Posted on 01/30/2015 11:13:54 AM PST by Kartographer
A century and a half after it sank and a decade and a half after it was raised, scientists are finally getting a look at the hull of the Confederate submarine H.L. Hunley, the first sub in history to sink an enemy warship.
What they find may finally solve the mystery of why the hand-cranked submarine sank during the Civil War.
"It's like unwrapping a Christmas gift after 15 years. We have been wanting to do this for many years now," said Paul Mardikian, senior conservator on the Hunley project.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
You seem to think that the South seceded just for their own pleasure. That would be ridiculous. They obviously considered the issues important enough to leave the Union over. IN the Declaration of Independence it says that that "governments re instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." The key word is "consent". The Founders knew that the only legitimate use of governmental power is through the free and unfettered consent of the people governed. Without this consent the government has no moral right to exist. The governed, according to the Founders, have a right to a government that disciplines itself to the will of the people. The people posses an inherent right to dispose of any government that does not rule with the consent of the governed. When Abe Lincoln was elected, it was by only 39% of the vote that he won, and it was Northern states only that voted for him because the republican party, unlike all other political parties at the time or before, was a purely sectional party and only represented Northern interests.
The States, being sovereign, did not delegate or give up the right of secession when the joined the Union. And after all, all rights not delegated are retained by the States (amendment 10). In fact, the states demonstrated the right of secession twice before they joined the Union under the current constitution. First, in their secession from England, and second in their secession from the Articles of the Confederation. Remember, not all the States adopted the new Constitution at once. In fact the delegates were not even supposed to be writing a new constitution, but rather amending the old one. Instead, they wrote a new one and some of the states seceded form the old one and joined the new. The states that didn't secede remained in the old union for a few years before joining the new union. St George Tucker wrote that "And since the seceding states, by establishing a new constitution and form of federal government among themselves, without the consent of the rest, have shown that they consider the right to do so whenever the occasion may, in their opinion require it, we may infer that the right has not been diminished by any new compact which they may since have entered into, since none could be more solemn or explicit than the first, nor more binding upon the contracting parties."
The State of Virginia, when it ratified the Constitution stated in their Act of Ratification that:
"We, the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected....in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified."
The Federal government began taking more power for itself and abridging the rights of the states from very early on. Thus Madison and Jefferson wrote in the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions that "Whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force. That to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party; that this government, created by this compact, was not made the exclusive or final judge to the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge for itself...each party has equal right to judge for itself."
Milton supported the right of secession and self-government. In his writing The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates, he wrote that "the power of kinds and magistrates is nothing else but what is only derivative, transferred, and committed to them in trust, the right remaining in [the people] to reassume it to themselves, if by kings or magistrates it be abused."
The States, as sovereign entities, have every right to reassume powers delegated when they deem them abused. William Rawle, born in 1759 in Pennsylvania, wrote in a textbook published in 1825 that was used at West Point and many other colleges, that
"It depends on the state itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle of which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed."
Regarding fort Sumter.....Yes Lincoln had made promises. For one, he promised the State of Virginia that Fort Sumter would be evacuated if Virginia did not secede. And so Virginia voted down secession (she voted in favor of secession later on when Lincoln wanted her to supply troops to fight her southern brethren). The South also sent delegations to Washington, D.C., and offered to pay for the Federal properties and enter into a peace treaty with the United States. Lincoln rejected negotiations. Finally, Lincoln told South Carolina that he was going to be sending down provisions for the Fort. It was only when the discovery was made that he was also sending arms and reinforcements that the decision to attack was made.
Sorry to hear you are offended by the truth about the Marxists. The Marxists chose their side then just as they do today. You see the communist party endorsed Obama and the communists in this country vote democrat (today's liberal party) because, although not communist, it provides the best chance of furthering their goals in the end. So it was with the Marxists in the republican party of the 1850s, 60s, and 70s. Communists naturally gravitate towards liberal parties. Of course most republicans of that day were not communists, just like most democrats of today aren't, but the fact that the communists saw the republican party of that time as party that would help further some of their goals says a lot about the early Republican party.
Irrelevant.
Sorry to hear you are offended by the truth about the Marxists.
I'm not offended, just disappointed. You know better, and can do better, but you don't. The last thing any of that crap is is the truth.
No, it's the fact, there was no legitimate reason for secession, as our Founders understood it.
There was no mutual consent, and no breech of compact, period.
The fact that the Slave Power didn't like their new Black Republican President, "Ape" Lincoln, is irrelevant -- he had not even taken office, and Southern Democrats still effectively controlled the Federal Government.
Therefore, by any reasonable definition, the Slave Power did not declare secession "for cause", but rather "at pleasure."
Regardless, neither their declarations of secession nor their forming a new Confederate government caused Civil War.
War only came because the Confederacy provoked, started, formally declared war, and sent military aid to Confederates in Union states.
So all of your pro-secession justification gobbledygook is utterly irrelevant, FRiend.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Yes Lincoln had made promises.
For one, he promised the State of Virginia that Fort Sumter would be evacuated if Virginia did not secede.
And so Virginia voted down secession..."
In fact, Virginia delegates refused Lincoln's offer of "a fort for a state", only waiting until they had adequate excuse -- the Confederate assault and seizure of Fort Sumter -- before switching their vote from Union to secession.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "The Federal government began taking more power for itself and abridging the rights of the states from very early on."
In fact, the Southern Slave Power effectively controlled the Federal Government almost continuously from its founding until the end on 1860, when it began declaring secession.
It was, after all, the Slave Power which insisted the Federal Government enforce fugitive slave laws in Northern states regardless of those states own laws.
So all Federal usurpations and abuses were instituted by, and in support of the Southern Slave Power.
What the Slave Power objected to in 1861 was its future potential loss of such control as it had previously exercised over Federal government.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Finally, Lincoln told South Carolina that he was going to be sending down provisions for the Fort.
It was only when the discovery was made that he was also sending arms and reinforcements that the decision to attack was made."
Again, you obviously don't know the actual facts.
In fact, South Carolina's militia back in January, 1861 had fired artillery on a single, unarmed resupply ship sent by outgoing President Buchanan to Fort Sumter, and since then South Carolina's Governor Pickens had been urging Jefferson Davis to make a military assault on the fort.
