Were Confederate Generals Traitors?

Seek therapy. Free Republic is not your personal psychiatrist couch.

Of course there was. It wasn’t expansive but it was there.

Because it hardly existed proves my point. I do not considered the draft/race riots in NYC a partisan guerilla war effort to overthrow FedGov. Even though it was big and deadly event it was not really organized.

I’m not referring to the draft riots. I don’t think OIFVeteran is either.

Yes, yes, and yet more yes!

Every few weeks someone will post something about how Dixie was mistreated by the tyrant Lincoln. They claim "revisionist history" for blaming the war on slavery, never acknowledging that the secessionist leaders themselves claimed at the time that slavery was the reason for taking up arms against the United States (which they did by firing upon their fellow Americans at Fort Sumter). As long as the self-proclaimed Southrons continue to spout such nonsense, I am happy to see that their claims continue to be debunked by conscientious Freepers.

“The civil war should be remembered as the most embarrassing chapter in American history, where a collection of planter oligarchs unhappy with the results of a fair and democratic election, attempted through overt acts of treason to undermine our democracy and in the process unleashed the most destructive war in the United States’ history, all in an attempt to establish a new Republic founded solely to preserve and protect an institution that kept millions of Americans in chains.”

You forgot to mention they colluded with the Red Russians. And caused tooth decay.

What's the difference from drug dealers?
It's all the buyers' faults ?
The dealers should not have any blame in the batter ?
Don't be ridiculous !

Maybe in the next life, you'll come back in that time frame as a slave working in the cotton fields of the south.
Then, when we all me again, you can tell us 'why' . < /sarc>

Maybe we should start with the very FIRST SLAVE OWNER IN THE UNITED STATES.

It's NOT about RACE !
It's about IDEOLOGY !

WHO was Anthony Johnson of the 1600s ?

America’s first slave owner was a black man.

WHO was John Casor ( Caster ) 1655 ?

WHY doesn't the media tell you about WHITE SLAVES owned by Blacks in the the United States ?

Why isn't White Slavery, Maternal Descent, And The Politics Of Slavery In The Antebellum United States, written by Lawrence Tenzer and A.D. Powell, REQUIRED READING in High School ?

Watch these videos:

David Barton - Three-Fifths clause was anti-slavery, not pro

PART 1 Glenn Beck: History of Slavery (08-19-2010).flv

PART 2 Glenn Beck: History of Slavery (08-19-2010).flv

PART 3 Glenn Beck: History of Slavery (08-19-2010).flv

PART 4 Glenn Beck: History of Slavery (08-19-2010).flv

Glenn Beck -6/14/2011- Slavery and the GOP Debate

How much more do you need to prove to yourself that (?) :

DEMOCRATS ARE ENSLAVING YOU !

“again, if slavery was “enshrined in the Constitution”, how did more than half of the States of the Union outlaw the institution.”

Consider there is the U.S. constitution; and there are individual state constitutions. That’s how.

Excellent essay by Walter Williams.

+1

Do you include Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe in your condemnation? Or does slavery only become a problem for you with the Confederacy?

“And every action was done after the South had begun hostilities...”

Not true at all.

In December of 1860, The Committee of Thirteen had been established to develop peace proposals. The members were Senators of both the Republican and Democratic parties, and were from the North, West, South, and border states. They developed five proposals of their own as potential solutions.

After the Crittenden Compromise was developed, key Southern Congressional members indicated that it would be a satisfactory compromise to the states likely to secede. Therefore, secession and military conflict could be avoided.

William Seward, decided that a representative should be sent to Springfield to inform President-elect Lincoln of the potential peace saving Crittenden Compromise, and its mutual acceptance by leaders in both parties.

The greatest Republican boss of the day, Thurlow Weed was chosen to convey the plan to Lincoln.

Weed was very much in support of the plan as well as other Republicans and Southern Democrats. This meant that peace could have been had. But Lincoln was not in agreement with the proposals in the Compromise.

On December 20, the day that South Carolina voted to leave the Union, in a meeting with Thurlow Weed, Lincoln gave his out of hand rejection of the compromise, and put his answer in writing.

Most importantly, during the next two months, his political manipulations to marshal Republican support of his position, eliminated the peace effort. His opposition to the effort and its eventual failure was engineered by Lincoln before he took office.

Example one of Lincoln's manipulation toward war.

Can you cite the constitutional provision prohibiting secession?

