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 ...
You know as well as I that the SS Nashville did not get designated the CSS Nashville until it was purchased by the Confederates. However, that information says nothing about the true loyalties and sympathies of the owners of the ship before that point in time, which I don't know.
The Nashville was not owned by the US, but it apparently made periodic trips to Nashville carrying passengers, mail, and cargo.
When Lamon and Hurlburt visited Charleston in March, the only US flag they saw was the one at Fort Sumter. At that time, Klein says that foreign ships flew their foreign flags, Southern ships flew the new Confederate flag or the South Carolina (Palmetto) flag, and Northern ships did not fly flags. The Nashville might well have been used to flying the Palmetto flag for it carried one in April which it used to enter Charleston Harbor after Sumter surrendered. Mixed loyalties perhaps?
The argument that makes the most sense to me concerning the timing of the shot at the Nashville is that of the article linked by Bubba Ho-Tep in post 1,810. It is consistent with the OR and the ORN. I had earlier posted about the firing of a heavy gun at sea reported by Confederates before noon on the 12th Link. As I pointed out to Bubba in post 1,813, the timing of that naval shot by a heavy gun is consistent with Bubba's linked article.
Incidentally, Captain Rowan of the Pawnee also claims to have fired the first shot of the war by the US Navy. The occasion he cites in his firing on Confederate shore batteries in Virginia on May 31, 1861. He forgot about his firing four shots at an ice schooner on April 13th Link. He then presented the captured ice schooner to Fox as I remember. (Pirates, the lot of them.)
As I think I've said to you, I don't think we will ever agree on this topic. You believe I'm dead wrong, and I believe you're dead wrong. But hope springs eternal. Here is an interesting discussion of the Tenth and enumerated powers and the consequent ills of our present government since FDR: Link.
And I have argued there is NO WAY the 10th Amendment is a "get out of Union free card," because such a provision is vastly too important to have been passed over without ANY comment at the time.
Secession was not allowed after the states withdrew from the old Union under the Articles? Because you say so in spite of what the people who ratified the Constitution said? If the ratifiers thought secession wasn't allowed or not allowed without approval of the other states, they very probably would not have ratified the Constitution. The Virginia, New York, and Rhode island statements (which you can find on the web) and the 10th Amendment-like statements of four other states attest to that fact. As later Chief Justice Marshall said during ratification, "does not a power remain till it is given away?" It does indeed, or else the Constitution is a living document whose words don't mean what they say. Down the living document road is disaster and the loss of freedom.
You argue, no doubt correctly, that the vote in some state legislatures was very close, and only inclusion of a "signing statement" persuaded a majority to vote in favor of Union.
Since when did the legislatures, or the US Congress for that matter, have any say in what those who ratified the Constitution said the Constitution meant? (I'm sure you must have meant the ratifiers, not the legislatures or the US Congress.) The people of those ratification conventions said what they understood the Constitution to mean, and, in the light of that understanding, then ratified the Constitution. But, you apparently believe you know better than them.
Right, so she was not owned by the US government (that is what I meant above, but I see I was not making myself clear by leaving out 'government'). She was owned by a private company. I think the private company was Spofford, Tileston & Co. of New York. See Link 1, Link 2, and Link 3.
Link 1 indicates she was contracted by Spofford, Tileston & Co. to the New York & Havre Steam Navigation Co. for two voyages in 1854. Link 2 indicates she arrived in New York from Charleston on January 20, 1861, with passengers and merchandise to Spofford, Tileston & Co. Mail service was not mentioned on this notice of 1861 arrival.
Link 3 indicates the Nashville was part of a fleet owned by Spofford, Tileson & Co. and James Adger of Charleston. Apparently Adger died in 1858, but the James Adger II Company of Charleston continued to run the ship James Adger between Charleston and New York Link 4.
The ship, the James Adger was seized in New York at the start of the war, apparently then purchased by the US, then converted to US Navy service. Interestingly, Link 4 says the James Adger was used during the war to pursue its once sister ship, the Nashville.