In fact, Davis ordered military preparations for the assault on March 3, the day before Lincoln took his oath of office.
And Davis ordered final preparations on April 8, immediately after receiving Lincoln's promise that no additional troops will land at Fort Sumter, if there is no resistance to his resupply ships.
So, Davis' assault on Fort Sumter was programmed from the beginning, and was necessary to get Virginia delegates to change their votes from Union to secession.
With that assault, in one swift stroke, the Confederacy doubled its size and population, but at the price of starting a war that, in hind sight, they would have been better to avoid.
Then I assume that any individual or group of individuals can, at will, declare themselves to have disposed of the government and to now be a free and independent nation unto themselves, right?
Regarding fort Sumter.....Yes Lincoln had made promises. For one, he promised the State of Virginia that Fort Sumter would be evacuated if Virginia did not secede.
Lincoln's offer was that he would evacuate Sumter if Virginia adjourned their secession convention. The convention sent a delegation to Washington, which arrived on April 12, just in time to hear the news that Sumter had been attacked, knocking the deal off the table.
The South also sent delegations to Washington, D.C., and offered to pay for the Federal properties and enter into a peace treaty with the United States.
Actually their only assignment was to discuss "matters of mutual interest." There was nothing in their charge that spoke of peace treaties or payment for stolen property. And entering into a discussion with them would have been de facto recognition, something Lincoln was unwilling to give them, along with every other nation in the world.
American's fear of land war against France was greatest at the beginning, in 1798, when the Alien & Seditions acts were first proposed.
And at the time of that first proposal, Vice President Jefferson did not oppose it.
Over time, fear of a land war declined, and President Adams sent negotiators to France to seek peace, which they eventually did negotiate, hence "quasi-war".
In the mean time, Jefferson found political advantage in opposing the acts, advantage which soon propelled him to the Presidency, in 1801.
And, as President, Jefferson used the Alien & Sedition acts to persecute his own political enemies, in the months before it was scheduled to expire, naturally.
So, Jefferson did not oppose the laws when first proposed, then used them to get elected, then used them against his own political opponents as President, until they naturally expired.
And that tells us what about Jefferson's opinions on this matter?
Bubba Ho-Tep: "Then I assume that any individual or group of individuals can, at will, declare themselves to have disposed of the government and to now be a free and independent nation unto themselves, right?"
The opinion of Northern "Dough-faced" Democrats like outgoing President Buchanan was that secessionists had no legitimate or lawful reason to declare secession, but that the Federal Government had no power to stop them.
That was also Lincoln's opinion, so long as peace was maintained and Federal laws enforced -- i.e., tariffs.
So, had Jefferson Davis been determined to maintain peace, there was good chance of the Confederacy's success.
What changed those opinions were the constant secessionists' provocations of war -- seizures of dozens of Federal properties, forts, ships, arsenals, mints -- and then starting war at Fort Sumter.
But to seal the deal, the Confederacy also formally declared war on the United States (May 6, 1861) and sent military support to Confederates fighting in Union states.
All this happened before a single Confederate soldier was killed in battle with any Union force, and before a any Union army invaded a single Confederate state.
So the Union choice then was whether to conduct a McClellan-like "Dough-faced" losing war, or whether to fight a "total war" for unconditional surrender and destruction of the Slave Power, which had become an abomination to civilized humans.
Lincoln chose total war, unconditional surrender and utter destruction of slavery.
Oh I thought you were interested in that issue. Nevermind then.
I'm not offended, just disappointed. You know better, and can do better, but you don't. The last thing any of that crap is is the truth.
You're not offended but then you call it all crap. Uh huh. So which part isn't true? Point it out. All I cited was historical pacts.
. Face it. If the Republican party of that time wasn't liberal, the communists wouldn't have gone for it. If the democrat party was the liberal one they would have sided with it.
Based on what they knew of the things that he supported (and which he later made into law), don't you think that they had good reason to leave? Here was this guy who supported enlarging the role of government beyond the delegated powers in the Constitution and he comes from this new party which represented only one section of the country.
Also, in case you didn't know, Lincoln was the first to declare war. He declared it on April 27 1861. The Confederacy didn't declare war until May 15th. Their declaration of war reads thus:
"Whereas, the earnest efforts made by this government to establish friendly relations between the government of the United States and the Confederate States and to settle all questions of disagreement between the two governments upon principles of right, justice, equity and good faith, have proved unavailing, by reason of the refusal of the government of the United States to hold any intercourse with the Commissioners appointed by the government for the purposes aforesaid or to listen to any proposal they had to make for the peaceful solution of all causes of difficulties between the two governments; and
Whereas, the President of the United States of America has issued his Proclamation, making the requisition upon the states of the American Union for seventy-five thousand men, for the purpose as therein indicated of capturing forts, and other strongholds of the jurisdiction of, and belonging to the Confederate States of America, and has detailed Naval armaments upon the coast of the Confederate States of America, and raised, organized and equipped a large military force to execute the purpose aforesaid, and has issued his other Proclamations announcing his purpose to set foot a blockage of the ports of the Confederate States; and
Whereas, the State of Virginia has seceded from the Federal Union and entered into a convention of alliance, offensive and defensive, with the Confederate States, and has adopted the provisional Constitution of said states and the states of Maryland, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, and Missouri have refused, and it is believed that the state of Delaware and the inhabitants of the territories of Arizona, and New Mexico and the Indian Territory south of Kansas, will refuse to cooperate with the government of the United States in these acts of hostilities and wanton aggression, which are plainly intended to oppress and finally, subjugate the people of the Confederate States; and
Whereas, by the acts and means of aforesaid war exists between the Confederate States and the government of the United States and the states and territories thereof, except the states of Maryland, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, and Missouri and Delaware, and the inhabitants of the territories of Arizona and New Mexico and the Indian Territory south of Kansas."
The Confederate government in early 1861 had been sending peace delegations to Washington to try and negotiate friendly relations with the United States Government. Seward and Lincoln refused to even see them. The Confederate government, seeing that the North didn't want peace and rather had declared war on them with the object being their subjugation, they were left with no choice but to fight back. But notice they were not eager for the war. They waited over two weeks after getting Lincoln's declaration of war before they put out their own.
