Posted on 07/22/2015 7:36:12 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
We call the war of 1861 the Civil War. But is that right? A civil war is a struggle between two or more entities trying to take over the central government. Confederate President Jefferson Davis no more sought to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington sought to take over London in 1776. Both wars, those of 1776 and 1861, were wars of independence. Such a recognition does not require one to sanction the horrors of slavery. We might ask, How much of the war was about slavery?
Was President Abraham Lincoln really for outlawing slavery? Let's look at his words. In an 1858 letter, Lincoln said, "I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion neither the General Government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists." In a Springfield, Illinois, speech, he explained: "My declarations upon this subject of Negro slavery may be misrepresented but cannot be misunderstood. I have said that I do not understand the Declaration (of Independence) to mean that all men were created equal in all respects." Debating Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln said, "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."
What about Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation? Here are his words: "I view the matter (of slaves' emancipation) as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion." He also wrote: "I will also concede that emancipation would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition." When Lincoln first drafted the proclamation, war was going badly for the Union.
London and Paris were considering recognizing the Confederacy and assisting it in its war against the Union.
The Emancipation Proclamation was not a universal declaration. It specifically detailed where slaves were to be freed: only in those states "in rebellion against the United States." Slaves remained slaves in states not in rebellion — such as Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and Missouri. The hypocrisy of the Emancipation Proclamation came in for heavy criticism. Lincoln's own secretary of state, William Seward, sarcastically said, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."
Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been heartily endorsed by the Confederacy: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. ... Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit." Lincoln expressed that view in an 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives, supporting the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.
Why didn't Lincoln share the same feelings about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our nation's history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What "responsible" politician would let that much revenue go?
The Constitution would have never been ratified if it had included a “roach motel” clause in it - states can get in but they can never get out.
And here you go skipping down that "People can only exercise their rights if I approve of their reasons." path.
In response, President Lincoln executed long-made plans to defeat the Confederate military, which eventually came to include freeing slaves under US Army control -- Emancipation Proclamation.
That hypocritical thing that even Secretary of State Seward couldn't stomach?
"We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."
The Emancipation Proclamation was all that Lincoln could constitutionally do, at the time, at the time, but he also submitted and got passed the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, demonstrating that for Republicans, slavery was not just a tactical military matter, but also a moral issue.
Twisting the arms of State legislatures with Federal occupation troops is probably not what the Founders would have considered to be a legitimate expression of the Democratic process. In fact, I believe our current legal system sees contracts made under duress as invalid.
The whole process was a pretend "consent" and it was in fact a gun to their back and they "will vote the way they were told" sort of thing.
These events were more of a payoff to the same North Eastern Liberal supporters of the President as well as an ex post facto rationalization and propaganda effort to divert attention from the fact that so many people were killed slapping Federal chains on the Southern States.
There had to be an acceptable reason for all the bloodshed, because forcing people back into the Union against their will just didn't have any moral persuasion to it. Good political operatives retroactively made the war about Slavery, so as if to give the Union moral cover for the people that got killed during the Southern states efforts to gain independence.
The Winners of a conflict will always force history into making them appear to be the "good guys", even when they are not.
I wasn't referring to the "British" standards, I was referring to *YOUR* standards. If YOUR standards were in effect in 1776, *YOU* wouldn't allow the colonists to secede. That is what I meant by usage of the word "permitted". I meant permitted by you and your notion of conditional rights contingent upon your approval.
I will further point out that it isn't Hypocritical for a Nation such as the British Union to fight attempts to leave their nation because they do not recognize such a principle as valid. It is VERY hypocritical for a nation that explicitly recognizes such a right, and indeed was founded on the very same principle, to fight attempts to leave.
Pro-Confederates, by contrast, love to whine and complain that they were not treated like heroes.
And get your facts straight. I am not "pro-confederate" i'm pro "right to leave." Why am I pro "right to leave"? I could write a dozen essays on the topic, but suffice it to say it is a recognition that our current fiscal and social policies are a suicide pact, and i'd rather not ride that crash into the ground.
