THE REBELLION: No Movement of the Armies of the Potomac; Wholesale Arrests of Members of the Maryland Legislature; Important from Gen. Fremont’s Column (9/19/1861)

New York Times archives – Times Machine ^ | 9/19/1861

[Homer_J_Simpson]

WASHINGTON, Wednesday, Sept. 18.

The health of the soldiers still continues to be remarkably good. The official report of the number sick shows a slight increase of this week over the last, but not a total of anything like as large as would be expected. The following are the numbers in each Hospital: E-street Hospital, 80; Seminary, 167; Union Hospital, 207; Columbia, 236. Regulars, 78. Eruptive diseases, 23. Total, 790. Considering the number of men here, this is a very low total -- not as large as it would be among the same number of persons in the City of New-York, being less than one per cent. of the Army. The mortality is very slight, not ten per cent. of the sick.

Gen. MEIGS and Postmaster BLAIR returned from St. Louis this morning. Upon their arrival an extra meeting of the Cabinet was held, for the purpose of hearing their reports.

The nature of Mr. BLAIR's report is against the policy pursued by Gen. FREMONT. It is complained by FRANK BLAIR that Gen. FREMONT is making preparations for his expedition down the Mississippi, and is more intent upon striking a blow at the Cotton States, and opening the river to the sea, than he is of clearing the State of Missouri of the marauding rebels that now infest it. Gen. FREMONT is reported to have closed his doors against the contractors, and is guilty of refusing audiences to politicians and State officials who love to grind axes.

POSSIBLE RESIGNATION OF GEN. FREMONT.

The session of the Cabinet over this matter was quite long. It is possible the conclusion was to supercede Gen. FREMONT, probably by tendering him a different and less important command, which will involve the necessity of his again resigning from the Army.

[woodpusher]

The Constitution doesn't use the word slave

Correct. It uses the word slavery.

13th Amendment, "Neither slavery...."

What was this slavery thing referenced in the 13th Amendment?

By that time, the former slaves of the so-called Confederate states had been freed by the United States Army.

Only a few recalcitrant Union states then still had lawful slavery.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Likewise, it appears clear to me now that the Republicans of 1860 were race obsessed big city liberals who believed in strong government, taxing and spending, protectionism, unfettered immigration, and had far too close involvement with corporate profit making involving government power.
The Democrats of that era were rural, small government types that opposed reckless social changes and favored tradition."

As per usual, DiogenesLamp has it exactly backwards.
In fact, in 1860 as now, Democrats were an unholy alliance of Southern slave-master big business planters, Northern Big City immigrant bosses (i.e. Tammany Hall) and globalist financial interests -- King Cotton's enablers.
Your typical Northern Democrat in 1860 was Railroad executive, George McClellan.
Democrats then as now wanted low tariffs and cheap imports, not American manufacturing.
Democrats then as now had doubled the National Debt in the previous administration.

Republicans then as now, were the party of small & middle sized family farmers, small towns, small businesses, Constitutional, cultural & religious conservatives, professionals, "put Americans firsters".

Both Southern Democrats and Northern Republicans favored "infrastructure" like the transcontinental railroad, but Democrats like Jefferson Davis spent millions (I.e. Gadsden Purchase) for a Southern route, while Republicans wanted a Northern route.

Now, our problem here today is not just DiogenesLamp's intellectual dyslexia -- confusing political left from right -- it's that he is also a dedicated propagandist for modern historical revisionism, which wants desperately to convince the world that Abraham Lincoln was a liberal Democrat and Southern Confederates were really conservative Republicans.

That's just one among many Democrat Big Lies, lies they are using to reimpose their socialist slavery.

[jmacusa]

Guess you never get tired of looking stupid, do you?

[jeffersondem]

“. . . and neither is there a constitutional right to secession.”

I also note the constitution does not give the states the right to permit the sale of unbolted table grits.

That is because the constitution was not a grant of delegated power by the federal government to the states. The constitution was compact by the states to give limited, delegated powers to the federal government.

[BroJoeK]

"The constitution was compact by the states to give limited, delegated powers to the federal government."

So let's remember, first, that no Founder ever proposed or supported unapproved Declaration of Secession at pleasure, but all did support "secession":

1. from necessity as in 1776, for major reasons as spelled out in their Declaration of Independence.

2. by mutual consent at pleasure, as in 1788, when our Founders "seceded" from the old Articles of Confederation to ratify their new Constitution, "to form a more perfect Union".

In 1860 neither necessity nor mutual consent existed to justify secession, and therefore our Founders would not approve.
Regardless, neither Buchanan's Democrat government nor Lincoln's Republicans did anything to stop secession until after Confederates provoked, started, declared, invaded & began waging war on the United States, refusing to stop fighting for any negotiated terms better than "unconstitutional surrender".