Given the large group of Charleston owners of the ship, it is no surprise that the ship flew the Palmetto flag. See New York Times article.
Although you seem to think that the census questions were inherently defeating the gathering of primary information on per capita wealth, some primary economic historians such as George Tucker were among the first economists to compute per capita income as means of statistical analysis in 1843. Subsequent refining occurred in 1848 and 1854.
http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decenni...s/1860e-05.pdf
Data From the below is also interesting: http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/colle.../php/state.php
Historical Census Browser, Geospatial and Statistical Data Center
University of Virginia Library
Charlottesville VA 22904
As a group slaveholders were extremely wealthy in the South. Their average wealth in 1860 was $24,748, almost fourteen times greater than that of nonslaveholders ($1,781). They accounted for 26 percent of the white population in 1860 and they owned 93 percent of “agricultural wealth.”
As you can see, if the averages include the standard per capita family dependents per household, then the data produces the 1860 individual per capita income in the South as being $3,978, and in the North it was $2,040. Of course the data varies between regions in the Northeast, North Central, and Midwest according to household count. http://www.mcgill.ca/files/economics/ferrie.pdf
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/dward/cla...nequality.html
http://www2.census.gov/prod2/statcom...T1970p1-07.pdf
http://www2.census.gov/prod2/statcom...T1970p2-13.pdf
http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1860e-05.pdf
Some of these locations are difficult to feed into. If you have problems, advise and I will aid your entrance.
rustbucket: "If the war started that early, then according to the people involved and to some historians, it was started by Union shots on January 8, 1861, at Fort Barrancas."
Nonsense, and you should know it.
Such a local incident in Florida, even before Florida seceded, did not start a war.
But conditions necessary for war did exist as early as February 5, after:
1) South Carolina demanded Fort Sumter's surrender,
2) announced that resupplying Fort Sumter was tantamount to war, and
3) President Buchanan told South Carolina officials Fort Sumter would not be surrendered. When
4) President Lincoln advised Gov. Pickens on April 6 of the resupply of Fort Sumter, the war's beginning only waited a Confederate order to start firing.
rustbucket: "...eight days after he was inaugurated, Lincoln sent a command to reinforce Fort Pickens without telling the South, an action that broke the agreement/armistice negotiated at high levels on both sides that kept the fort from being attacked. Was that not an act of war? Why would a peace loving person do that?"
Do you not remember, ol' pal, that the day before Lincoln was inaugurated, Confederate President Davis ordered military preparation for actions against Fort Sumter? And just how publicly was this announced? Did Davis tell Lincoln he was getting ready to kill Union forces in Fort Sumter?
Consider this: neither of presidents Buchanan & Lincoln recognized Southern secession as constitutional or lawful. Neither was willing to surrender Fort Sumter. Both attempted to resupply Fort Sumter by sea. Both attempts resulted in cannon fire from Southern shore batteries. What was the difference?
Difference #1: After Buchanan's failed attempt of Jan 9 to resupply Fort Sumter, South Carolina announced on Jan 14: any future attempts would be tantamount to war. Then on March 3, Confederate President Davis ordered military preparations to force Sumter's surrender.
Difference #2: Unlike Buchanan, President Lincoln warned South Carolina five days ahead of time (April 6) that Fort Sumter was being resupplied, and also advised there would be no war if the South did not begin shooting.
The obvious and appropriate warning from Lincoln: firing on Union forces meant war.
Now rustbucket, you can argue all day long that somehow the South didn't really WANT war. But the obvious way to avoid war was to not shoot at Union forces. This the South not only refused to do, but the mood in Charleston after April 13 was reported as deliriously happy the war had begun!
From the beginning, my argument here has been: where the South saw war as inevitable and necessary, the North (Buchanan & Lincoln) hoped to reunite the nation peacefully.
The South declared in January that simply resupplying Federal forces in Fort Sumter was tantamount to war, but war requires shooting, and it was the South which began shooting to force Sumter's surrender.
rustbucket: "To use one of your arguments, it took the US years to resolve the question of British occupation of forts in the Northwest Territories. But after only eight days, Lincoln secretly ordered the truce agreement to be broken without notifying the other side, likely resulting in an attack on the fort. Lincoln clearly must not have wanted peace."
