On this day in 1864

[Bull Snipe]

Leading elements of Union Major General George G. Meade's Army of the Potomac cross the Rapidan River. With a few hours they would clash with General Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia in the Battle of the Wilderness. Lieutenant General Grant's Overland Campaign had begun.

[jeffersondem]

“Ok, Why did Jefferson Davis decide to open fire on a Federal Military Installation? What was his reason?”

Davis must have calculated it was in his nation's best self-interest to force the fort's evacuation.

It was a controversial decision, now more than then. It was unknown, and unknowable, to Davis that he would lose Jackson at Chancellorsville.

[jeffersondem]

“You demand that we play your insipid games and then pretend to indignation?”

I’m sorry if I said anything to offend you.

[Bull Snipe]

It was the only way to get a Constitution.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Prior to Lincoln’s War there were few that didn’t believe secession was permissible. Read what one revered expert taught:"

Regardless of their opinions about the constitutionality of unilateral, unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure, almost every Unionist believed the civil war started by Confederates at Fort Sumter should be fought & won.

Doughfaced Northern Democrat President James Buchanan (from south-central PA) comes to mind.
Totally sympathetic to slavery, as witnessed by his behind-the-scenes action on the SCOTUS Dred Scott decision, and even unwilling to use force to stop secession, Buchanan nevertheless supported the Union.

"The Civil War erupted within two months of Buchanan's retirement.
He supported the United States, writing to former colleagues that "the assault upon Sumter was the commencement of war by the Confederate states, and no alternative was left but to prosecute it with vigor on our part".[80]
He also wrote a letter to his fellow Pennsylvania Democrats, urging them to "join the many thousands of brave & patriotic volunteers who are already in the field".[80]"

But former Doughfaced Northern Democrat President Franklin Pierce (New Hampshire) saw things differently:

"Pierce wanted to avoid war at all costs, and wrote to Van Buren, proposing an assembly of former U.S. presidents to resolve the issue, but this suggestion was not acted on.
"I will never justify, sustain or in any way or to any extent uphold this cruel, heartless, aimless, unnecessary war," Pierce wrote to his wife.[128]
Pierce publicly opposed President Lincoln's order suspending the writ of habeas corpus, arguing that even in a time of war, the country should not abandon its protection of civil liberties.
This stand won him admirers with the emerging Northern Peace Democrats, but others saw the stand as further evidence of Pierce's southern bias.[129]"

Keystoner Buchanan understood Confederates started war at Fort Sumter while Granite Stater Pierce overlooked it.
During the war Pierce went from Doughface to Copperhead:

"Pierce's comments were ill-received in much of the North, especially as his criticism of Lincoln's aims coincided with the twin Union victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg.
Pierce's reputation in the North was further damaged the following month when the Mississippi plantation of the Confederate president, Jefferson Davis, was seized by Union soldiers.
Pierce's correspondence with Davis, all pre-war, revealing his deep friendship with Davis and predicting that civil war would result in insurrection in the North, was sent to the press.
Pierce's words hardened abolitionist sentiment against him.[131]"

What's interesting here is that Lincoln in early 1861 had expected Southern Unionists to rise against secessionists, and some did, but not as many as Lincoln expected.
Likewise, it seems Pierce and Davis expected Southern sympathizing insurrection in the North, which also proved illusory.

That problem was predicted by Confederate Secretary of State Robert Toombs to Davis just before Fort Sumter:

"Mr. President, at this time it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend at the North.
You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest which extends from mountain to ocean, and legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death.
It is unnecessary; it puts us in the wrong; it is fatal."[15]

At least Toombs was wrong in one sense: Davis never lost support from his old Northern friend, Franklin Pierce.

[BroJoeK]

quoting from BJK post #114: "The Confederacy arrested pro-Union civilians in the South at about the same rate as the Union arrested pro-Confederate civilians in the North.”

jeffersondem: "Damning Lincoln by Confederate comparison.
I wasn't expecting you to do that."

I was wondering what clever response you'd devise for it, but this is disappointing.
Do I correctly infer you're happy to condemn Confederates if only by doing so you can also shoot down President Lincoln?

The mind boggles...

[BroJoeK]

Bull Snipe: "Cite the Federal law that prevented former Confederates from voting."

I would start here:

Article 3, Section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

A brief summary of post-war events:

"Congress removed civilian governments in the South, and placed the former Confederacy under the rule of the U.S. Army.[9]
The army conducted new elections in which the freed slaves could vote, while whites who had held leading positions under the Confederacy were temporarily denied the vote and were not permitted to run for office.

In ten states,[10] coalitions of freedmen, recent black and white arrivals from the North (carpetbaggers), and white Southerners who supported Reconstruction (scalawags) cooperated to form Republican biracial state governments.
They introduced various reconstruction programs including: funding public schools, establishing charitable institutions, raising taxes, and funding public improvements such as improved railroad transportation and shipping.
Conservative opponents called the Republican regimes corrupt and instigated violence toward freedmen and whites who supported Reconstruction.
Most of the violence was carried out by members of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), a secretive terrorist organization closely allied with the southern Democratic Party..."

I object to this report calling the KKK, etc., "conservative".
Democrats are not "conservative", they never were, they've always been radicals working to force one group or another of people to serve them.
In 1860 it was slaves, today anybody who works honestly for a living.