Then Congress decided that not only must the Confederate army be defeated, but also slavery must be abolished.
And in due time the Supreme Court decided that, legally, the Confederacy never existed except as a pretend fiction among rebels.

Today, a constitutional convention of the states could, if ratified, authorise some States to withdraw and add other new States, legally, no need for separate declarations or threats of war.
Seems unlikely, but not impossible.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "The NORTHERN states voted to pass this amendment through the House, and through the Senate.
This clarifies their motives.
You can't honestly claim they weren't going to continue slavery indefinitely.
That *WAS* their intention."

Corwin was supported unanimously by House & Senate Democrats, Northern & Southern, opposed by the majority of Republicans, all Northern.
It was signed (unnecessarily) by Democrat Pres. Buchanan.
Lincoln considered Corwin harmless, changing nothing then understood.

But Corwin was important to Union slave-States like Kentucky & Maryland, may have helped keep them in the Union.
But Maryland and Missouri abolished slavery on their own, before the war's end and so Corwin had no long term effects, except as Lost Cause debating points on Civil War threads.

[DiogenesLamp]

Guess you never get tired of looking stupid, do you?

I'm not the one still believing the made up propaganda lie the deep state fed the nation 150+ years ago. I've learned the truth. The North was more evil than the South because they killed people to keep control of the economic power, and then they tried to pretend they did it for a moral reason.

The Corwin amendment by itself proves the whole story we've been fed is a lie.

[jmacusa]

Oh shut up! Bro Joe K cleans your clock and then you come sulking and feet stomping to me.

[jeffersondem]

“Today, a constitutional convention of the states could, if ratified, authorise some States to withdraw and add other new States . . . Seems unlikely, but not impossible.”

You could not get a constitutional convention today to agree on the Lord's Prayer.

Your preferences - and the Supreme Court justices vote to pass the law Texas v White - drained the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution of any real meaning.

There is no need to leave your place to get medicated. Peek out your window: that MRAP in your drive has more than enough stuff to medicate your entire family. The federal government is coming to help you.

Jeffersondem is persistent if nothing else: after the disaster at Appomattox, we ceased to have a government based on consent of the governed and lapsed into a government based on a supermajority of bayonets.

[jmacusa]

Then how did Donald Trump get elected?

[jeffersondem]

“Then how did Donald Trump get elected?”

I have read that is the question Hilary repeatedly demanded her team answer.

My best guess: anomaly.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "I'm not the one still believing the made up propaganda lie the deep state fed the nation 150+ years ago.
I've learned the truth."

Naw, the only thing DiogenesLamp learned was a pack of Lost Cause Democrats' lies, and, accepting such lies as "truth", he utterly refuses to learn anything contrary.

DiogenesLamp: "The North was more evil than the South because they killed people to keep control of the economic power, and then they tried to pretend they did it for a moral reason.
The Corwin amendment by itself proves the whole story we've been fed is a lie."

That's total rubbish.
Corwin was a Democrat & RINO effort to keep Union slave States from seceding.

The real truth is the Union under two presidents did nothing to stop secession or the new Confederacy until after Confederates threatened & provoked war, started war, declared war, and waged war in Union States & territories.
Once war began, then abolition became necessary for victory.
And since all Republicans were anti-slavery, emancipating "Contraband of War" was not just necessary, but also moral.
And that's what has DiogenesLamp so very confused & disoriented, enough so to make a gross pack of Lost Cause Democrat lies preferable in his mind.

Here's the real truth: Republicans formed out of the defeated Whigs as specifically the anti-slavery party -- anti-slavery for religious/moral reasons (the Bible forbids slavery for God's people), anti-slavery for philosophical reasons (all men Created equal), anti-slavery for economic reasons (no wage competition with slave-labor) and anti-slavery for social reasons (slavery made white Southerners into arrogant SOBs).
Republican leaders like Abraham Lincoln understood from the time of John Quincy Adams that Civil war would necessarily destroy slavery, but delayed fully taking that step until it became clear there was no other way to victory.

The wrong-doers in this were Southern Democrat Fire Eating slave-masters who declared secession, Confederacy & war against the United States to protect their "peculiar institution", just as radical Democrats today are waging unrelenting war against the United States to protect their peculiar ideas of woke "social justice" and social control over Americans.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "You could not get a constitutional convention today to agree on the Lord's Prayer."

Nonsense, in any such convention solid majorities would agree the Lord's Prayer belongs in the Bible and in Church, but not directly in the U.S. Constitution.

jeffersondem: "Your preferences - and the Supreme Court justices vote to pass the law Texas v White - drained the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution of any real meaning."

