Posted on 06/09/2009 8:47:35 AM PDT by Davy Buck
My oh my, what would the critics, the Civil War publications, publishers, and bloggers do if it weren't for the bad boys of the Confederacy and those who study them and also those who wish to honor their ancestors who fought for the Confederacy?
(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...
Then you should be forever grateful to the 360,000 Union soldiers who died forcing unwilling Southerners to abolish their loathsome practices, right?
First, remember we are talking about a short period -- from Lincoln's election in November 1860 to his inauguration in March 1861. During this period, nearly everyone in the North, from Buchanan to Lincoln, and many in Congress, tried to think of ways satisfy Southern demands.
President Buchanan said he would not use military force to preserve the Union, but in January sent the Star of the West to reinforce and supply Fort Sumter. This was Buchanan's only effort to defend dozens and dozens of Federal properties seized by states, many BEFORE they seceded.
Lincoln had rebuked Buchanan's position as being too passive, but Lincoln also suggested ways the Union could accommodate Southern demands, especially regarding fugitive slaves.
And Lincoln gave the best statement of the Northern position that I've seen, in his First Inagural Address.
In it he offers to support fugitive slave laws, but also makes the constitutional case against secession. Finally, regarding the use of force, here's what he said, speaking directly to Southerners:
"In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."
"I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearth-stone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."
Lincoln said, "The government will not assail you," but within a few days had ordered preparations, as Buchanan had before him, to defend the small Federal force in Fort Sumter. Like Buchanan, Lincoln did not consider this defense to be an "assault" on the South.
Again, we are talking about the short period, from Lincoln's election in November 1860 to his inauguration in March 1861. During that time everyone in the North, including Buchanan and Lincoln were trying to think of ways to satisfy Southern demands.
In the South, what was going on was:
In response, Buchanan made no efforts to defend any of these properties, except Fort Sumter and in Pensacola, Florida, Fort Pickens. The defense of Fort Pickens was successful, btw.
Soon after taking office, President Lincoln began preparations for a second attempt at defending Fort Sumter.
Bottom line: none of the constitutional arguments about "states rights" can justify illegal seizures of Federal property BEFORE secession. Even AFTER declaring secession, the legal course would have been to negotiate settlement terms. This is just what the US spent YEARS doing with Great Britain after the Revolutionary War. Instead, after just a few WEEKS, Southern delegates got mad, went home and started shooting at northerners.
The result was war.
You are correct.
Indeed, now that I've looked up the more-or-less complete listing of Southern seizures of Federal properties -- including dozens of forts, arsenals, customs houses and ships -- the basic idea that these were all staffed by just a few care-takers is not correct. Some did have substantial forces.
And it's also not true that Fort Sumter was the ONLY one sent reinforcements by President Buchanan. One other -- Fort Pickens in Pensacola, Florida -- received reinforcements, and was successfully held by the Union throughout the war.
Bottom line: Southern seizures of Federal property before or after secession were neither constitutional nor legal, and firing on federal forces sent to defend them were acts of rebellion, insurrection and "domestic violence."
The South wanted a war of independence, which it thought it could win. The taking of dozens of Federal properties, including forts, arsenals, customs houses and ships, was intended to provoke the North into a war of aggression -- an offer which President Buchanan politely refused.
But he did attempt reinforcing two Federal forts -- Sumter and Pickens, the latter successfully.
On the morning of April 12, 1861, Major Anderson in Fort Sumter was ordered to surrender. He offered to surrender on April 15, but the South couldn't wait even three more days. They opened fire at 4:30 AM starting the war they so eagerly wanted.
You have ignored the question marks at the end of my sentences, and conditional phrases such as "if you believe." Now if you will take those into due consideration, you'll find my arguments entirely reasonable.
I found your arguments about Dred Scott and fugitive slave laws incomprehensible -- literally, I don't understand what you tried to say about them. So I ASKED, are you trying to defend those? Because if you are, then you have no business on Free Republic.
Well, thankfully, you deny defending those laws. But now it appears to me that your arguments justifying Southern secession because of unconstitutional laws of Northern STATES, falls apart.
If slavery is morally repugnant, then how can Southern secession be justified today based on enforcing fugitive slave laws?
Troops from Fort Barrancas in the Pensacola area moved to Fort Pickens in January after receiving orders from Winfield Scott to protect federal facilities. In response the local commander (Slemmer) just transferred his troops a mile or so (my guess at the distance) across the harbor, abandoning one fort and occupying another more defensible one. The following link mentions this and incidentally also the apparent first shot of the war which happened at Barrancas on January 8. Link
Pickens had not been garrisoned for about 10 years before the move, but it was out at the end of a long sandy barrier island off the coast and more defensible than Barrancas. Troops were sent to Pickens in April by Lincoln at the same time he sent the fleet to Sumter. Were there other occasions that troops were sent to Pickens between January and April? I just visited Fort Pickens about two weeks ago and bought a couple of books/booklets about its history in the fort visitor's shop. The only reinforcements to Pickens after Slemmer's January 10th move that one of those books, "Guardians of the Gulf," mentions were those that came in mid-April.
More later.
Only one state ever seceded unilaterally, South Carolina. All seceding states after that had at least one other state in support. The last had 10 other states with them. Hardly unilateral. Look up the definition some time.
Main Entry: uni·lat·er·al
Pronunciation: \ˌyü-ni-ˈla-tə-rəl, -ˈla-trəl\
Function: adjective
Date: 1802
1 a : done or undertaken by one person or party b : of, relating to, or affecting one side of a subject : one-sided c : constituting or relating to a contract or engagement by which an express obligation to do or forbear is imposed on only one party
Only one side had any say in the matter. The other side was ignored. Maybe you should look up the definition before shooting off your mouth?
