On this date in 1864

[fatez]

I don’t know why this is so hard for you, but the Union didn’t start the war. The South did. And the reason why the South started it was they wanted to keep slavery. Nice try...

[Duchess47]

I try very hard to stay away from these threads. Having said that, I grew up in California many years ago. Back when we had the best schools in the nation.

My high school US history, government and civics teachers and my college US history teacher believed the Union started the war.

Okay, I’m gone. :)

[BroJoeK]

Duchess47: "My high school US history, government and civics teachers and my college US history teacher believed the Union started the war."

Only by playing word-definition games.
Consider an analogy: the Communist Cubans dispute the US treaty rights to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, somewhat similar to South Carolina & Fort Sumter in 1861.
So, let's suppose the US sends several US Navy ships to resupply or reinforce Gitmo and the Commie Cubans use that mission as their excuse to launch a military assault and capture the base.

Assume this results in a call-up of US forces and blockade of Cuba.
Now, before any subsequent battle deaths, all recognize that war has started between the US and Communist Cubans.

Who would you say "started the war"?
I'd suggest the same logic should apply to Fort Sumter.

[BroJoeK]

Thanks for another great listing of quotes.

Lawrence Keitt:

"Our people have come to this on the question of slavery...."

"Laurence Massillon Keitt (October 4, 1824 – June 2, 1864) was an American planter, lawyer, politician, and soldier from South Carolina.
During his tenure in the United States House of Representatives, he was included in several lists of Fire-Eaters—men who adamantly urged the secession of southern states from the United States, and who resisted measures of compromise and reconciliation, leading to the American Civil War.

"Keitt is notable for being involved in two separate acts of legislative violence in the Congressional chambers.
In the first, Keitt assisted Representative Preston Brooks (D-SC) in his 1856 attack on Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA) in the Senate chamber by brandishing a pistol and cane to prevent other Senators from coming to Sumner's aid..."

John S. Mosby:

"The South had always been solid for slavery and when the quarrel about it resulted in a conflict of arms, those who had approved the policy of disunion took the pro-slavery side.
It was perfectly logical to fight for slavery, if it was right to own slaves."

"John Singleton Mosby (December 6, 1833 – May 30, 1916), also known by his nickname, the "Gray Ghost", was a Confederate army cavalry battalion commander in the American Civil War.
His command, the 43rd Battalion, Virginia Cavalry, known as Mosby's Rangers or Mosby's Raiders, was a partisan ranger unit noted for its lightning-quick raids and its ability to elude Union Army pursuers and disappear, blending in with local farmers and townsmen.
The area of northern central Virginia in which Mosby operated with impunity was known during the war and ever since as Mosby's Confederacy.
After the war, Mosby became a Republican and worked as an attorney and supported his former enemy's commander, U.S. President Ulysses S. Grant.
He also served as the American consul to Hong Kong and in the U.S. Department of Justice."

Alabama Congressman Robert H. Smith:

"We have dissolved the Union chiefly because of the negro quarrel."

"Robert Hardy Smith (March 21, 1813 – March 13, 1878) was an American politician who served as a senior officer of the Confederate States Army during the American Civil War."

S.F. Hale, Commissioner of Alabama :

"He [Lincoln] stands forth as the representative of the fanaticism of the North, which, for the last quarter of a century, has been making war upon the South, her property, her civilization, her institutions, and her interests; as the representative of that party which overrides all Constitutional barriers, ignores the obligations of official oaths, and acknowledges allegiance to a higher law than the Constitution, striking down the sovereignty and equality of the States, and resting its claims to popular favor upon the one dogma, the Equality of the Races, white and black." "

"Stephen F. Hale (born Stephen Fowler Hale; January 31, 1816 – July 18, 1862) was an American politician and an officer of the Confederate States Army who died of wounds received at the Battle of Gaines' Mill."

Fulton Anderson:

"...in view of the then threatened purpose, of a party founded upon the idea of unrelenting and eternal hostility to the institution of slavery, to take possession of the power of the Government and use it to our destruction."