_______________

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Example 2 of Lincoln meddling that led to a war unapproved by the Congress and a violation of the Constitution:

South Carolina Governor Gist had, on December 6, 1860, through state representatives meeting with President Buchanan, obtained an Armistice agreement between the State of South Carolina and the Federal Government that was designed to maintain peace in Charleston harbor as well as with the State of Florida. All parties agreed not to make improvements in their facilities, nor to act aggressively toward each other.

This was done to give negotiations for peace a chance by enabling the Governors to present to the people and politicians of South Carolina and Florida tangible proof of the peaceful intentions of the government.

It is evident that Lincoln had begun to formulate a plan to reinforce Sumter and and Pensacola harbor even before his inauguration. On 12 December 1860, a full three months before he had taken the oath of office, Lincoln was already acquainting at least one of his future subordinates with his policy of coercion when he sent, by messenger, the characteristically secret message to General Winfield Scott:

“Please present my respects to the general, and tell him, confidentially, I shall be obliged to him to be as well prepared as he can to either hold or retake the forts, as the case may require, at and after the inauguration.”

Two weeks later, Major Anderson, contrary to his direct orders of November 15, and December 23 from President Buchanan and the Secretary of War, abandoned Fort Moultrie and moved his forces to Fort Sumter.

This action, which sparked profound resentment from the South Carolinians, as well as confusion among his superiors in the War Department and alarm from President Buchanan, was accomplished at the urging of General Scott in response to Lincoln's December telegram.

President-elect Lincoln’s secret communication to General Scott, urging him to formulate plans to retain the fort, was consistent with Scott’s representative Major Buell’s suggestion to Major Anderson that he could withdraw to Ft. Sumter if he chose to do so.

Without any pretense of legal or constitutional authority, Lincoln was interfering with the official capacity of the US Government in a standing agreement between the President of the United States, and South Carolina.

Lincoln would later ridicule this agreement between the government of South Carolina and Florida and the Federal government in his address to Congress on as a “quasi armistice.” It should come as no surprise that Lincoln would so ridicule and disregard another obligation to which the U.S. Government was bound — the Constitution for the United States of America.

In this special message of July 4, 1861 to Congress, seeking to justify his illegal actions and to obtain Congressional forgiveness, Lincoln deceived the Congress repeatedly. He gave false information and he withheld information.

With regard to the armistice, there were documents describing the validity of the agreement.

President Lincoln had ordered that Federal troops be transferred to Ft. Pickens in Florida from the ship Sabine.

“The first return news from the order was received just one week before the fall of Fort Sumter. The news itself was, that the officer commanding the Sabine, to which vessel the troops had been transferred from the Brooklyn, acting upon some quasi armistice of the late administration, (and of the existence of which, the present administration, up to the time the order was dispatched, had only too vague and uncertain rumors, to fix attention) had refused to land the troops.”

Lincoln told Congress the administration only had uncertain rumors of some quasi armistice. The following are some official records of the time.

Washington, January 29, 1861.

TO JAMES GLYNN, commanding the Macedonian; Captain W. S. WALKER, commanding the Brooklyn, and other naval officers in command; and Lieutenant ADAM J. SLEMMER, First Regiment Artillery, U. S. Army, commanding Fort Pickens, Pensacola, Fla.:

In consequence of the assurance received from Mr. Mallory in a telegram of yesterday to Messrs. Slidell, Hunter, and Bigler, with a request it should be laid before the President, that Fort Pickens would not be assaulted, and an offer of such an assurance to the same effect from Colonel Chase, for the purpose of avoiding a hostile collision, upon receiving satisfactory assurances from Mr. Mallory and Colonel Chase that Fort Pickens will not be attacked, you are instructed not to land the company on board the Brooklyn unless said fort shall be attacked or preparations shall be made for its attack. The provisions necessary for the supply of the fort you will land. The Brooklyn and other vessels of war on the station will remain, and you will exercise the utmost vigilance and be prepared at a moment's warning to land the company at Fort Pickens, and you and they will instantly repel an attack on the fort.

The President yesterday sent a special message to Congress commending the Virginia resolutions of compromise. The commissioners of different States are to meet here on Monday, the 4th February, and it is important that during their session a collision of arms should be avoided, unless an attack should be made or there should be preparation for such an attack. In either event the Brooklyn and the other vessels will act promptly.

Your right, and that of the other officers in command at Pensacola, freely to communicate with the Government by special messenger, and its right in the same manner to communicate with yourself and them, will remain intact as the basis on which the present instruction is given.