More nonsense, since what really drained the Declaration of meaning was insane lunatic Democrats like jeffersondem & DiogenesLamp claiming the Declaration means that anybody can assert independence (and declare war against the USA), at any time, for any reason, or for NO reason, at pleasure if they feel like it that day.
The truth is no Founder ever supported such blatant nonsense, and yet Democrats have claimed it from the years our Founders passed until today.

jeffersondem: "Jeffersondem is persistent if nothing else: after the disaster at Appomattox, we ceased to have a government based on consent of the governed and lapsed into a government based on a supermajority of bayonets."

Naw... jeffersondem is insane if nothing else, in suggesting there was anything "consent of the governed" involved in African inherited chattel slavery.
"Consent of the governed" in jeffersondem's lunatic mind means only "consent of slaveholders".

That's what ended at Appomattox Court House.

[jeffersondem]

Someone using your screen name posted this: “Nonsense, in any such (constitutional) convention solid majorities would agree the Lord’s Prayer belongs in the Bible and in Church, but not directly in the U.S. Constitution.”

You are way behind the herd.

The Lord’s Prayer begins: “Our Father . . .”

If you knew the blue state culture you promote you would know members of any future constitutional convention would never agree to patriotic or patriarchal language.

When nominal Christian churches are tossing The Word you can’t expect blue state representatives to do more.

https://faithfilledfamily.com/episcopal-church-decides-to-use-gender-neutral-language-depicting-god/

https://www.bing.com/search?q=gender+neutral+bible+translation&FORM=QSRE1

[DiogenesLamp]

Oh shut up! Bro Joe K cleans your clock and then you come sulking and feet stomping to me.

I don't even read much of what he writes anymore. He's too far "out there" in his thinking and his skewing of facts. It isn't even worth the trouble to argue with him so I don't bother most of the time.

There are a lot of people who will simply believe what they wish to believe regardless of factual information that demonstrates they are incorrect in their thinking.

The Corwin Amendment alone demonstrates that Slavery was negotiable to the Northern states.

No moral motivation on their part. Strictly economic.

[DiogenesLamp]

Then how did Donald Trump get elected?

He sneaked up on the fraud machine and whipped it before they realized how many fake votes they needed to manufacture to create the illusion that Washington DC corrupt insider influence selling bitch won.

That's why they went into overdrive manufacturing fake ballots in the 2020 election. They weren't going to let actual democracy over come their vote fraud machine to keep Liberals in power.

[BroJoeK]

"If you knew the blue state culture you promote you would know members of any future constitutional convention would never agree to patriotic or patriarchal language."

They would all agree with our Founders that such prayers, however translated, do not belong, directly, in the U.S. Constitution.
As to which version of such prayers would be used in the various churches, they would all agree such matters are left to the churches themselves.

As for promoting "blue state culture", you should travel outside your mother's basement more often.
If you did, you'd soon learn there is a pretty uniform "culture" -- rural, small town, even suburban, family oriented, traditional, small business, relatively low income but higher wealth, community focus, neighborly & religious -- typically Republicans.
And there is another "culture" centered in big cities -- urban, cosmopolitan, multicultural, big business, big government, welfare dependent, high crime, relatively higher income but lower average wealth -- typically Democrats.

So it has nothing to do with "red state" or "blue state" and everything to do with more urban vs. more rural, anywhere in the country.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "The Corwin Amendment alone demonstrates that Slavery was negotiable to the Northern states. No moral motivation on their part. Strictly economic."

That is purely a case of DiogenesLamp believing what he wishes, not what was.
In fact, Corwin was a Democrat effort to "compromise", and was opposed by most Republicans.
It may have helped keep Border Slave-States in the Union, but those States had virtually no Republicans, zero, so this had little to do with Republican motives beyond helping keep Border States in the Union.

On the other hand, abolition had nothing to do with DiogenesLamp's alleged Northeastern economic factors, since economically slavery produced great cotton-wealth for the nation -- those "Northeastern Power Brokers" had no objections to slavery.
What truly drove emancipation was, first & foremost, military necessity, "Contraband of War" needed for victory.
And since military necessity matched up perfectly with average Republican anti-slavery moral convictions, emancipation was an easy sell for Lincoln & Congress.

So we can only guess that DiogenesLamp, having once drunk the Lost Cause Koolaid, now his mind is shot and he just can't see anything else.

[jeffersondem]

“They would all agree with our Founders that such prayers, however translated, do not belong, directly, in the U.S. Constitution.”

Professor, I certainly hope by this you do not mean to say the signers of the United States Constitution did not “directly” recognize Christ in that document.

[jmacusa]

I would imagine a dolt like you wouldn’t respect a man whose vocation in life is as a professor of history, a man of letters who has no doubt educated a few generations of young people in his tenure.

Too bad you aren’t smart enough to show any humility and learn from the man but then you’ve shown yourself to be about as receptive to any learning as a barnyard mule.