Unfortunately we have people like you who simply won't accept a "right to leave" because you are so emotionally tied up with "Rah rah! My Team won the Playoffs!" attitude regarding the civil war. The larger principle involved here is whether Independence is a right given by "the laws of nature and of Nature's God", or it isn't.
You appear to be on the "isn't" side.
I've seen your post, and it is your post that is the rubbish.
God did not look so kindly on the Slave Power rebelling and starting a war to protect their "property" and "peculiar institution" of slavery.
I imagine God could be claimed to be on whichever side had five times the population and the vast bulk of the Industrial might. This sort of thing has happened before.
They accepted it alright, in 1787 the vast bulk of them were themselves slave states. In 1776 they all were.
In Lincoln's mind, as we would say it today, it was a "win-win".
It was just the eventual resolution of his "If you like your slavery you can keep your slavery" campaign rhetoric.
You think being snide is a substitute for a good argument? The Southern population was many times larger than the entire US population in 1776. Whatever threshold is required to exercise the right to independence, they met it.
And all that money the government borrowed since Jackson, now I don't owe a penny of it!
Of course you are attempting to make mockery, but there is a kernel of truth in this.
How am I to be held responsible for Federal expenditures of which I have no say, were completely against all my life, but now am expected by others to accept as a burden I didn't want and from which I have received no benefit?
I thought you were against slavery or something?
Right. And I guess they’d have never signed on to the document they were operating on up until the Constitution was ratified either, right? You know, the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.
Except that there was nothing "Tonkin" about it.
The facts were well known at the time, as the whole country watched developments.
By all standards the assault on Fort Sumter was not just a provocation for war, but an act of war.
And, it was followed three weeks later (May 6) by a formal declaration of war on the United States.
The first Confederate soldier killed directly in battle came at Big Bethel on June 10, two weeks after Virginia formally voted to secede and join the Confederacy's declared war on the United States.
But are you certain that He didn't?
Have you studied your Bible carefully enough to know it's full judgment on slavery?
Do you suppose God brought the children of Israel out of Egypt because He thought slavery for them was a good thing?
No? Really?
And do you presume that Jesus held a different opinion on slavery than God His Father?
FRiend, don't trifle with me.
And don't trifle with God.
Study your Bible and you will know the utter condemnation that God holds toward enslaving His people.
It was a most "peculiar" institution.
It means exactly what I wrote: "Neither the United States nor any major power on Earth ever recognized the Confederacy as a legitimate independent country.”
Even in 1860, no major country was going to recognize another whose essence of being begins with statements like this:
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.
Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.
These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun...."
-- A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
Even in 1860, if it weren't so deadly, it would be a bad joke.
Today it's a complete farce.
Of course, I understand all that.
Indeed, back in those days, there were many -- and not all of them slave-holders -- who argued that slavery for blacks was superior to what amounted to "wage slavery" of poor white northern immigrants, since northern employers had no responsibility, and no concern for, their workers beyond paying them the lowest possible wages.
I "get" all that, and such arguments were not necessarily totally invalid.
But the issue in my post #489, responding to jeffersondem's post #449 is whether Jesus specifically, and the Bible generally, condemn slavery?
The answer is that the Bible specifically and categorically condemns slavery for God's people -- that's what Exodus is all about, among other things.
So the only remaining question is whether African slaves could ever be considered God's people?
And the obvious answer is: of course, once they have been baptized Christians, then just like the rest of us, they are as much God's people as anyone.
But, it's sometimes said, the Bible doesn't condemn slavery in every verse, so slavery must be A-OK with God, right?
Noooooooo... as in everything, the Bible sets very high standards, which we are to strive towards achieving.
But it also fully recognizes that humans are morally weak, prone to make wrong choices, and so, if, if, if you live in a land where slavery is the law, and you are a slave, then be a good slave, for God's sake.
And if you are a slave-holder, then treat your slave as a brother, a member of your own family, also for Christ's sake.