"Fulton Anderson, a Mississippian lawyer, delivered a speech to the Virginian secession convention in 1861..."

Henry Benning:

"... a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North-was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery."

"Henry Lewis Benning (April 2, 1814 – July 10, 1875) was a general in the Confederate States Army.
He also was a lawyer, legislator, and judge on the Georgian Supreme Court as a native Georgian.
He commanded the "Benning's Brigade" during the American Civil War."

John Preston:

"...Twenty millions of people, with one of the strongest Governments on the face of the earth, decree the extermination of these 400,000 slaves..."

"John Smith Preston (April 20, 1809 – May 1, 1881) was a wealthy planter, soldier, and attorney who became prominent in South Carolina politics in the 19th century.
An ardent secessionist, he was the state's delegate dispatched to help convince the Virginia Secession Convention to join South Carolina in seceding from the antebellum Union in the months prior to the start of the American Civil War."

William L. Harris:

"This new union with Lincoln Black Republicans and free negroes, without slavery, or, slavery under our old constitutional bond of union, without Lincoln Black Republicans, or free negroes either, to molest us...."

"In 1860 President James Buchanan tendered him the appointment to a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States, but Harris declined "because of the impending secession."[2]
Harris served as a commissioner to Georgia during the secession winter and delivered an address to the Georgia legislature supporting secession.[5]"

And there were more, but this should serve.

Our pro-Confederate FRiends like to claim the Confederates' noble motives are irrelevant, only the wicked motives of Unionists matter.
The fact remains that Confederates did have a strong motive and were unashamed to express it, as DoodleDawg's post #197 list well demonstrates.

[CodeToad]

Another great quote:

Inaugural Address March 4, 1861

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; "

[rockrr]

It is a great and notable quote that shows how pig-headed people like S.F. Hale and William L. Harris were in inciting a civil war over a lie.

[rockrr]

My aunt’s, neighbor’s, sister’s gardener tole me that Linkum started the hole thing!

/s

[DiogenesLamp]

Objectively, Lee met the Constitution's definition of treason:

Just skated right past that quote from Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase in which he said that it did not.

This is why I usually don't bother responding to you in detail. You simply ignore things that contradict your point.

We also have the fact that they did not attempt to try Jeff Davis on "treason" charges. Historical reality contradicts your point.

[DiogenesLamp]

And they certainly did demand money from New York to pay for Federal government -- New York was the biggest collector of tariff revenues in the country.

It wasn't "New York" money. It was mostly Southern money, collected in New York.

I glanced at the rest of your message. I didn't see anything relevant, so I just skipped the rest of it.

[DiogenesLamp]

My facts are only "irrelevant" to the degree DiogenesLamp refuses to acknowledge them.

You keep saying the South controlled Washington, yet you do not square this claim with their burning desire to leave this condition in which they Controlled the government.

You equate Pearl Harbor to Sumter, and you have other just as nonsensical claims. You are not a serious person with whom to argue.

[DiogenesLamp]

You see what you wish to see.

[DiogenesLamp]

In the 1850s, those people had largely been Democrats, and Southern cotton planters and politicians were very much part of that commercial-financial-political complex.

If you are arguing that the South had previously had large influence on Washington, then you are correct. It is when they no longer hand that influence that they decided their best interests lay in running their own government.

You might wish that the plantation owners could squeeze a few more dollars out of the merchants, shippers, and banks who provided services to them, but those New York businessmen were a pretty obliging lot and would have gone some distance to keep the slavers' business.

A "few more dollars"? It would appear to be about 40% of the total that the South lost because of laws favoring the North East. If you add up the additional costs as a consequence of the Federal Government applying artificial constraints on the market (ie making Europeans goods more expensive to bolster Northern Industry) then the cost to the South is likely much more than 40% of the total.

So you think the slavers were the "good guys"?

In the manner that slavers George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were the "good guys". They were trying to gain independence from a government they believed no longer represented their interests, while your side simply decided to force other people to be subjugated.

Nice to see you finally come clean about that.