According to Major Anderson, Fort Sumter must be resupplied or surrendered by April 15. But President Buchanan had already told South Carolina officials Fort Sumter would not be surrendered. Therefore, it must be resupplied.
Once again, a review of basic historical facts:
Again, note the basic sequence of events:
South: resupplying Fort Sumter means war.
North: we are resupplying Fort Sumter.
South: Begins firing on Fort Sumter.
"Or, as the New York Day Book translated that statement:
"In other words, though you do not recognize me as President, I shall not molest you if you will pay taxes for the support of my government. We must have your money, that we cannot bring ourselves to decline, and if you do not let us have it peacefully, why, we shall be compelled to take it from you by force; in which case you, not we, will be the aggressors. This means coercion and civil war and nothing else."
That is a gross mischaracterization, indeed a mockery of Lincoln's actual words:
"I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken; and to the extent of my ability I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States.
Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part; and I shall perform it, so far as practicable, unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means, or in some authoritative manner, direct the contrary.
I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.
"In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon the national authority.
The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion -- no using of force against or among the people anywhere.
Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality, shall be so great and so universal, as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object.
While the strict legal right may exist in the government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating, and so nearly impracticable with all, that I deem it better to forego, for the time, the uses of such offices.
"The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union.
So far as possible, the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection.
The course here indicated will be followed, unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper; and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised according to circumstances actually existing, and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles, and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections."
The choice here was the South's: to accept Lincoln's words at face value, and to work for a peaceful resolution; or to "take offense" and begin preparations for war. The South chose the latter.
Btw, should mention again: the South sent a number of envoys to Washington, DC, who met with President Buchanan & others. The envoys main concern, apparently, was the surrender of Fort Sumter, which President Buchanan on at least two occasions (Jan 13 & Feb 5) told them would not happen.
In March Confederate President Davis sent three more emissaries, which Lincoln ordered Secretary of State Seward not to receive. IIRC, Seward received them anyway, informally, but the result was the same as previous meetings: the South demanded Sumter's surrender, the North refused.
On the day before the South started firing on Fort Sumter, all its emissaries left Washington, DC.
"The Nashville was not owned by the US, but it apparently made periodic trips to Nashville carrying passengers, mail, and cargo. "
Didn't we establish that Nashville was owned by a large shipping company in New York? So, would their "loyalities and sympathies" not most likely be to their business, and also the laws of their country? Wouldn't they be most unlikely to do ANYTHING to cause trouble with either?
rustbucket: "At that time, Klein says that foreign ships flew their foreign flags, Southern ships flew the new Confederate flag or the South Carolina (Palmetto) flag, and Northern ships did not fly flags. The Nashville might well have been used to flying the Palmetto flag for it carried one in April which it used to enter Charleston Harbor after Sumter surrendered. Mixed loyalties perhaps?"
Or how about: 100% common sense -- when in Rome, you know, do as the Romans do? If other Northern ships flew no flag in Charleston Harbor, does that make them suddenly Confederate ships? I'd say it was just a matter of doing what you have to do.
And by all evidence that is certainly true of April 11 & 12. Later, of course, things changed. But as of the incident with Harriet Lane, Nashville was still a Union registered ship.
Look, this whole issue is of no importance whatever -- zero, zip, nada -- except in the context of claims by folks such as DomainMaster that in firing its warning shot at Nashville the USS Harriet Lane fired the "first naval shot" of the war -- or that it somehow committed an act of war by "blockading" the Nashville.
But if Nashville was owned by a Union company, doing its usual commercial and Union business, and normally flying a Union flag, then in no sense can the incident with Harriet Lane be considered a "first naval shot" of anything.
Do you disagree?