J. HOLT,

Secretary of War.

ISAAC TOUCEY,

Secretary of the Navy.

PENSACOLA HARBOR, FLA., February 7, 1861.

Colonel L. THOMAS, Assistant Adjutant-General, U. S. Army:

SIR:

I have the honor to report that I arrived on this station yesterday in the U. S. steamer Brooklyn, with Company A, First Artillery. I met orders here which prevent the landing of my company or the reinforcement of the garrison of Fort Pickens at present. Yesterday I landed at Fort Pickens, assumed command of the forces on the station, inspected the defenses, and had a consultation with Lieutenant Slemmer. I am compelled to remain on board the Brooklyn for the present, and can, of course, only give general instructions to Lieutenant Slemmer….

Lieutenant Slemmer has with him only forty-six enlisted men for duty, and thirty ordinary seamen from the yard at this station, and the latter are entirely untrained, insubordinate, and of but little use in case of attack…

Lieutenant Slemmer has been obliged to employ his command in getting guns into position and in barricading the embrasures. He is obliged to keep one-half of his men under arms every night, and they are nearly all exhausted with fatigue…

The seceeders have a considerable force in and about Pensacola; what number I am unable to say positively, but they are estimated at about 1,700 men. They are disorderly, and very unwilling to be controlled. Their leaders, from what I can learn, I believe are sincere in their intention to observe the armistice, but their ability to control the men under their command is very doubtful….

Should the armistice be broken, my company, all the marines, and as many sailors as may raise the garrison to four hundred men should be immediately landed….

Yours, &c.,

I. VOGDES,

Captain, First Artillery.

P. S.-I must not be understood as recommending any violation of the existing armistice, but the collection of an amount of troops on the station as may be necessary for the defense should anything occur to rupture the present armistice.

FORT PICKENS, FLA., February —, 1861.

Message of the President of the United States, in answer to a resolution of the Senate requesting information concerning the quasi armistice alluded to in his message of the 4th instant.

JULY 31, 1861.- Read, ordered to lie on the table and be printed.

To the Senate of the United States:

In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 19th instant, requesting information concerning the quasi armistice alluded to in my message of the 4th instant, I transmit a report from the Secretary of War.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

JULY 30, 1861.

NAVY DEPARTMENT,

July 29, 1861.

The Secretary of the Navy, to whom was referred the resolution of the Senate of the 19th instant, requesting the President of the United States to “communicate to the Senate (if not incompatible with the public interest) the character of the quasi armistice to which he refers in his message of the 4th instant, be reason of which the commander of the frigate Sabine refused to transfer the United States troops into Fort Pickens in obedience to his orders; by whom and when such armistice was entered into; and if any, and what, action has been taken by the Government in view of the disobedience of the order of the President aforesaid,” has the honor to report that it is believed the communication of the information called for would not, at this time, comport with the public interest.

Respectfully submitted.

GIDEON WELLES.

The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

The people of the State of South Carolina became aggressive in their self-defense with this revelation that the Federal Government would use military coercion as policy.

It is also noteworthy that Lincoln was planning a show of hostility against the people of South Carolina at least eight days before that State's secession from the Union, thereby exposing as mere subterfuge his later designation of the South Carolinians, and their fellow Southerners, as “insurrectionists.” The American people would have been justly alarmed had the light of discovery revealed Lincoln's secret agenda for all to see.

America's greatest generation apparently did not consider them traitors when they honored them with this 1937 postage stamp, but some of the descendants of that generation are a breed apart.

That wasn't the "greatest generation". They were still in their teens and twenties in 1937. It was their parents and grandparents who were running the country back then. The generation which won the Second World War was the generation that went on to get rid of segregation.

When Democrats needed Southern votes they courted the South with stuff like this stamp. There were still people around whose parents had survived the Civil War and the government had to make them happy. It's a different country now.

Article 1 section 9 clause 4 of the Constitution of the Confederate States of America. “No bill of Attainder, ex-post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.”

“....all in an attempt to establish a new Republic founded solely to preserve and protect an institution that kept millions of Americans in chains.”

If you were wrong, would you want to know it?

That covers ownership.

You said this: “...and that no state could take any action to end the practice.”

Where in the Constitution does it deny the states’ right to amend the Constitution?

It does not, but this is the Constitution as written. Whether it would ever be amended is pure conjecture.