Your comments?

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "As you note, after the war the North quickly dropped the pretext that all the killing was about freedom and equality.
It leaves unanswered: What was the real reason the North decided to destroy the South?"

Oh, so jeffersondem admits there was at least a "pretext" about "freedom and equality"??
Well, that's good, I like that -- "pretext" is a start, obviously taken more seriously by some than by others.
So you'll agree that what was just "pretext" to some was the real deal to others?

But even so, no, not "the North" in general, just Northern Democrats soon again allied with their Southern racist Democrat partners.
In their first significant reassertion of political power after the 1876 elections, they successfully nullified the intended effects of the 13th, 14th & 15th amendments.

As for your alleged "real reason", there was no mystery about it, everybody then & now knows: from Day One Confederates provoked war, started war, formally declared war on the United States, waged war in Union states and refused to stop fighting on any terms better than Unconditional Surrender.

As for "destroy the South", well, yes slavery was at least officially destroyed, but "the South" was far from.
After the war cotton production resumed and grew 20% by 1870, 50% by 1890, while cotton prices remained at 1860 levels or higher.
Southern populations alleged by the 1870 census to have "fallen" were found in 1880 to have grown at the same rate as the rest of the country.
Southern railroad miles more than tripled between 1860 and 1890, so "the South" was far from "destroyed".

And politically, Northern Democrats quickly re-allied with their antebellum Southern partners to reassert their political influences, particularly regarding Federal enforcement (or lack of) of the 13th, 14th & 15th amendments.
So "the South" was far from destroyed.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "You refused to answer.
Now, you stomp your feet and bellow “Don’t avoid the question.”
I know you are frustrated.
We can continue a decent conversation.
But I am not playing your little game."

I'd suggest it's helpful to think of jeffersondem as having a strict script which he cannot go beyond, regardless, and helpful to remember his purpose here is not even to defend the Confederacy, but only to attack the Union.
So he will do nothing else, no matter how much you might try to provoke him.

jeffersondem's main talent is the pointed question based on false premises, and if those questions get us to unpack his nonsense and reveal the real truth, that's worthwhile.

[rockrr]

He’s right about one (1) thing - I’m not playing his little games.

[Bull Snipe]

Thanks

[DoodleDawg]

Davis must have calculated it was in his nation's best self-interest to force the fort's evacuation.

Really blew that decision then, didn't he?

[Bull Snipe]

He Chose Poorly.

[jeffersondem]

“But even so, no, not “the North” in general, just Northern Democrats soon again allied with their Southern racist Democrat partners.”

I continue to believe it is unwise to play the racist card against figures in the 19th century.

Here's one reason why:

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that 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. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

[jeffersondem]

“So he will do nothing else, no matter how much you might try to provoke him(Jeffersondem).”

That is an interesting comment.

I know I have seen and enjoyed some good-natured humor directed my way on this site but I am not aware of any post made for the purpose of provoking me.

Can anyone direct me to a post that would confirm Brother Joe's suggestion?

[jeffersondem]

“Oh, so jeffersondem admits there was at least a “pretext” about “freedom and equality”?? Well, that's good, I like that — “pretext” is a start, obviously taken more seriously by some than by others.”

The word “pretext” is not exculpatory.

Definition of pretext
: a purpose or motive alleged or an appearance assumed in order to cloak the real intention or state of affairs

[jeffersondem]

“Do I correctly infer you’re happy to condemn Confederates if only by doing so you can also shoot down President Lincoln?”

Your use of the inflammatory phrase “shoot down President Lincoln” concerns me.

I don’t like it.

[jeffersondem]

“Regardless of their opinions about the constitutionality of unilateral, unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure, almost every Unionist believed the civil war started by Confederates at Fort Sumter should be fought & won.”

SYNONYMS
irrespective of, without regard to, without reference to, disregarding, unmindful of, heedless of, careless about, careless of, indifferent to, unconcerned about, without consideration of, negligent of, setting aside, discounting, ignoring, notwithstanding, no matter, despite, in spite of, for all

You and I share common ground here. We both know that “indifferent to their (own) opinions about the constitutionality . . . almost every Unionist . . .”

They just didn't care about the constitution. Unionists just didn't care. Or if you prefer, they were “unmindful of.”

[jeffersondem]

“It was the only way to get a Constitution.”

Article VII of the constitution says “Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution . . .”

Even if GA, VA, NC, and SC refused to ratify (as implied in your post 137), the other 9 states could have had a constitution - and WITHOUT slavery. I mean, if that is what they wanted.

I'm not following your claim “it was the only way to get a constitution.”

[jeffersondem]

“Really blew that decision then, didn’t he?

I think we all know the war didn’t go the way President Davis wanted.

And arguably, the war went exactly the way President Lincoln wanted.

[Bull Snipe]

Not all nine of the remaining states opposed slavery. MD and DE had stronger pro slave sentiment than the states further North. Either of these states voting with the Southern States would have shelved the whole deal. If you want to read a “Pro Slavery” Constitution, read the Confederate Constitution. At least in the United States Constitution, member States had the option to allow or dis-allow slavery. Not so in the Confederate Constitution. Slavery was mandatory in those states.