I don't believe for a minute that you are "dead wrong." I think you are mostly correct about the Constitution, and let's face it, by standards of (I shudder to say it) the "mainstream media," we both qualify as "right-wing nut cases." "Nutty" because we think the Constitution actually means what it says, and what the Founders intended by it.
But in the case of secession, I think you are reading words into the Constitution which just are not there.
rustbucket: "Secession was not allowed after the states withdrew from the old Union under the Articles?
Btw, withdrawal from the old Articles of Confederation was done in accordance with lawful procedures spelled out in its Article 13.
"Because you say so in spite of what the people who ratified the Constitution said? If the ratifiers thought secession wasn't allowed or not allowed without approval of the other states, they very probably would not have ratified the Constitution. The Virginia, New York, and Rhode island statements (which you can find on the web) and the 10th Amendment-like statements of four other states attest to that fact."
I notice how you read the words "states unilateral secession" INTO the 10th Ammendment. Is that because you believe the Constitution is a "living document" intended to mean whatever you might wish it had meant? ;-)
And thanks for the advice. Took some doing, but I did find all of those signing statements.
To summarize:
So here we see the actual words of those "signing statements," and note again that NONE include such terms as "states' unilateral secession," or "a states unapproved withdrawal from the Union."
Instead, the political "term of art" is "powers of government may be reassumed by the people." In no place is this term "reassumed" defined as "a state's unilateral secession," or "a state's unapproved withdrawal from the Union."
Again I say, the reason those words are NOT ever used is because that in NO WAY is what the Founders intended them to mean.
Finally, even supposing we grant that an individual state's signing statement including the word "reassumed," (or "resumed") MIGHT be interpreted to mean "unilateral state secession," that could conceivably cover Virginia, if it had suffered some "injury or oppression" -- had it? But how, exactly might that cover the other ten states of the Confederacy? ;-)
Nor did I intend to imply Nashville was a US Navy ship.
Nashville: a civilian ship, belonging to a large shipping company originally owned entirely by New York investors (now including some from Charleston), registered in the United States, doing both commercial and US government business, and normally flying the American flag, on routine passage from New York to Charleston.
Due to the "peculiar circumstances" of early 1861 -- or perhaps simply because it's then dark -- Nashville is not flying her normal US flag. This is not at all unusual for the time. Other US ships in Charleston are reported as flying no flags. Challenged by Harriet Lane, Nashville raises the US flag and then waits until the bombardment of Fort Sumter ends.
I'll say again: all of this is of no importance, except in the context of various claims that Harriet Lane fired the war's first naval shots at Nashville. If Nashville was still a Union registered ship, about its normal commercial & government business, then Harriet Lane's challenge was simply routine law enforcement, and in no way an act of war.
First of all -- I always appreciate it when posters maximize the data input and minimize (better yet: eliminate, thanks!) ridiculous insults.
Second, please understand, the only thing we are "debating" here is whether 1860 era ANNUAL PER CAPITA INCOMES were grossly outside the range of about $100 to $200. Nothing I've seen suggests they are.
Yes, of course, if you take a prosperous southern FAMILY of maybe 10 members, living on hundreds or even thousands of acres, with dozens or hundreds of slaves, then you could no doubt compute: this FAMILY has an income in the range of thousands of dollars per year. No debate there.
But it's not what the words "annual per capita income" mean, and that's what I've argued.
Further, who even cares about what the various regions' per capita income might have been -- except in context of questions such as:
I don't see per capita income as very relevant to secession -- perhaps you do? But economics, especially the North's overwhelming industrial power was hugely important in the South's defeat.
The only of your links which I could get to work were ones I'd already found.
But understand, we have nothing to debate, as long as it's understood that what's being compared are the incomes of prosperous southern slave-owning plantations with the average northern & mid-western family farm. I grant you the South's relative prosperity.
But in terms of industrial output, there was almost no comparison -- the North outproduced the South in order of magnitude ten to one. That's why there is today a 50 state United States.
Sorry, this statement is somewhat in error.
In the three states you mentioned, NY, VA and RI, the vote was very close, indeed all would have rejected the Constitution except for efforts of Federalists to satisfy anti-Federalist concerns.