Virginia wasn't waiting for an excuse. They and the other border states had not intention of seceding. They wanted to remain neutral. It was only when Lincoln demanded that they supply troops to fight their brothers that anyone even considered secession.
It was, after all, the Slave Power which insisted the Federal Government enforce fugitive slave laws in Northern states regardless of those states own laws. So all Federal usurpations and abuses were instituted by, and in support of the Southern Slave Power.
Hold on a moment. The fugitive slave laws were part of the compromise of 1850, in which the South gained nothing except the FSL, which were just a full faith and credit thing. In the compromise, Texas ceded its claim on New Mexico, California was admitted as a free state, and the South adopted the Wilmot proviso outlawing slavery in the territories. Also, the South was a minority in the congress. They were a far cry from controlling it. And your claim that all federal usurpation were relay the fault of the South is ludicrous. Got any proof for that?
Also about those fugitive slave law: The North complained about them a lot, yes, but did they really care about blacks? No. If they did, then why did so many Northern states at that time have laws prohibiting free blacks from moving there? They didn't like blacks. That was also a large part of the reason for banning slavery in the territories. It wasn't out of any love for the slaves, rather, for most free-soilers it was because they wanted the territories reserved for "free white labor".
Have to laugh about the idea that the Fort Sumter attack was done with the aim of getting Virginia into the Confederacy. If that was the real reason for it as you say, then it failed. Virginia didn't join after fort Sumter. They didn't join until Lincoln demanded that they supply troops.
Lincoln chose total war, unconditional surrender and utter destruction of slavery.
He sure did. Right from the beginning. Except the slavery part. He didn't really care about the slaves and told Greeley that if he could win the war without freeing a single slave he would do it. Freeing the slaves was not a Northern causes for war. And when Lincoln issued his emancipation proclamation in 1863, it wasn't because he cared about the slaves, but rather to make the North look virtuous in its war of aggression and to discourage France and England from coming in on the side of the South. If he really cared about the slaves, then why did the emancipation proclamation only "free" the slaves in the Confederacy (where h e had no control) and yet specifically leave in bondage those slaves in Union states and Union held-territories?
Which US States Would Survive As Independent Nations?
Of course it's tongue in cheek, but they go about it in precisely the wrong way, assuming that the richer (usually smaller, more populous, less military) states would be more likely to survive as independent countries than most of the poorer ones (they also appoint themselves as arbiters of a state's "likeability," which one has to be pretty arrogant to do).
My hunch is that states like Delaware, Connecticut, and Rhode Island wouldn't last long if some enemy wanted their resources and territory. While it's not likely that the reverse is true either (economic and educational resources do count for something in the world), it does look very wrong-headed.
Anyway, good for a laugh on a Saturday afternoon.
It looks like they have about as strong a grasp of history and economics as our FRiend deo. LOL
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "I see you still think there was no good reason for secession.
I'm not sure if you realized, but ever since our country was founded, the federal government had been slowly overreaching its bounds, and usurping more power to itself.
This goes way back."
In fact, there was not only "no good reason", there was no reason, period -- zero, zip, nada.
The truth is that, from the beginning of the Republic, it had been under the effective control of the Southern Slave-Power, through its domination of the national Democrat party.
To list just a few of the results:
Bottom line: every "overstep" you allege was instituted by, and for the benefit of the Southern Slave Power.
So what actually happened in 1860 was the Slave-Power's loss of absolute control over Federal Government, a loss which anticipated federal antipathy to Slave-Power interests, and that, that alone, was the "reason" for the Deep South's declarations of secession.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "And in the election of a candidate from a new party that was sectional (an unheard of thing before) and represented the interests of only one half of the country was the last straw."
First of all, in 1796 and again in 1824, both Adams became president without carrying a single Southern state.
Second, Presidents Jefferson (1800), Madison (1808), Jackson (1828) and Buchanan (1856) were all elected with Solid South support and virtually none in New England.
Third, the election of 1860 was totally engineered by Slave-Power & fire-eaters, when they first united Northerners in opposition to the Supreme Courts' Dred-Scott decision, then split their majority Democrat party in half, thus guaranteeing that victory must go to the minority Republicans.
In short, the Slave Power had only itself to blame for Republican victory in 1860, and indeed, it was exactly what the Southern Fire-Eaters had hoped for to unite Southerners for secession.
But there was certainly nothing unconstitutional about the 1860 election, nothing about the election itself to justify declarations of secession, "at pleasure".
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "He was a big government guy.
He had campaigned on many big government issues.
He campaigned on tariffs in Pennsylvania, promising to raise them, which made the North happy and the South upset.
After all, the tariffs simply benefitted one half of the country at the expense of the other.
The South was already paying more than half of all taxes despite her smaller population and more than half of that tax money was being spent on improvements up North."
Like most Republicans, and even some Democrats, Lincoln favored higher tariffs to protect Northern manufacturers from foreign competition.
But your claim that "the South" paid "more than half of all taxes" is totally bogus to the max.
It was impossible, because first, the Deep-South secession states made up only 10% of total US white population, and could not have paid significantly more than 10% of all taxes.
Second, Upper South and Border States were split in their support or opposition to higher tariffs.
For example, manufacturers in Tennessee were OK with higher tariffs, and should not be counted in your "over half" figure.
So the actual number must be in the 10% to 20% of all taxes paid by anti-tariff Southerners.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Lincoln also supported creating a National Bank, another big government move, an idea big-government-lover Hamilton had always loved.
He passed the National Banking act in 1863."
In fact, the First Banks of the US, chartered by our Founders, were used to control inflation and when abolished in in 1811 and again in 1836, inflation ran wild.
Republicans, like Whigs before them, favored reestablishing a central bank, and when they became the majority in Congress, did so.
That was certainly not a case of "growing big government", but of simply reestablishing our Founders' original intent.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "He was also a supporter of taxing individuals on their income and property and etc, and one of the first things he did as president was to pass the first income tax bill.
This law demanded that taxes be "levied, collected, and paid, upon the annual income of every person residing in the United States..."
In fact, our Founders first proposed a temporary war-time income tax during the War of 1812, but that war ended before Congress acted.