Do you disagree, FRiend?
The "peculiar" institution practiced in the South was as "good" as a bad thing can get. Which is a moral conundrum. If an slave owner honestly thinks (wrongfully so in hindsight) that freeing a child to fend for themselves is wrong and holding them in bondage is also wrong, then you find yourself is a very weird predicament. The owner makes the best of it, as so the slave.
“Regardless, our Founders in 1776, and again in 1787 joined a “perpetual union” which they then made “more perfect”.”
Sure, it is “perpetual” in the sense that it continues until the people decide to dissolve it. The founders knew full well that the people had a right to change their form of government, after all, it’s the central thesis of their experiment.
“Yes, they considered “disunion” or “secession” valid and necessary, but only under certain conditions, and never “at pleasure”.”
Show us where they spelled out those conditions in the Constitution then. If not, then they left it to the people’s discretion.
Round and round and round we go. They keep chewing away at the rag but to what purpose? The simple truth prevails:
All parties knew that secession wasn’t an enumerated privilege.
All parties knew that any attempt at unilateral secession would be met with resistance, thus no unilateral secession could be ever considered “amicable” or peaceful.
The southern states seceded anyway and seized federal properties in provocative and belligerent fashion.
The north defended itself and the fight was on.
The north prevailed.
SCOTUS declared unilateral secession unconstitutional.
All the other aspects of coulda, shouda, woulda are irrelevant.
If we don't go by "Founders' Original Intent", then we have nothing to anchor our understandings of what the Constitution means beyond our own definitions of their words.
And if we are free to redefine words to suit today's latest political correctness, then we end up... well just where the Obama-nation is leading.
So... Founders' Original Intent in the case of "dis-union" or "secession" is clear and consistent, as spelled out by Madison specifically and as implied in the words and actions of all others.
The Founders did not intend that "dis-union" should be "at pleasure", meaning without serious reasons, or that it should be unilateral.
What they did intend was that it should be by "mutual consent", or alternatively, as a result of "oppression" & "usurpations" -- a breach of compact -- which would "have that same effect".
In December 1860, there was neither "mutual consent" nor a breach of compact, and so Deep South Fire Eater declarations of secession were not constitutionally kosher -- they didn't pass our Founders' tests.
Nevertheless, those declarations of secession did not start a Civil War, and neither did their forming a new Confederate government.
Indeed, had the Confederacy been determined to preserve the peace, Lincoln told them in his First Inaugural (March 4, 1861) that they could only have a war if they themselves started it.
But an assault on US troops in US Fort Sumter is an act of war, and since it was soon followed by a formal declaration of war on the United States, it's abundantly clear the Confederacy did not wish to preserve the peace.
Naturally, Confederates in 1861 expected to win their war for independence, just as our Founders did in 1776.
But they were mistaken, and the rest is history...
“If we don’t go by “Founders’ Original Intent”, then we have nothing to anchor our understandings of what the Constitution means beyond our own definitions of their words.”
The founders had their disagreements amongst themselves, and it’s not hard to find passages from the founders’ writings that contradict each other. That’s why we aren’t ruled by just any old writing from the founders, but by the Constitution that they agreed upon. If you can’t find support for your claims in the Constitution, it won’t suffice to simply substitute some other writing and claim it is binding.
You made a claim, it should stand up to hypotheticals.
The Southern population was many times larger than the entire US population in 1776. Whatever threshold is required to exercise the right to independence, they met it.
Except they didn't run it through the Congress.
How am I to be held responsible for Federal expenditures of which I have no say, were completely against all my life, but now am expected by others to accept as a burden I didn't want and from which I have received no benefit?
You voted. You received the benefits of road construction, police protection, education, and our military keeping the British, the Mexican army, the Confederate slavers, the Germans, the Japanese, the Soviets, and now the Islamists from invading your home.
I thought you were against slavery or something?
Oh yes I'm against it, and didn't vote for most of the nanny state. But I didn't move either, so I accept some of it. Maybe up until voter fraud became rampant, anyway. Since voter fraud has taken our vote away, maybe we're not liable for a lot of the debt of the last few years.