These efforts resulted eventually in the Bill of Rights -- the first 10 Amendments. So language almost identical, and in most cases identical, to the Bill of Rights appears in the three states' "signing statements."
Clearly then, the US Constitutional contract was signed by all parties "AS AMENDED" with the Bill of Rights. This was absolutely KEY to 100% ratification. Without the Bill of Rights, insisted on by NY, VA and RI "signing statements," the United States would have been born with just 10 states -- and missing two of the most important.
But now, rustbucket, I need to appeal to your long experience as an engineer. Surely at some point or other you worked directly with customers, and may even have negotiated a purchase contract or two? (or three?).
And didn't it go as follows: after all the preliminaries are worked through, the customer presents a purchase contract to be signed. As the supplier, you study it and decide it needs some modifications which you then propose. The customer happily agrees to most of your modifications (i.e., in this case the Bill of Rights), but a few you agree to drop, and they do NOT become part of your contract.
Well, that is EXACTLY what happened with the NY, VA and RI "signing statements." The vast majority of items presented for modification were happily adopted as the "Bill of Rights" in the Constitution.
But ALL of the language referring to "powers reassumed by the people" was DROPPED and specifically NOT accepted in the Constitution.
Here's the bottom line:
Source, please. The order to fire on Fort Sumter did not occur until Lincoln sent an armed fleet down to invade South Carolina's territorial waters.
March 3, 1861, the day before Lincoln's inauguration, was a Sunday. Davis probably went to church. Beauregard arrived in Charleston on March 3 to assume command of Confederate forces there. Perhaps that is what you meant.
The Confederate Congress passed a law setting up a provisional army for the defense of the country on February 28, 1861 ("An Act to raise provisional forces for the Confederate States of America, and for other purposes"). The Confederate Congress was setting up the details of that army on March 4. That is what countries do for their self defense. It wasn't until after Lincoln's March 4 inauguration speech that the Confederates knew that Lincoln really was going to do things that would result in war -- steal tariff revenues of the South and occupy the South by maintaining armed forts within their borders (bold and italics below as in original Gazette & Sentinel of Plaquemine, Louisiana on March 9, 1861).
Latest from Montgomery
War Considered Inevitable -- The Standing Army -- the War Strength
Montgomery, March 5th -- Since the receipt of the Inaugural address of Mr. Lincoln, it is universally conceded here that war between the Confederate States and the United States is inevitable. Mr. Benjamin said last night, that in his opinion, there would be a clash of arms within thirty days.
Mr. Conrad concurred in this view of the aspect of affairs. The standing army of the Confederate States will be fixed at ten thousand men. Congress is now engaged in organizing the army. Of course, in case of hostilities, the number of men put in the field will be greater. It is calculated that the states now composing the Confederacy can place 80,000 on a movable war-footing.
As a result, the Confederate Congress passed on March 6 a law that allowed Davis to call up to 100,000 volunteers to defend the Confederacy. It was titled, "An Act to provide for the Public Defence." It said, in part:
The Congress of the Confederate States of America do enact, That in order to provide speedily forces to repel invasion, maintain the rightful possession of the Confederate States of America in every portion of territory belonging to each State, and to secure the public tranquility and independence against threatened assault, the President be, and he is hereby authorized to employ the militia, military and naval forces of the Confederate States of America, and to ask for and accept the services of any number of volunteers, not exceeding one hundred thousand, who may offer their services, either as cavalry, mounted riflemen, artillery or infantry, in such proportion of these several arms as he may deem expedient, to serve for twelve months after they shall be mustered into service, unless sooner discharged.
The South correctly believed that they could legally secede from the Union. They were simply exercising the understandings of the NY, VA, and RI ratifiers of the Constitution that their states/people could reassume their governance if it comported to their happiness. Did you ever find statements from other states at the time of ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that said the NY, VA, and RI ratifiers were wrong?
The obvious and appropriate warning from Lincoln: firing on Union forces meant war.