During the Civil War, a temporary war-time income tax was again proposed in Congress, and this time passed, repealed in 1872.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Based on what they knew of the things that he supported (and which he later made into law), don't you think that they had good reason to leave?
Here was this guy who supported enlarging the role of government beyond the delegated powers in the Constitution and he comes from this new party which represented only one section of the country."
In fact, nothing in the 1860 Republican platform was new, "unconstitutional" or justification for declarations of secession.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Also, in case you didn't know, Lincoln was the first to declare war.
He declared it on April 27 1861."
Total pure pro-Confederate bogus propaganda.
In fact, neither Lincoln, nor (more important) Congress ever "declared war" on the Southern Rebellion, for the simple reason that in those days, it was not considered appropriate to do so.
Indeed, in August 1775, when Britain's King George declared war on the American rebels, that was unusual -- countries typically did not formally declare war on rebellions, and neither did the US Federal Government in 1861.
Of course, when Lincoln got up in the morning, the Secessionist press proclaimed, "Lincoln declares war", and when Lincoln ate his breakfast, the Secessionist media decried, "Lincoln declared war", and when Lincoln took his morning dump, the Secessionist press again hollered: "Lincoln declares war".
But it was all rubbish and nonsense, in fact there was no such declaration, period.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "...war exists between the Confederate States and the government of the United States and the states and territories thereof..."
This language precisely corresponds to Franklin Roosevelt's "Day of Infamy" speech on December 8, 1941:
So the specific language of such declarations is immaterial.
Regardless, it was a formal declaration of war.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "The Confederate government, seeing that the North didn't want peace and rather had declared war on them with the object being their subjugation, they were left with no choice but to fight back.
But notice they were not eager for the war.
They waited over two weeks after getting Lincoln's declaration of war before they put out their own."
First, it's a fantasy to claim a "declaration of war" from Lincoln, there was none.
Second, the Confederacy was already fully engaged in war against the United States, long before their formal declaration on May 6, 1851.
For one example: on April 23, Davis sent military aid to Confederates fighting in the Union state of Missouri.
Third, Lincoln believed (as do I) that those Confederate "negotiators" should have negotiated with Congress to secure votes authorizing their secession and property claims.
Absent some instruction from Congress, Lincoln had no peacetime powers to deal with such emissaries.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Virginia wasn't waiting for an excuse.
They and the other border states had not intention of seceding.
They wanted to remain neutral.
It was only when Lincoln demanded that they supply troops to fight their brothers that anyone even considered secession."
Yes, in early 1861 secessionists were not the majority in Virginia -- or North Carolina, Tennessee & Arkansas.
To become the majority, to convince weak Unionists to change sides, secessionists needed some excuse -- any dramatic excuse -- that could be used to claim "oppression" and flip votes.
Jefferson Davis gave them that excuse, when he assaulted Federal troops in Fort Sumter.
Lincoln's response -- calling for troops to retake the fort -- was certainly not a "declaration of war", but it certainly did provide secessionists with the excuse they wanted to declare & launch full-scale war against the United States.
And it doubled the Confederacy's size & white population.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "...the South adopted the Wilmot proviso outlawing slavery in the territories."
No, the Wilmot Proviso was never adopted, period, slavery was never outlawed in the territories.
Indeed, that was a Republican platform issue in 1860.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Also, the South was a minority in the congress.
They were a far cry from controlling it.
And your claim that all federal usurpation were relay the fault of the South is ludicrous.
Got any proof for that?"
The only serious Federal "usurpations" which ever happened were 1) the 1850 Compromise causing the Federal Government to enforce Fugitive Slave Laws in the North, regardless of their own state laws.
Combined with 2) the Supreme Court's 1857 Dred-Scott decision, effectively making slavery lawful in every state, those solidified Northern anti-slavery sentiments.
Yes, it's true that Southern Democrat power in Congress was slowly, slowly slipping away, but it was still considerable, especially given their decades-long alliance with Northern "Dough-Faced" Democrats.
In 1860 they were still strong enough to block, for example, the proposed Morrill Tariff.
But when Slave-Power Fire-Eaters split their majority party in half, in 1860, they became a very small minority, exercising little power or influence in Washington.
And whose fault was that?
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "It wasn't out of any love for the slaves, rather, for most free-soilers it was because they wanted the territories reserved for "free white labor"."
Of course, in the same way that most Americans today oppose illegal immigrants over-running our country, Northerners in 1860 did not want the South's slaves overrunning their states.
So what exactly is your problem with that?
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Have to laugh about the idea that the Fort Sumter attack was done with the aim of getting Virginia into the Confederacy.
If that was the real reason for it as you say, then it failed. Virginia didn't join after fort Sumter.
They didn't join until Lincoln demanded that they supply troops."
Following the April 14, 1861 surrender of Union troops at Fort Sumter, Lincoln's April 15 request for troops was the inevitable result.
Virginia then switched its vote from Union to secession on April 17.
So, in ordering that assault, Jefferson Davis instantly doubled the size of his Confederacy, but also started a war the Confederacy could not ultimately win.
Those are the facts.
Like Democrat President Buchanan, and others before him, Lincoln did not believe secessionists had either lawful justifications for secession, or followed constitutional processes.
But Buchanan did not believe the Federal Government could do anything to stop them, and Lincoln more-or-less agreed, except that Lincoln wanted to continue with such services as tariff collections and mail deliveries.
And Lincoln did not believe secessionists had any lawful right to seize by force Federal properties such as forts, ships, arsenals & mints.
Both Presidents Buchanan and Lincoln refused to deal directly with Confederate emissaries.
Both believed the place for such "negotiations" was in Congress.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Rather than seeking peace, Lincoln was the first to declare war.
The Confederacy, not eager for a war, waited over two weeks after Lincoln declared war before they declared war back."
I don't know where you got that Big Lie, but repeating it, regardless of how often, will not make it true.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "If he really cared about the slaves, then why did the emancipation proclamation only "free" the slaves in the Confederacy (where h e had no control) and yet specifically leave in bondage those slaves in Union states and Union held-territories?"
There was no law authorizing Lincoln to free slaves in Union states, or in areas of Confederate states which were still loyal -- i.e., western Virginia, eastern Tennessee.
