Posted on 07/26/2021 4:33:01 PM PDT by ammodotcom
The Battle of Appomattox Courthouse is considered by many historians the end of the Civil War and the start of post-Civil War America. The events of General Robert E. Lee’s surrender to General and future President Ulysses S. Grant at a small town courthouse in Central Virginia put into effect much of what was to follow.
The surrender at Appomattox Courthouse was about reconciliation, healing, and restoring the Union. While the Radical Republicans had their mercifully brief time in the sun rubbing defeated Dixie’s nose in it, they represented the bleeding edge of Northern radicalism that wanted to punish the South, not reintegrate it into the Union as an equal partner.
The sentiment of actual Civil War veterans is far removed from the attitude of the far left in America today. Modern day “woke-Americans” clamor for the removal of Confederate statues in the South, the lion’s share of which were erected while Civil War veterans were still alive. There was little objection to these statues at the time because it was considered an important part of the national reconciliation to allow the defeated South to honor its wartime dead and because there is a longstanding tradition of memorializing defeated foes in honor cultures.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammo.com ...
“How about leaving people alone’’?
Maybe the Confederacy should have thought of that on April 12, 1861.
If Major Anderson had not violently seized *THEIR* fortress in December of 1860, and if Lincoln had not launched a violent attack against them in early April of 1861, then they would have had no need to drive out the invaders from their homeland on April 12, 1861.
God you’re stuck on stupid!
Sumter was a FEDERAL installation. It was situated upon land that was ceded by South Carolina to the federal government IN PERPETUITY and built using federal funds. It did not belong to SC.
Not after South Carolina voted to secede. It ceased being a US installation the minute they chose to separate.
It was situated upon land that was ceded by South Carolina to the federal government
For the expressly stated purpose of defending them from attack. Had the USA explained that it would be the means to subjugate them, they would never have ceded the land to the feds in the first place.
You may like lawyer tricks to justify crimes, but I believe people can only consent to something when they are aware of the truth. Since nobody could conceive of being oppressed through that land when they ceded it, that wasn't part of the bargain.
Good faith is the only basis for an agreement, and absent that, lawyer's tricks do not justify evil.
and built using federal funds.
Most of which were paid by the Southern export production.
It did not belong to SC.
It never belonged to the Feds for the purpose of oppressing them. That is outside the scope of the legislative act transferring ownership to the Feds.
Read my post 1074. Not only Southern shipbuilders fell behind but Northern ones too, compared the builders in Great Britain.
Hey, are you now claiming that there were no Southern built steamboats?
I saw that, but that was later, and does not address the issue of the northeast "closed shop" creating government policy that favored their interests at the expense of Southern industries.
Hey, are you now claiming that there were no Southern built steamboats?
You told me there were, and I believe you. BroJoeK tried to say the northern shipping industry prospered because they had access to modern (for that time) steam engines, and the Southern states did not.
I then asked him how they were building all those side wheel paddle boats then?
They could have bought steam engines from England, but i'm pretty certain the protective tariffs made that prohibitively expensive, and it probably also ran afoul of the navigation act of 1817 which required American ships to be built with American parts and labor.
You do realize that there was more than one kind of steamboat engine in the antebellum era, right? That the technology of the manufacturing plants and economies of scale can give one region an advantage over another, right? That wages paid vs slave labor can result in a better and more efficient workforce, right? That not everything is a conspiracy, right?
What would have been the artificial price increase (tariff) on British made steam engines?
Would the economies of scale give them a better advantage than a 150% price increase for a British engine?
That wages paid vs slave labor can result in a better and more efficient workforce, right?
The Book "Southern Wealth and Northern Profit" has a very interesting chapter on the beginnings of feudalism and slavery in Europe, and it goes on to tell how the feudal lords learned they could get more out of free men than they could from serfs. I think it goes into some detail regarding skilled craftsman and how they were far more capable as free men.
The book explains this was the primary reason why European aristocracy allowed serfdom to wither away.
Written by a Northerner.
https://books.google.com/books/about/Southern_Wealth_and_Northern_Profits_as.html?id=rUcWAAAAYAAJ
“What would have been the artificial price increase (tariff) on British made steam engines?”
What does that have to do with anything? In my post 1019 I ALREADY posted a source detailing shipbuilding in New Orleans and the fact they could source steam engines locally!
“Five major maritime steamers were built in Louisiana during the 1850s and 1860s...In 1860 the state possessed ten shipyards and two firms specializing in ship carpentry.” The author includes examples of ships by name, their sizes, and a local manufacturer of steam engines for the marine trade.”
To trolls EVERYTHING is fodder for The Grand Conspiracy...
Speaking of irrelevant facts as proof of their unproven claims…
Well if that's true, then BroJoeK's argument for why the Southern ship building industry went bad is clearly wrong.
But again, these weren't ocean going vessels, which is where I suspect the real profitability was.
To which irrelevant "fact" do you refer? My citation of "Southern Wealth and Northern profits" was not in this instance an effort to support any claims other than the one you made about free men doing better quality work.
If you are now saying that isn't true, i'll have to disagree with you. Free men do do better quality work.
If it's something else, you'll have to make your point more clearly.
If EVERYTHING is proof of a "Grand Conspiracy", then it is indeed a pretty grand conspiracy. Certainly no half measures with this one.
"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."
Just saw this text quoted on the news this morning and it instantly dawned on me. This is more proof that the constitution is not compulsory to states that do not want to be a part of it.