Governor Pickens had told Lincoln's messenger Lamon in March that no warship would be allowed in the harbor for any purpose. Yet Lincoln sent them.
Those words of the New York Day Book were a pretty accurate characterization of Lincoln's words, if you ask me. Lincoln's words were like a demand that he wants to sleep with your wife, and if you acquiesce to this, there won't be any trouble. And if there is trouble about it, you will be the aggressor.
A peaceable president would have recognized the South's right to secede.
On the day before the South started firing on Fort Sumter, all its emissaries left Washington, DC.
Yeah, as they left they called the promises the Lincoln Administration had made gross perfidy. From the New Orleans Daily Picayune of April 13, 1861:
Washington, April 11. -- The Southern Commissioners charge the Administration with gross perfidy in attempting to reinforce Fort Sumter under pretext of evacuation.
They say the Montgomery Government earnestly desires peace. They return convinced that war is inevitable, saying the responsibility rests on the Administration.
Let's see ...
- Lincoln's messenger Fox gets to visit Fort Sumter on the condition that his visit was peaceful. In the fort he plans its reinforcement.
- Lincoln's messenger Lamon tells Governor Pickens Fort Sumter would be evacuated.
- Seward misleads the Southern Commissioners about the evacuation of Fort Pickens.
- Lincoln plans his Sumter battlefleet in secret after telling the Senate the day before that he didn't have anything important to communicate with them so they could adjourn.
- Lincoln's advisors and generals told him Fox's plan would result for Sumter in a shooting war, yet he did it anyway.
- Governor Pickens told Lamon that they would not allow warships in Charleston harbor for any purpose, yet Lincoln sent them anyway.
- Lincoln sent instructions to reinforce Fort Pickens in violation of the agreement negotiated by the United States without alerting the other side, an act of war.
- The Powhatan attempts to enter Pensacola Harbor flying English colors.
- In July, Lincoln stonewalls Congress about his orders that violated the armistice at Fort Pickens. No copy of the secret orders survived.
- After the failure of Fox's Sumter mission, Lincoln consoles Fox by telling him "our anticipation is justified by the result." The result was war.
And yet they named a car after him. I think the Southern Commissioners were right.
My source for most of this data is Fredriksen's Civil War Almanac.
One entry for March 3, 1861 says:
"President Jefferson Davis appoints General Pierre G.T. Beauregard commander of Confederate forces in the vicinity of Charleston, South Carolina. He is instructed to prepare for military action against the Federal garrison sequestered inside Fort Sumter in the harbor."
rustbucket quoting Louisiana Gazette & Sentinal:
"Montgomery, March 5th -- Since the receipt of the Inaugural address of Mr. Lincoln, it is universally conceded here that war between the Confederate States and the United States is inevitable. Mr. Benjamin said last night, that in his opinion, there would be a clash of arms within thirty days."
Presumably, "Mr. Benjamin" was Judah P. Benjamin of Louisiana, formerly a US Senator, then the Confederacy's Attorney General, later in 1861 Secretary of War, and in 1862 Secretary of State. He was a man much respected by President Davis and others for his good judgment. After the war made a harrowing escape to England, died in France in 1884.
Now just think about what this article says. No major shots have yet been fired, no battles fought, no one yet, so far as we know, has been killed. And yet the Confederate Attorney General, one of Davis' most trusted men, announces publicly that "war is inevitable," and within 30 days. He was only off by a few days.
And why was war "inevitable"? Because the Union invaded the South? No. Because the Union had fought back against Southern seizures of Federal forts? No. Because there had been a battle of military forces? No. Because Union and Southern forces were already killing each other? No. Because the Union was already collecting taxes on Southern trade? No.
The alleged reason war seemed "inevitable" within a month on March 5, 1861, was because of the tone of Lincoln's March 4 Inaugural speech. The South didn't like it. But Davis had already ordered, on March 3, for preparations to force surrender of Fort Sumter -- force which Davis knew full well was war.