Knee slapper of the day. Chained in barns, your daughters all sent to the "stud" of the farm to be bred like horses. Oh how nice.
No, Slaves in ancient Israel had it better than that, and those were God's rules on slavery. Slavery became obsolete when Jesus was crucified. Paul encouraged the release of slaves, especially if they believed on Jesus, as most blacks in the south did.
The intrigue around all of this would make for a good movie except for the lack of violence.
It was a well-publicized movement of a Union war fleet of approximately eleven ships carrying approximately 2,000 troops and munitions sailing under orders to form on April 12 off Charleston harbor and begin any action necessary to collect tariff revenues from the State of South Carolina...
The point here is the South Carolinians were primed for the worst and expected the worst. War fever, inspired greatly by newspaper articles, was at a crisis level on both sides. Lincoln had declared what he was going to do in his inaugural address and the seceded states didn’t have any reason to doubt his aggressive intentions.
April 1, 1861-Lincoln sent a secret message to Admiral Foote at the Brooklyn Naval Yard to outfit the “Powhatan” for military use. Foote was instructed under no circumstances to notify the Navy Department of this action. When the “Powhatan” sailed to Charleston it was disguised as a merchant ship flying the flag of Great Britain with the ships name painted out.
April 6, 1861-Lincoln ordered the two gun ships, “Pocahontas” and “Pawnee”, along with the armed revenue cutter “Harriet Lane” to be ready to sail on this date.
April 7, 1861-The steam transports, the “Illinois”, “Baltic” and the “Atlantic” leave New York Harbor. These ships carried troops, munitions and supplies. Their departure and cargos were duly noted in New York newspapers.
Three ocean going tugboats, the “Yankee”, the “Uncle Ben” and the “Freeborn”, were added to the Charleston Harbor fleet. The tugboats were to be sent into the harbor first to mark the channel and then transfer troops from the ships to shore.
The fleet that was speculated by northern newspaper accounts to be headed for Charleston reported the departures of the following ships:
Harriett Lane- three 9-inch Dahlgrens, one 30-pounder Parrott Rifle, and one 12-pounder -to be used as an armed escort ship for the troop carrying passenger steamer Baltic
Pawnee-15 gun warship-crew of 94
Pocahontas-6 gun warship-crew of 95
Powhatan-warship-many guns plus 4-12 pounders-300 sailors and launches
Baltic-civilian merchant/passenger steamer-10 small boats-300 men (troops)
Illinois-civilian merchant/passenger steamer-carrying an unspecified number of troops
Atlantic- civilian merchant/passenger steamer-600 troops aboard (U.S. Navy History records)
Yankee-ocean tug-returned to port
Uncle Ben-ocean tug-returned to port
Freeborn-ocean tug-never got to sea
April 8, 1861-A written notice was sent by the Lincoln Federal Government without date or signature, which was read to Governor Pickens of South Carolina by Mr. Chew of the U. S. State Department, to the effect that the garrison in Fort Sumter would be supplied with provisions, peaceably, if permitted, forcibly, if necessary.
April 12, 1861-At 3am the “Baltic” arrived at the rendezvous point ten miles out of Charleston Harbor with Gustavus Vasa Fox, the planner and leader of the expedition, aboard. The armed revenue cutter “Harriett Lane” was already there and the “Pawnee” arrived at 6am. Fox had planned to put ashore 500 troops at Sumter on this morning to reinforce Andersons force of 86 troops. The three tugs, the “Powhatan”, and the “Pocahontas” had not arrived.
The “relief fleet”, as described by Lincoln and the newspapers including the gunboats, consisted of ships carrying troops, munitions, and supplies.
It is known that the relief supply ship “Baltic” intended to disembark troops (300 or 500 in number) at Fort Sumter to increase the manning of the fort by a multiple of four or five times it original complement. This is hardly the action of a ship “carrying supplies only”.
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.