The text articulates a possibility of a 9 state Union if the remaining 4 states chose not to join. Allowing the remaining four states to remain out of the Union is good proof that the Union was never intended to be compulsory.
Another piece of evidence I can add to my pile demonstrating that secession was understood to be a right by the founders and by the US Constitution.
Article VII, US Constitution."The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."Just saw this text quoted on the news this morning and it instantly dawned on me. This is more proof that the constitution is not compulsory to states that do not want to be a part of it.
In point of fact, when George Washington was inaugurated there were only ELEVEN states in the Union. Washington was elected with TEN states participating in the election. (New York was in the Union but political infighting resulted in an inability to agree to delegates to the Electoral College). North Carolina and Rhode Island did not ratify the Constitution until significantly later.
Volume I, II and III of the Congressional Register began with a title page that stated,
The Congressional Register;
or,
History
of the
Proceedings and Debates
of the First
House of Representatives
of the
United States of America:
Namely,
New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut,
New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Delaware, Maryland, Virginia,
South-Carolina and Georgia.Being the Eleven States that have Ratified the Con-
stitution of the Government of the United States.Containing an Impartial Account of
The Most interesting Speeches and Motions; and accurate Copies of remarkable
Papers laid before and offered to the House.Taken in short hand,
By Thomas LloydVolume I
New York:
Printed for the Editor, by Harrisson and Purdy
M,DCC,LXXXIX.
See Congressional Register, Volume I, 1789,
Page 412, Mr. SHERMAN, June 5, 1789:
But all we are now to consider, I believe, is, that we invite the state of Rhode Island to join our confederacy, what will be the effect of such a measure we cannot tell till we try it.
Page 413, Mr. MADISON, June 5, 1789:
My idea on the subject now before the House is, that it would be improper in this body to expose themselves to have such a proposition rejected by the legislature of the state of Rhode Island
In the meantime, the state of Vermont had become a seperate and independent state in 1777 by means of successful revolution. This 14th state was admitted as an independent revolutionary state with self-constituted boundaries.
Vermont v. New Hampshire, 289 U.S. 593, 607-608 (1933)
Our conclusion as to the meaning and effect of the Order-in-Council of 1764 would be decisive of the boundary of Vermont upon her admission to the Union were it not for the history of Vermont as a revolutionary government and the consequent uncertainty whether she was admitted under the second clause of Art. IV, § 3, of the Constitution as a new state formed out of the territory of New York, with her boundary accordingly determined by that of New York, or whether she was admitted under the first clause of Art. IV, § 3, as an independent revolutionary state with self-constituted boundaries.The Special Master found that attempts by the New York authorities after 1764 to interfere with the possession of the holders of the New Hampshire grants made prior to the Order-in-Council led to protest and forcible resistance which assumed the proportions of a revolutionary movement. This movement culminated in 1777 in the Declaration of Independence by the towns comprising the New Hampshire grants on both sides of the Green Mountains, which proclaimed that the jurisdiction granted by the Crown "to New York government over the people of the New Hampshire Grants is totally dissolved," and that a free and independent government is set up within the territory now Vermont, bounded "east on Connecticut River . . . as far as the New Hampshire Grants extends." From that time until the admission of Vermont into the Union in 1791, an independent government was maintained with defined geographical limits extending on the east to the Connecticut River. In view of these facts, the Special Master concluded that the Order-in-Council was nullified by successful revolution, and Vermont was admitted as an independent state with self-constituted boundaries. But he also found, as we have said, that Vermont's claims of jurisdiction to the thread of the river were restricted to the low water mark on the western side by resolutions of Congress of August 20, 21, 1781, and their acceptance by resolution of the Vermont Legislature, February 22, 1782. In addition, he found that Vermont was not recognized as an independent state by Congress either under the Articles of Confederation or under the Constitution, but that her independence was recognized by New Hampshire in 1777, by Massachusetts in 1781, and by New York in 1790.
It does not matter that the U.S. government did not officially recognize Vermont's independence until it entered the union. At the time of admission, and thereafter, they were officially recognized by the U.S. Government to have been previously, and at the time of admission, a free and independent state. Vermont was explicitly NOT admitted under Clause 2 of Article 4, Sec 3. Vermont was admitted as a free and independent state which achieved that status by their successful revolution of 1777.
Since whether secession is or is not a legal right of the states has never been a topic I’ve weighed in on, it’s irrelevant to me. My only dog in the fight are these points:
The reason for secession was the South’s desire to preserve slavery.
The trigger for secession was the election of Abraham Lincoln, which fed fear of the abolitionist foundation of the Republican Party.
The American Civil War began when units of the South Carolina Militia fired upon a Union fort in Charleston harbor.
If you are discussing the Civil War, you are weighing in on this topic. The entire justification for invading the other states was based on the assertion that states did not have a right to leave the Union.
If you won't defend that argument, you aren't debating honestly.
It appears clear to me that any honest reading of the historical record would cause a realization that states did indeed have the right to leave the Union and that holding them in control through force was completely against the intent and understanding of the Founders.
Lincoln broke the nation and broke the constitution.
“If you won’t defend that argument, you aren’t debating honestly.”
I can honestly debate whatever aspect of whatever topic I choose. I can debate the wisdom of ordering Pickett’s charge or the leadership of George Custer without opining on the right of secession.
To recap:
The reason for secession was the South’s desire to preserve slavery.
The trigger for secession was the election of Abraham Lincoln, which fed fear of the abolitionist foundation of the Republican Party.
The American Civil War began when units of the South Carolina Militia fired upon a Union fort in Charleston harbor.
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.