But there were laws and long precedent, authorizing American military to declare enemy property as "contraband" and seize it.
That is how Confederate slaves became "contraband" property, and as such were freed by Lincoln's emancipation proclamation.
Sure, in 1862 the Union army controlled very little Confederate territory, and so freed relatively few "contraband" slaves.
But as the war dragged on, more and more "contraband" fell into Union Army hands, and the number of such slaves rose from maybe 50,000 in 1862 to millions by war's end.
As for reasons why Lincoln freed such slaves, there were several, but most immediate: every slave freed from working for Confederates who then served the Union Army was a twofer -- a loss to them, a gain for the Union.
Well, I hope you are aware that even in the North, the majority of people were NOT abolitionists. The majority in the North actually cared little about blacks. Abolitionists were always a minority. Even at the time of Lincoln it as so. When he passed his Emancipation proclamation (which I had outlined before didn’t actually free anybody), people in the North (both civilians and soldiers in the Union army) were upset, calling it “wicked”, “atrocious,” and “impudent.”
The 3/5 compromise was thought up by two Northerners at the time of the Constitution Convention. And it didn’t just give a little extra representation (the North was still the majority in Congress) it also counted towards taxation.
I don’t know where you get the idea that the South ever controlled the Congress. It was always ever equally balanced or with the North in a majority. The reason both sides like the idea of states coming in in pairs (one northern one southern) was both were eager that the other didn’t get the balance in favor too much of their side. However, the North eventually (in the compromise of 1850) had all the territories declared slave free, so there would be no more “southern” states to be added, only Northern ones, thus maintaining that in the future the balance of power would never be equal again.
About the Supreme Court. Yes, it did have a Southern majority in 1857. It had 5 southerners and 4 Northerners. But you said the Dred Scott decision went 7-2, so some of your Northerners voted for it as well. Also, if control of the Supreme court was some big plot by the South, then why were three of the Northerners on the Court at the time appointed by Southern Presidents, and two of the Southern Judges appointed by Northern Presidents?
Your claim that the South had absolute control of the Federal government is a laugh. Neither side ever had absolute control. It was always a balance that more often than not tipped in the side of the North. That is why the South was always stuck paying a heavier share of the tax burden.
First of all, in 1796 and again in 1824, both Adams became president without carrying a single Southern state. Second, Presidents Jefferson (1800), Madison (1808), Jackson (1828) and Buchanan (1856) were all elected with Solid South support and virtually none in New England
In the election of Adams, the Northern state of Pennsylvania went to Jefferson and the Southern state of Maryland went to Adams. You also forget that the Federalist party, while having more supporters up north, was still a national party, which is why Adams did get some votes (though not near enough) from Virginia and North Carolina. Still, Adams turned out to be a dreadfully unpopular president because of his big government policies and served only one term. In the Jefferson Election, both Pennsylvania and New York went to Jefferson. In his next election his was so popular he carried the entire country with the exception of Delaware and Connecticut. Madison in his election carried New York, New Jersey, Vermont, Pennsylvania and Ohio. J. Q. Adams, you are right won very sectionally with the support of only New England. The rest of the North as wells as the South three their lot in with three different candidates. Adams only served one term. Jackson won the entire country including 5 northern states, but did not win New England. In his second term however he carried a couple new England states. Buchanan had the support of the entire country including four northern states and California (which always sided with the North) with the exception of new England. But just as the South expanded westward with the addition of states like Louisiana and Texas, so did the North. New England does not equal the whole North in these later elections. The fact that Buchanan, who was a Northerner btw, carried some of the Northern States shows that the Democrat party was a national party concerned with national interests, not sectional and concerned only with the interests of one section over the others.
You point out that the election of the republican party was not unconstitutional. Of course it wasn’t. But it doesn’t mean it wasn’t cause for alarm. If in today’s world you saw a member of a radical party (say a communist) elected president with the support of only a few liberal states, wouldn’t you be alarmed? Well I suppose you wouldn’t. We have too much of that nowadays that it seems almost passé. But believe me, in those days, it was a big deal. I have told you how liberal Lincoln was and it was commonly known at the time. That is why when he became president he raised tariffs, instituted income tax and property tax, put into law the National Banking act which allowed the Government too much control over the currency and inflation (we see the problems of that today). He also supported public school system with the purpose being not so much to promote the three R’s as to ensure that the Government could control what was taught in the schools. I think it is quite obvious that the South had good reason to secede, knowing that Lincoln supported all these things. If you still think that trying to preserve the idea of limited government against big government schemes such as those supported by Lincoln was “seceding at pleasure,” then you apparently will never understand the importance of defending the rights of the people and the states against federal encroachment. So you doubt the amount of taxes paid by the South? Read up:
In 1828, Senator Thomas Benton declared that:
“Before the Revolution [the South] was the seat of wealth, as well as hospitality….Wealth has fled from the South, and settled in the regions north of the Potomac: and this in the face of the fact, that the South, in four staples alone, has exported produce, since the Revolution, to the value of eight hundred million dollars; and the North has exported comparatively northing. Such an export would indicate unparalleled wealth, but what is the fact?...Under Federal legislation, the exports of the south have been the basis of the Federal revenue….Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia, may be said to defray three-fourths, of the annual expense of supporting the Federal Government: and of this great sum, annually furnished by them, nothing or next to nothing is returned to them, in the shape of Government expenditures. That expenditure flows in an opposite direction—it flows northwardly, in one uniform, uninterrupted, and perennial stream. This is the reason why wealth disappears from the South and rises up in the North. Federal legislation does all this.”
President Buchanan (a Northerner) agreed and noted in a message to Congress that “The South has not had her share of money from the treasury, and unjust discrimination has been made against her….”
When asked why the North should not let the South go, Lincoln’s reply was “Let the South go? Let the South go! Where then shall we get our revenues!”
Patrick Henry had anticipated some of this when he spoke out against the proposed Constitution: “But I am sure that the dangers of this system [he Federal Constitution] are real, when those who have no similar interests with the people of this country [the South] are to legislate for us—when our dearest rights are to be left, in the hands of those, whose advantage it will be to infringe them.”
