Col. J. J. Pettigrew and Major Ellison Capers; also, to the Marion Artillery, Capt. J. G. King; Lafayette Artillery, Capt. J. J. Pope, Jr.; Washington Artillery, Capt. G. H. Walter; German Artillery, Capt. C. Nohrden; all under command of Lieut. W. G. De Saussure; Adjutant, Jas. Simmons, Jr.; Sergeant-Major, E. Prioleau Ravenel; Quartermaster-Sergeant, J. R. Macbeth; Surveyor, A Barbot: Surgeons, P. Gervais Robinson and Middleton Mitchel. Also, the Palmetto Guard, Capt. Thomas Middleton, and Cadei Riflemen, W. S. Elliot.
All the military forces thus ordered out promptly obeyed the summons, and the streets were soon enlivened by the appearance of individual members of the different organizations in their uniforms.
Maj. Robert Anderson, U. S. A., has achieved the unenviable distinction of opening civil war between American citizens by an act of gross breach of faith.
So you're admitting that Sumter had been ceded to the federal government? Will you also admit that Sumter was under Anderson's command as one of the three forts in Charleston harbor which he was ordered to defend to the best of his ability?
With regard to the word "seize" with which you seem to have a problem, there was an armistice in existence that prohibited military improvements by either side.
An armistice which, if it existed in any formal sense, Anderson was not informed of.
Anderson's move to Sumter did not play well with South Carolinians.
The hysterical reaction of South Carolinians to many things isn't exactly a news flash.
Sorry, that spin doesn't even do a complete 360.
Commentary of the time is more accurate than your opinion....
I would tend to agree. And you know that commentary of the time isn't monolithic in nature. I found a fascinating account of the manning (not seizure) of Fort Sumter written by one Abner Doubleday (of American Baseball fame). I won't post the whole thing here, but instead provide a link: From Moultrie to Sumter.
I hope that his difference of opinion from yours doesn't spoil baseball for ya ;-)
The only thing your cede document proves is that the state of SC had the authority to cede.
It did so under two laws, one by South Carolina in 1805 granting that permission, and under a federal law of 1794, allowing states to conditionally cede land to the federal government in order to occupy these state lands for purposes of defense.
The fact that South Carolina allowed the government to occupy these emplacements in no way permitted these to be used against the state.
Occupying sovereign state lands to coerce the people of that state is not allowed under the law above mentioned.
With regard to Anderson, he had no orders from the military command because of the armistice. He was not attacked, nor did he have any threat. That is verified by the facts that Confederate guards did not stop his troop movement at the docks, or in the crossing to Ft. Sumter. There was not threat.
He moved without direction or permission, and seized the property by stealth and force.
That bit of logical legerdemain would be impressive, if there were any truth to it.
Insofar as you ask for something or someone to "perfectly express the conventional wisdom in the South", see the following: here
You’re welcome to believe any of that foolishness but know that it goes beyond cock-eyed and into the realm of sheer lunacy.
The law and history do not comport with your POV.
Shine on you crazy diamond!
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.