Why did Davis order preparations for war against Fort Sumter on March 3? Well, I have a theory -- or rather, a matter of opinion, a best guess, if you will. Possibly the occasion will arise to explain it...
rustbucket: "The South correctly believed that they could legally secede from the Union.
I will certainly grant you this much: many in the South incorrectly believed they could legally and peacefully secede. A study of history and of the Constitution itself would have shown them their errors.
"They were simply exercising the understandings of the NY, VA, and RI ratifiers of the Constitution that their states/people could reassume their governance if it comported to their happiness.
Especially, they would have learned that those "signing statements" by NY, VA and RI which did not make it into the Bill of Rights were REJECTED by our Founders.
"Did you ever find statements from other states at the time of ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that said the NY, VA, and RI ratifiers were wrong?"
Yes, the Bill of Rights itself -- it includes many of those "signing statement" conditions, but NOTHING refering to "powers of government may be reassumed by the people." Point is this: our Founders carefully reviewed and accepted many of the modifications to the Constitution proposed by some states. But NOT any language that could be read as suggesting a "right of secession."
rustbucket: "Governor Pickens had told Lincoln's messenger Lamon in March that no warship would be allowed in the harbor for any purpose. Yet Lincoln sent them."
And not the first warning, by far:
Jan 14, 1861: "The South Carolina legislature summarily declares that any Union attempt to reinforce Fort Sumter is tantamount to war."
But President Buchanan had already told SC envoys on January 13, and again on February 5 that Fort Sumter would not be surrendered.
Obviously, since it could not be surrendered, it had to be resupplied, and both sides knew it.
And just suppose, for sake of argument, that someday I were to tell you that you must not set foot outside your own house, for any purpose. And just suppose you ignore my warning, and walk around outside your house, which I declare to be an "act of war," and open fire on you.
Which of us, under those circumstances would be responsible for the resulting conflagration? C'mon, tell the truth. ;-)
The New York company weren't the only owners. See my post 2164. A large group of Charlestonians were also owners. Thus, it would seem that in Confederate waters the ship had the right to fly South Carolina colors (or a US flag if a US warship was shooting across her bow).
But if Nashville was owned by a Union company, doing its usual commercial and Union business, and normally flying a Union flag, then in no sense can the incident with Harriet Lane be considered a "first naval shot" of anything.
Take your argument up with the Coast Guard historians. Coast Guard.
… So here we see the actual words of those "signing statements," and note again that NONE include such terms as "states' unilateral secession," or "a states unapproved withdrawal from the Union."
The Constitution did not prohibit states from seceding or place any limitations on their right to do so unilaterally. The "necessary to their happiness" or similar statement of those ratifications does not include a requirement that they have to ask for approval from states that might be oppressing them. Requiring the approval of other states wouldn't be to their happiness, and it would be reading something into the Constitution that wasn’t there.
As I pointed out to you before, attempts were made by Republicans in Congress after states started seceding to amend the Constitution so that approval to secede was needed. They knew that such approval wasn't required by the Constitution.
The powers of the states were many and undefined. The Constitution restricted the power of the federal government, and its restrictions on the power of individual states/people do not include a prohibition or conditions on secession.
Finally, even supposing we grant that an individual state's signing statement including the word "reassumed," (or "resumed") MIGHT be interpreted to mean "unilateral state secession," that could conceivably cover Virginia, if it had suffered some "injury or oppression" -- had it? But how, exactly might that cover the other ten states of the Confederacy? ;-)
Virginia suffered economically over the transfer of Southern wealth to Northern manufacturers under the protective tariff. As the Daily Chicago Times editorialized on December 10, 1860:
The South has furnished near three-fourths of the entire exports of the country. Last year she furnished seventy-two percent of the whole . . . We have a tariff [the Morrill Tariff] that protects our manufacturers from thirty to fifty percent, and enables us to consume large quantities of Southern cotton, and to compete in our whole home market with the skilled labor of Europe. This operates to compel the South to pay an indirect bounty to our skilled labor, of millions annually.