When the South seceded, The New York Times complained about the loss of revenue because the seceded states could no longer be forced to collect the “national” tariff. The Manchester had this to say:
“The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing. The transportation of cotton and its fabrics employs more ships than all other trade. It is very clear that the South gains by this process, and we lose. No—we MUST NOT ‘let the South go.’”
The New York Evening Post bemoaned the loss of tax dollars in an article titled “What shall be done for a Revenue?”
“That either revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the ports must be closed to importations from abroad,…If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe….”
Actually, the only founders who supported the national bank were big government folks like Hamilton (who was an admitted monarchist). The problem with the National Bank is it gives the Federal government too much control over the printing of money and thus the economy.
The difference is that when Lincoln passed the income tax law, he had no intentions of it being temporary.
He did not issue a formal proclamation of war, but he called out the troops, with the purpose of waging war. Same result.
If the South was really looking for an excuse to wage full-scale war, then why did they delay so long in issuing a declaration of war?
As I pointed out before, the FSL were only an extension of the full faith and credit idea put forth in the constitution. And that was the ONLY thing the South gained in the 1850 compromise. The North gained everything else. You could also say it was unconstitutional for them to make all the territories slavery free rather than letting the population of those territories to decide for themselves.
I suppose the King also didn't think the patriots had any right to seize forts and arsenals belonging to the crown either.
Sorry to break it to you, but calling out the troops to attack is the same thing as declaring war. If war wasn't what he was pursing, then why did he call for troops?
Union army controlled very little Confederate territory
Yes, and all regions controlled by the Union were exempted in the proclamation. Those slaves remained slaves.
You’ve been reading diloranzo again, haven’t you? LOL
I have actually never read any of Thomas DiLorenzo’s works.
Well, there were abolitionists, and then there were abolitionists, depending on your definitions.
By 1860, every Northern state had gradually abolished slavery, and so, in that sense every Northerner was an abolitionists, and cared deeply about blacks in their own states.
In several Northern states freed slaves could vote, some Northern states actively or passively worked to foil Fugitive Slave Laws, and so it's impossible to argue legitimately that Northerners "cared little about blacks".
But we also remember that our Republic was founded on the idea that states would make their own laws in such matters, and until 1860 there had never been an anti-slavery political party.
Even in 1860, Republicans claimed they were not abolitionists, because they did not advocate outlawing slavery where it already lawfully existed, only wished to prevent slavery's expansion into new territories, where it wasn't wanted.
But from the Slave-Power Fire-Eater perspective, that Republican view was totally intolerable, unacceptable, just as bad as radical-abolitionism, and plenty justification enough for declaring secession.
Indeed, we often forget that prior to 1860 the Slave-Power had enjoyed an unbroken string of political successes, in reducing tariffs, in making the Federal Government enforce Fugitive Slave Laws, in Northern states (Compromise of 1850) and then with Dred-Scott, in effect making slavery lawful in every state, regardless of its own laws.
And that is what pushed Northern opposition to slavery to new, higher levels, and fueled the new Republican Party's popularity.
In other words: it was Northern fears of slavery's expansion which drove political moves to contain it.
As for exactly how much most Northerners "cared" about blacks, it's certain they cared less about slaves than they did about their Southern fellow countrymen, but they didn't want Southerners shoving slavery down Northern throats.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "When he passed his Emancipation proclamation (which I had outlined lied about before, claiming it didn’t actually free anybody)..."
Corrected it for you.
Now you've been corrected on this point more that once, and so you need to stop misstating it.
The truth of this matter is: Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation freed tens of thousands of slaves immediately and by the war's end, millions.
I can't imagine how or why you insist otherwise, but you're certainly mistaken.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "...people in the North (both civilians and soldiers in the Union army) were upset, calling it “wicked”, “atrocious,” and “impudent.”
Perhaps you don't remember, but nearly half of all Northerners were "Dough-Faced" Democrats who supported the Slave-Power in all things except some technicalities relating to slavery's expansion.
Those Northern Democrats did not want to stop secession in the first place, and when war eventually came, did not want to win it.
They wanted a negotiated settlement, where everyone would "go in peace".
Such Dough-facers were almost as rabidly anti-Lincoln as Confederates themselves, and they controlled many powerful newspapers, especially in New York.
But most Northerners well understood the math here -- the Confederacy had almost as many slaves as whites, and every slave who could be turned to the Union cause was, in effect, a knife in the back of the Slave-Power.
By Civil War's end, Northerners were strongly in favor of the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery forever.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "The 3/5 compromise was thought up by two Northerners at the time of the Constitution Convention.
And it didn’t just give a little extra representation (the North was still the majority in Congress) it also counted towards taxation."
Take the example of 1833 -- the 3/5 rule increased Slave-Power representatives in congress by 1/3, from 73 to 98.
This meant they needed only 20 votes from non-slave states to form a majority, and there were always at least 20 Northern or Western Dough-faced representatives willing to vote with Southerners.
Indeed, very seldom were issues strictly "north versus south", and when they were, the Slave Power always protected its vital interests.
On the question of 3/5 tax liabilities: to my knowledge, there was never taxation -- none -- based on a state's census counts.
Instead, Federal income was derived almost entirely from tariffs on imports.
So your suggestion that taxes off-set the South's congressional advantage from the 3/5 rule is just bogus.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "I don’t know where you get the idea that the South ever controlled the Congress.
It was always ever equally balanced or with the North in a majority."
Of course the Slave-Power controlled the Congress, continuously, certainly on issues which mattered most to it.
To pick one example, by 1831 Southern representatives were growing tired to dealing with many citizen petitions to outlaw slavery.
So they passed a gag-rule eliminating all such debates within Congress, in 1836 by an overwhelming vote of 117 to 68.
That vote proves that when it really wanted to be, the Slave Power was both united and effective.
And when that gag-rule was finally abolished in 1844, it was only because Northern Democrats joined with Whigs, for reasons which are not now clear.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "However, the North eventually (in the compromise of 1850) had all the territories declared slave free, so there would be no more “southern” states to be added, only Northern ones, thus maintaining that in the future the balance of power would never be equal again."
No, no, where do you get this stuff?
After 1850, that was a political issue never settled, as the story of "Bleeding Kansas" illustrates.