I'm wondering where Klein is getting his information from. It sure isn't from the Official Record. Buell makes it crystal clear that the instructions given to Anderson, the instructions I quoted in reply 1343 and which I included the link to, were coming directly from the Secretary of War himself. How Klein can come to the conclusion that Buell acted on his own is not supported by any evidence available in the OR.
By the way, the dictated response from Buchanan sent by Floyd is at Link.
Nowhere is that is there any indication that the orders came from the president.
Speaking of stupid and incoherent, how the heck are ya Mortie? Where's the book? Or are you willing to admit lying about ordering it in the first place?
Like I said 11 states seceded, therefore does not fit the definition.
And a comedian as well. Don't quit your day job.
And I can not help but note that you have completely failed to cite any specific clause of the United States Constitution that prohibited State secession (or even "unilateral" State secession).
There is nothing that prohibits secession. But Article IV says that a state can be admitted only with consent of the other states, as expressed through a vote in Congress. Once allowed to join, Article IV and Article I say that a state cannot partition or join with another state without approval of Congress and cannot change their border by a fraction of an inch without consent of Congress. Implied in this is the need to obtain the approval of the other states when leaving as well.
Several (if not all) of the Southern States cited an abuse of the [constitutional] compact, when they seceded from the union. They therefore actually met the requirements specified by Mr. Madison.
Then you should have read further. "The characteristic distinction between free Governments and Governments not free is, that the former are founded on compact, not between the Government and those for whom it acts, but between the parties creating the Government. Each of those being equal, neither can have more rights to say that the compact has been violated and dissolved, than every other has to deny the fact, and to insist on the execution of the bargains." Likewise, in an earlier 1830 letter to Nicholas Trist, Madison stated the same:
"Applying a like view of the subject to the case of the U. S. it results, that the compact being among individuals as imbodied into States, no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up for itself. The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect. It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure.
It is indeed inseparable from the nature of a compact, that there is as much right on one side to expound it & to insist on its fulfilment according to that exposition, as there is on the other so to expound it as to furnish a release from it, and that an attempt to annul it by one of the parties, may present to the other, an option of acquiescing in the annulment, or of preventing it as the one or the other course may be deemed the lesser evil."
So you say that the Southern states claimed the compact was violated, and this gave them the right to leave. The Northern states say it was not, and their leaving was illegal. What made the Southern states right and the Northern states wrong?
As noted, I generally prefer Mr. Madison's public writings (based upon which, in more than a minor part, the Constitution was ratified). You obviously prefer his "confidential" correspondence, written long after he sold the Constitution to the people of the ratifying States (and never intended for publication).
So why should we believe his public writings express his true beliefs since you seem to believe he was merely trying to peddle the Constitution to a skeptical population? And I'll point out that his later writings were written with the benefit of watching his creation in action for 40 years, and observing how people might twist it and corrupt it for their own purposes. I would suggest that his later writings are an accurate view of how he felt and what he believed. And nothing in them specifically contradicts his earlier positions to begin with.
"[T]he compact requires the consent of all the impacted parties?"
You misunderstand me. By all the impacted parties I meant both sides of the equation, those leaving and those staying. I did not mean to imply that unanimous approval of all states would be needed. Madison had no use for the unanimous consent provisions in the Articles of Confederation, and wasn't shy about saying so. So I do not believe unanimous agreement is needed. I don't even think that even a super majority would be needed. Madison said, "Consent of the others..." I read that to be a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress, the same that is needed to allow states to join in the first place.
Like I said, the Southern states walked out without discussion, without agreement, with only one side of the issue open for discussion. Therefore it does.
Why are you arguing semantics anyway? Don't you have a secession to organize?
Try this link to a book about Buell. [Link - Pages 61 and 62] It basically supports Klein's version, though I don't have the book and don't know to what all the many notes in the text refer.
According to the book, "When Anderson received the secretary's latest words of guidance [rb: the stuff Buchanan told Floyd to send], he became furious. Buell's message had allowed Anderson to decide for himself when and how to act. Now the administration was drawing back."
And I am, of course, incorrect in this statement. The president is clearly referenced in the link you provided. I need to get my glasses checked, I guess.
It basically supports Klein's version, though I don't have the book and don't know to what all the many notes in the text refer.
It would be interesting to know. What if the source is Klein himself? And even so the link references "all to the contemplated transfer of command..." Does that mean that the potential for transfer was approved? One would think that if transfer to another fort was verboten then the memo would have stated that.
Lincoln’s War also effectively overthrew the existing decentralized, limited federal government that had existed and governed well in the US since established by America’s founding fathers. Lincoln bastardized a respected federal government with limited powers into a dictatorial, uncontrollable Washington federal empire.
Sadly, in the case of Abraham Lincoln’s war against the Confederacy and Southern civilians, it was all for money, company profits and government tariff revenues.
“As for the South, it is enough to say that perhaps eighty per cent of her armies were neither slave-holders, nor had the remotest interest in the institution. No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union.” ~Maj. General John B. Gordon, CSA,
fyi, our principal chief would think you a FOOL (& laugh AT you), as well as an IDIOT, if you asked him if i'm an "enrolled member" (halfbreed) of the tribe & were STUPID enough to claim that i was not a Native.
remind everyone again of your KNOWING LIE about being a "staff-member" of the NOCM. (EVERYOINE needs a GOOD laugh AT your expense, LIAR.)
fwiw, i INTENTIONALLY use a diminutive of my ancestor's war-name, as i am OBVIOUSLY not BG Stand Watie.
free dixie,sw
as i said, you've swallowed the KNOWING LIES of the DAMNyankee LEFTISTS/ELITISTS, hook line & sinker.
free dixie,sw
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.