The New Orleans Daily Picayune said something similar (emphasis mine):
Some months ago we said to the Northern party, "You sought sectional aggrandizement, and had no scruples as to the means and agencies by which to attain your unhallowed purposes. You paid no heed to the possible consequences of your insane conduct." The fact was then patent that the condition in the bond by which the Northern protectionist party gave its weight and influence in aid of Black Republicanism was the imposition by the party of a protectionist tariff. The South was to be fleeced that the North might be enriched.
Having driven the South to resistance, instead of adopting a policy of conciliation, it added to the existing exasperation by adopting a tariff as hostile as could be to Southern interests. The estrangement of North and South was not sufficiently marked and intense. New fuel must be added to the fires of strife, new incentives to embittered feelings.
Virginia seceded mainly because of Lincoln’s calls for troops to coerce the South. I would guess they saw through Lincoln’s ploy of getting the South to attack when he sent down a battle fleet to South Carolina’s territorial waters.
Family is here from out of state, and I've got estate work to do the next few days to review with them. I have to be off the boards for a while.
Now look, rustbucket, South Carolina did not first secede on December 20/24, 1860, because all-of-a-sudden they suffered some drastic increase in the rate of tariffs they had been happily paying for many years.
Tariffs had NOTHING to do with it! You've read South Carolina's Declaration of Immediate Causes, and you know perfectly well, it says NOT ONE WORD about tariffs.
Tariffs were the LAST thing on South Carolina's mind. Tariffs could easily have been solved by normal political processes, if that was South Carolina's major concern. But it wasn't, not in the least.
As it's Declaration clearly spells out, South Carolina's immediate reasons for secession were:
But Northern "nullification" of Fugitive Slave laws had been going on for many years, and did not cause South Carolina to secede. What caused secession was the election of anti-slavery candidate Lincoln, pure and simple, and NOTHING ELSE.
rustbucket: "The New Orleans Daily Picayune said something similar (emphasis mine): "
Did you really just "forget" to quote for us the date of that article, and provide a link to it? Why am I guessing that you have taken their words pretty badly out of context?
rustbucket: "Virginia seceded mainly because of Lincoln’s calls for troops to coerce the South. I would guess they saw through Lincoln’s ploy of getting the South to attack when he sent down a battle fleet to South Carolina’s territorial waters."
"getting the South to attack"? I don't think so. Remember that since the firing on Star of the West on January 10, President Buchanan had at least twice (Jan 13 & Feb 5) told South Carolina envoys he would not surrender Fort Sumter, and South Carolina's legislature had declared on January 14 that any attempt to resupply Fort Sumter was tantamount to war.
So both sides knew since January that Fort Sumter must be either resupplied or surrendered, and it would not be surrendered, it must be resupplied, and that South Carolina had declared resupplying Fort Sumter tantamount to war.
Since January, both sides knew perfectly well what would happen.
But step back for a minute, and look at the "big picture." Here's what you need to remember:
between December 20, 1860 and February 1, 1861 -- just 6 weeks -- seven states voted to secede, all from the Deep South: South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas. These seven states had a free white population of 2.8 million.
But EIGHT other slave states specifically REJECTED secession: the Upper South of Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas (2.9 million whites), plus the Border States of Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri (2.8 million whites).
So Confederate President Davis needed something -- anything -- to CHANGE THE MINDS of those Upper-South and Border States. He chose Fort Sumter, and it worked for him. As a direct result of Fort Sumter, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas all CHANGED THEIR MINDS and decided to secede.
Firing on Fort Sumter was a brilliant strategic offensive move by President Davis, increasing the Confederacy from 7 states to 11, and DOUBLING its white population.
Sure, he did it at the price of starting a war for Southern Independence, but I'll say it again: he considered that war both inevitable and necessary anyway.
It's often said that the Civil War put the South on strategic defense, and the North on offense. But that's only true after 1861. Throughout all of 1861 and into 1862 it was the South on strategic offense: first in persuading the Upper South to secede, and later in sending Confederate armies into the Union Border States.
Anyway, that's my theory on Fort Sumter... ;-)
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.