On the one hand, the Supreme Court's Dred-Scott decision in effect made slavery lawful in all states & territories.
But on the other hand, Democrat Stephen Douglas' ideas of self-determination in territories were the issues on which Fire-Eaters walked out of the 1860 Democrat convention -- thus guaranteeing "Black Republican" victory in November.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "About the Supreme Court.
Yes, it did have a Southern majority in 1857.
It had 5 southerners and 4 Northerners.
But you said the Dred Scott decision went 7-2, so some of your Northerners voted for it as well."
As usual, you studiously ignore the indispensable supporting role of Northern Dough-faced Democrats in carrying out the Slave-Power's agenda.
So the answer to all such questions is: Northern Dough-faced Democrats.
Without them, the South was a powerless minority.
With them, the Slave-Power ruled the United States.
And when Fire Eaters broke up their own political alliance, they did so hoping it would lead eventually to declarations of secession.
And of course, it did.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Your claim that the South had absolute control of the Federal government is a laugh.
Neither side ever had absolute control.
It was always a balance that more often than not tipped in the side of the North.
That is why the South was always stuck paying a heavier share of the tax burden."
Again, there was no "heavier share", that's just another one of those Big Lies you people tell each other, to help you feeeeeeeeeeeel better, and you need to stop it, cold turkey, FRiend.
It's just not true.
As for who controlled the Federal Government, you can see it for your self -- from the beginning of the Republic, the South voted for the party which eventually became Democrats, and along with their Northern allies were usually, if not always, in the majority.
By contrast, the Northern parties (Federalists, Whigs & Republicans) elected only four of the first 15 presidents, and none of those for a second term.
The South alone elected eight presidents (five reelected) with the remaining three their Dough-faced allies (i.e., Democrat Buchanan).
In Congress, when united & allied, Southerners kept tariffs low and maintained a gag-rule against debates over slavery.
Of course, they weren't always united or allied, and on those occasions suffered setbacks to their interests.
In the Supreme Court, the Dred-Scott decision should speak for itself.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "In the election of Adams, the Northern state of Pennsylvania went to Jefferson and the Southern state of Maryland went to Adams."
In 1796 Maryland split its votes, the same as in 1861, with western counties voting Federalists, eastern counties Jefferson's Rep-Democrats.
Yes, Adams got more votes, but did not carry the entire state's delegates.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Adams turned out to be a dreadfully unpopular president because of his big government policies and served only one term."
But there was nothing "big government" about Adams, certainly not when compared with Jefferson's administration.
Yes, Adams grew unpopular, and Jefferson more popular, but still, in that 1800 election, Jefferson only won because of the extra electoral votes provided by the Constitution's 3/5 rule.
Without that, Adams would have won a second term.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "New England does not equal the whole North in these later elections."
No, but New England was especially badly served by the Big Government oppressive presidencies of Jefferson and Madison, and responded by threatening to secede.
So we must assume New England felt as badly then as the Deep South felt in 1860.
And yet, in the end, New England did not declare secession.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "The fact that Buchanan, who was a Northerner btw, carried some of the Northern States shows that the Democrat party was a national party concerned with national interests, not sectional and concerned only with the interests of one section over the others."
Because you are so blissfully ignorant of real history, you don't yet comprehend that Southern Slave-Power Democrats plus Northern Dough-faced Democrats = total control over the US Federal Government.
As long as they maintained their alliance, they ran the show.
But whenever they broke up their alliance, the results could be disastrous for the South.
President Buchanan was a Pennsylvania Dough-faced Democrat, dedicated to giving the Slave-Power whatever it wanted, up to and including a peaceful secession.
But after Fort Sumter, most Northern Democrats joined Republicans in support of war.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "You point out that the election of the republican party was not unconstitutional.
Of course it wasn’t.
But it doesn’t mean it wasn’t cause for alarm."
Both Lincoln's election and the resulting alarm were totally engineered by Southern Fire-Eaters who had been for many years campaigning for declarations of secession.
So in 1860 they first split their majority Democrat party, thus engineering Republican victory, then used that victory as excuse to declare secession.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "I have told you [lied about] how liberal Lincoln was and it was commonly known at the time.
That is [not] why when he became president he raised tariffs, instituted income tax and property tax, put into law the National Banking act which allowed the Government too much control over the currency and inflation (we see the problems of that today)."
Again, I have to correct you, because you don't learn from the truth.
Lincoln's tariffs, taxes and bank were all the result of Civil War, provoked, started and declared by the Confederacy against the United States.
After the war, tariffs were rolled back and income taxes repealed.
However, the National Banks proved important in controlling inflation (among other reasons) and so was kept.
Yes, I "get" that some people are paranoid over big banks, but I never learned such fears.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "He also supported public school system with the purpose being not so much to promote the three R’s as to ensure that the Government could control what was taught in the schools.
I think it is quite obvious that the South had good reason to secede, knowing that Lincoln supported all these things."
First of all, Lincoln did not support Federal control of "public schools" as we understand that term today.
Your claim here is just bogus to the max.
Second of all, of course the Deep South did have reason to secede, but all you pro-Confederates never, ever, ever confess the truth of what that reason was!
The Deep South, as fully explained in their "Reasons for Secession" documents, acted for one reason, and one reason only: to protect the FUTURE of SLAVERY.
That's why they acted before Lincoln took office and while their own Democrats still ruled Washington DC.
Lincoln did nothing!
Secessionists had no valid complaint against him.
They had only their own fears of what Lincoln might do at some time in the future.
And that, my FRiend, is the very definition of secession, "at pleasure".
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "In 1828, Senator Thomas Benton declared that:
I don't believe a word of that, for even a second.
The reason is simple: over 90% of Federal revenues came from tariffs -- not on exports but on imports well over 90% of which came into the USA through such Northern ports as Boston, New York and Philadelphia.
Those are the merchants who paid the tariffs, before shipping their goods throughout the rest of the country -- north, east, west and south.
So there is no possible way Southerners paid more than a "fair share" based on the volume of their import purchases.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "President Buchanan (a Northerner) agreed and noted in a message to Congress that 'The South has not had her share of money from the treasury, and unjust discrimination has been made against her….' "
All such quotes are ludicrous, and most likely fake, or taken grossly out of context.