Stop trying to put your words into my mouth.

[DiogenesLamp]

Our pro-Confederate FRiends like to claim the Confederates' noble motives are irrelevant, only the wicked motives of Unionists matter.

They were the ones that invaded, so yeah, only their motivation for invading matters. They caused the bloodshed and death, so their reasons for killing so many people are the ones we should be looking at.

[Duchess47]

If I remember correctly, the problems could have and should have been resolved in Congress before secession and war.

[BroJoeK]

BJK post #190: "Objectively, Lee met the Constitution's definition of treason:"

DiogenesLamp post #208: [You] "Just skated right past that quote from Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase in which he said that it did not. "

Salmond P. Chase quoted post #187: "...by the Constitution secession is not rebellion..."

DL, you need to read Chase's words again, this time read s-l-o-w-l-y and o-u-t l-o-u-d.
Read them again & again until you grasp what Chase said.
Chase did not contradict the US Constitution and declare Robert E. Lee innocent of treason.
Chase only said that secession alone is not rebellion.
But waging war against the United States is, by Constitutional definition, both treason and rebellion.

And there's more to this story...
If you accept Chase's words here, do you also accept Chase's ruling in Texas v. White?

Finally, we should note that Chase was what we'd today call a RINO -- Republican in Name Only.
His real allegiance was to Democrats (like President Andrew Johnson) and he hoped in 1868 to run for President on the Democrat ticket.
So read his words here as an effort to win friends & influence fellow Democrats.

[rockrr]

*sigh* If only that were true - I wouldn’t see you at all.

[rockrr]

If I remember correctly, the problems could have and should have been resolved in Congress before secession and war.

I agree. In which case shouldn't any blame for failure be divided between the parties with an extra helping to the instigators of those problems? And should the weighting be even greater for the party that bypasses the conventional methods and goes straight to the gun?

[DiogenesLamp]

If you accept Chase's words here, do you also accept Chase's ruling in Texas v. White?

If you are familiar with the legal term "statement against interest", then that answers your question about Chase's view on Jeff Davis being tried for Treason.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: “If you are familiar with the legal term ‘statement against interest’, then that answers your question about Chase’s view on Jeff Davis being tried for Treason.”

**********************

But it certainly was in Chase’s interest to win friends & influence his fellow *Democrats*.
Chase wanted to be their presidential nominee, so why wouldn’t he say nice things about his fellow Democrat, your old buddy-pal “Jeff” Davis?

[x]

A "few more dollars"? It would appear to be about 40% of the total that the South lost because of laws favoring the North East.

You still don't get it. Just because cotton planters got money for a large share of US imports, that doesn't mean that they were entitled to anything once they spent the money on other things. They got the money. They used it to buy things. So they didn't have the money anymore. And Northerners they bought things from could use the money to import other things. Ask an economist about that, instead of just repeating the same line over and over again.

In the manner that slavers George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were the "good guys". They were trying to gain independence from a government they believed no longer represented their interests, while your side simply decided to force other people to be subjugated.

What you said was: "You recognize that this is true now, but you can't bring yourself to believe that your side has *always* been the bad guys."

I'm not sure what "my side" is. It was certainly possible to oppose or criticize the "robber barons" of a century back without supporting slavery and secession. Most of the country felt that way a century ago.

Looking at the course of our history, it's hard to see that there was one "side" that was always right and one that was always wrong. Even the same people weren't always on the "same" side all the time: Ronald Reagan, for example.

And if it's a North-South thing you're talking about: Adams and Hamilton were fighting on the same side as Washington and Jefferson in the Revolution. And Jefferson was on a different "side" than Washington, Adams, and Jefferson in later years.

Whether any of them would have supported unilateral secession by a state is uncertain but unlikely. Look at Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion or Jefferson and the embargo. Hypothetical history is always guesswork, but it's not clear that if Washington or Jefferson had been president in 1861 that they'd just do nothing and let any part of the country break away without congressional consent.

Stop trying to put your words into my mouth.

Your own words are bad enough. They've convicted you many times over.