That's because: when Dough-faced Democrat President Buchanan was in the White House, his Southern-Democrat dominated party controlled Congress, and so they had no excuse -- none, zero, nada -- to complain about how Federal money was spent.
They were in charge!
The Secretary of Treasury was a Georgian.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "When asked why the North should not let the South go, Lincoln’s reply was 'Let the South go? Let the South go! Where then shall we get our revenues!' "
That particular quote is certainly bogus, but obviously, Lincoln was unwilling to give up the portion of Federal revenues which came from seceded states.
A reasonable estimate is 15% or 20% of the total.
Turns out, he didn't really need that money, since the war-time income tax eventually provided more than enough, even with zero from the Confederacy.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "The Manchester had this to say: “The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods.
What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing. The transportation of cotton and its fabrics employs more ships than all other trade.
It is very clear that the South gains by this process, and we lose.
No—we MUST NOT ‘let the South go.’”
The truth of this matter is that cities like New York were highly conflicted in their responses to Deep South secession.
On the one hand, they depended on the South for raw materials and commerce, but on the other, as Democrats they were sympathetic to their southern cousins, and loathed Republicans, just as all Democrats did, and do.
So many wanted no part of a civil war against their southern partners and allies.
But my point is: their concerns were far more personal, based on their own private economies, not some abstract worry about sources of Federal revenues.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "The New York Evening Post bemoaned the loss of tax dollars in an article titled “What shall be done for a Revenue?” "
Again, doubtless New York commercial (& banking) interests were primarily concerned with their own future economies, and hyperbolically projecting their own needs onto the Federal government.
In fact, it turned out, they all did quite well, thank you, during the war, despite the loss of their previous sources of raw materials and customers.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Actually, the only founders who supported the national bank were big government folks like Hamilton (who was an admitted monarchist).
The problem with the National Bank is it gives the Federal government too much control over the printing of money and thus the economy."
Not true, since without Washington's approval, Hamilton could do nothing.
Actually, it would be easier to name those who opposed the National Bank -- anti-federalists they were called at first, eventually becoming Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans and finally Jacksonian Democrats.
But their opposition to a National Bank was highly negotiable (not a "core value") and so they struck a deal with Hamilton, approved by G. Washington and Adams.
And when Hamilton's bank charter expired in 1811, after five years of economic chaos & inflation, in 1816 President Madison (also a Founder) signed the charter for the Second Bank of the United States.
Point is: reinstating a National Bank system during the Civil War was nothing more that reestablishing what our Founders originally intended.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "The difference is that when Lincoln passed the income tax law, he had no intentions of it being temporary."
In fact, the temporary war-time income tax was passed by a Republican congress and in 1871 repealed by a Republican congress, so you have no basis on which to make such a false accusation.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "He did not issue a formal proclamation of war, but he called out the troops, with the purpose of waging war. Same result."
All you pro-Confederates like to make the ridiculous claim that Lincoln "declared war" on the South, while denying that the Confederacy "declared war" on the United States.
Seriously, doesn't that embarrass you?
In fact, on April 15, 1861 Lincoln had no purpose to "wage war", simply to recover those Union properties seized by the Confederacy.
Nor did Lincoln actually begin to "wage war" until long after the Confederacy had provoked, started, formally declared war on the United States and sent military aid to Confederates fighting to take over Union states.
The simple historical fact is that the Confederacy's only real chance for success was to "make nice" to Lincoln, and that they utterly refused to do, preferring war and destruction.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "If the South was really looking for an excuse to wage full-scale war, then why did they delay so long in issuing a declaration of war?"
The Confederacy delayed nothing:
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "You could also say it was unconstitutional for them to make all the territories slavery free rather than letting the population of those territories to decide for themselves."
I'll say it again: the Slave Power opposed territory voters' choice of free or slave state, and did everything it could -- in Kansas for example -- to prevent or corrupt popular vote on the slavery issue.
Indeed, the US Supreme Court in Dred-Scott had already effectively declared 7-2, slavery lawful in every state, requiring only some implementing decisions to make it impossible for any state to outlaw slavery.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "As I pointed out before, the FSL were only an extension of the full faith and credit idea put forth in the constitution."
Yes, the Constitution did require the return of fugitive slaves, however, enforcement of that requirement was left up to individual states.
This allowed the Underground Railroad to bring fugitives north until they reached some state which was very lax in enforcement.
The Compromise of 1850 moved enforcement unconstitutionally to the Federal government, and now combined with the 1857 Dred-Scott decision, threatened to make slavery enforceable -- and freedom for blacks unenforceable -- in every state.
And that was totally not what our Founders originally intended, and it's what motivated vast numbers of Northerners to vote Republican.
In summary: the Slave Power's initial political success was the root cause of its eventual destruction.
But our Founders never seized any British forts & arsenals before the Brits had both formally declared war and launched military attacks on Americans.
So everything our Founders did was in response to British aggression.
But with Confederates, it was the reverse -- Confederates seized US property, Confederates launched military assaults, Confederates formally declared war, all before any military actions by the United States.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Sorry to break it to you, but calling out the troops to attack is the same thing as declaring war.
If war wasn't what he was pursing, then why did he call for troops?"
Then why did Jefferson Davis first call up 100,000 Confederate troops, on March 6, two days after Lincoln's inauguration?
Was that Davis' "declaration of war" on the United States?
I say "no", because calling up troops is not a declaration of war, and neither is declaring a naval blockade.
Yes, both are often associated with wars, but they are not in themselves "acts of war" and do not always lead to war.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Yes, and all regions controlled by the Union were exempted in the proclamation. Those slaves remained slaves."
Again you misunderstand, even though it's been explained to you clearly, more than once.
By law, the US president could not declare any slaves "free" in any state, territory or region deemed loyal to the United States.
But also by law, the US military could declare enemy "property" to be "contraband" and seize it for military use.
And as Commander in Chief of the armed forces, President Lincoln could declare such "contraband property" to be free human beings, and so he did.
So in 1862 that emancipation proclamation effected only perhaps 20,000 to 50,000 slaves, but by war's end, with Union army control of most of the Confederacy, it freed millions.
So tell us precisely: what part of that do you not yet "get"?
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.