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 ...
By the way a peaceful secession would have been a lot easier if southerners had realised that one southerner could not whup 20 yankees with his grandpa’s flintlock....
"And considering the confederate congress was in session and the decision to bombard Sumter into surrender was made several days before the actual attack then there is no reason why the Davis regime couldn't have gotten the approval of congress"
Well, of course, the answer to that is obvious. No declaration of war was necessary to simply protect your own harbor, and no one knew for sure what measures would be necessary. You don't declare war over a defensive action. That would be idiocy.
And in saying this: "But abiding by constitutional restrictions or requirements was never a confederate strongpoint."
That makes the third canard you have passed off in the past 24 hours on this thread.
Here:
Was there a declaration of war?
The Confederate States passed "An Act recognizing the existence of
war between the United States and the Confederate States" on 6 May 1861.
This act exempted MD, NC, TN, KY, AR, MO, DE, and the territories of AZ
and NM, and the Indian Territory south of KS.
Sources: McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom; Official Records, Ser. IV,
Vol. 1
So, they did follow their own Constitution.
But Lincoln did not.
Defend from what? The garrison in Sumter had taken no hostile actions against Charleston or anyone in it. It had not blocked traffic in and out of the harbor. Hadn't fired at anyone or anything. The troops had simply manned their post. And when the confederate attempt to starve them out didn't work then Davis chose war. His bombardment of the fort was an act of war, certainly his secretary of state thought so. And Toombs also knew what the results would be. Yet there was no attempt made by Davis to get consent of the confederate congress before plunging the nation into war.
That makes the third canard you have passed off in the past 24 hours on this thread.
Falsehoods are your specialty. No declaration of war was made prior to the attack. What you're submitting is akin to if the Japanese had bombarded Pearl Harbor and then declared war in mid-January 1942.
But Lincoln did not.
But he did.
Stop annoying people with your SPAM. Go away.
If I had been in Congress in 1860, I would have gladly voted to let those seven Cotton states depart in an orderly fashon after all treaty, land, navigational rights, and financial implications were settled. But I doubt they would have lasted long on their own.
That condescending Yankee comment could have come from the 19th century. Nothing changes with you people.
face it, "DUH,snake", that is FACT. lincoln cared about NOTHING except MORE POWER & more $$$$$ for his big business clients/war profiteers & "his merry band of CROOKS".
lincoln & clinton were PRECISELY the SAME sort. EITHER would do ANTYTHING to get MORE POWER & MONEY. NEITHER had "the morals of an alley cat".
free dixie,sw
It was not intended to be condescending. It's an opinion based on some basic demographic and economic data. The economy of the seven deep south states was nearly entirely dependent on one crop sold on a volatile international market while also being subject to the whims of nature. So much of the tillable land in the Deep South was devoted to cotton that they had to import basic food stuffs. The population of those seven states was over 40% slave and the fear of uprising was always present. There was little in the way of manufacturing, merchant marine, interstate transportation or ability to form the capital and skilled labor necessary to create that infrastructure.
Without the Upper South states who had rejected secession until Ft. Sumter, the Confederacy of the Cotton States was simply not viable and I think after a short period of time the majority of the people there would have rejected it and returned to the Union.
sorry, but there is a thing called FREEDOM of SPEECH. it exists so FOOLS like YOU cannot "shut up" people who disagree with your DUMB opinions.
laughing AT you.
free dixie,sw
They probably would have become a lot like the Central and South American banana republics. An agrarian nation run by a few elites with a smoldering underclass constantly threatening communist revolution. It wouldn't have been pretty.
the CSA would have done just fine, thanks & the remaining USA could have become the LEFTIST, SELF-impressed, arrogant, imperialist nation that DAMNyankees seem to desire. everyone would have been happier.
free dixie,sw
And how long do you think the original seven would have lasted with no manufacturing industry to speak of, no financial industry, little transportation and no shipping industry at all? A country where almost one half the total population - 47% - was owned by the other half? Your confederacy would have been totally dependent on someone else to do virtually everything except grow their exports. It couldn't feed itself, finance itself, insure itself, or get its exports to market. It would have either had to start all that from scratch or else become, to all intents, an economic colony of someone - the U.S. or more likely Europe. And as it happens, such a dependent situation was fine with your confederate ancestors. As Louis Wigfall told William Howard Russell of The Times: "We are an agrarian people; we are a primitive people. We have no cities - we don't want them. We have no literature - we don't need any yet. We have no press - we are glad of it…We have no commercial marine - no navy - we don't want them. We are better without them. Your ships carry our produce and you can protect your own vessels. As long as we have our rice, our sugar, our tobacco, and our cotton, we can command wealth to purchase all we want from those nations with which we are in amity, and to lay up money besides."
So at the end of the day your precious confederacy would have become an area totally dependent on others, totally dominated by others, and loving every minute of it. You want to tell us again how wonderful that would have been?
That's basically the economic model of most African nations- production of cash crops and importation of everything else. We've seen how succesful such an economy has been in the last century.
Oh, sure, the planters would probably have done okay. But everyone else in those states, whether black or white, free or slave, would have been relegated to never-ending poverty.
IF that is your opinion, you really are "out of touch" with REALITY. inbred, SELF-important,UNthinking, PREJUDICE does that to people.
free dixie,sw
No. Half your population would be spending all its time and effort keeping a lid on the other half. And developing your own financial and manufacturing and transportation industry would require capitol - capitol you would not have because you would have to send a good part of the money received for your exports out of the country to those providing those financial and transportation and manufacturing services you had no interest in developing to begin with.
IF that is your opinion, you really are "out of touch" with REALITY. inbred, SELF-important,UNthinking, PREJUDICE does that to people.
"Reality" and "stand watie" have never come into contact with each other, not that I've seen in all my years of posting on this fourm.
Now, where's the book?
Don’t forget to factor in the boll weevil infestation that began devastating cotton crops a couple of decades after the war.
Without the South, the North would already be a Stalinist Dictatorship. Works bothways. Northerners are statists and the only thing holding them back is the South. As such, the feelings are mutual. Screw the North.
The South voting Republican is a relatively recent phenomenon. As recently as 1976, every Southern State but one went for Carter. The only place FDR didn't win was in New England.
Anyway, the discussion was what would have happened to the 7 original seceding states if they had gotten independence. I can't see their history being all that positive, given their economic, social and cultural limitations.
Southerners were saying exactly the same thing....and you know that. You also know that repeated attempts were made to solve the situation peacefully.
You said: “A pejorative accusation? Can you quote Southern leaders advocating secession but claiming there was no reason to expect war, and the South would do everything possible to avoid war?”
Of course I can. How many quotes would suit you?
You said: “Indeed, isn't it a fact that President Davis was clearly warned ahead of time that firing on Fort Sumter must necessarily lead to war, but did it any way?”
What is more to the point is that the Union was warned that any attempt to enter Charleston Harbor would be considered an act of war. Didn't Lincoln do it anyway?
And you say: “Here's my point — all the evidence I've seen says the South not only expected war, they were eager for it, and had no problem with the idea of firing the first shots and making the first attacks....
That is essentially stereotypical popular media revision poppycock.
You said: “you never read Lincoln's First Inaugural, did you? Come on, pal, get a grip on reality.”
Apparently you failed to read this: “The power confided in me will be used to hold, occupy and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and impost but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion—no using force against or among the people anywhere”.
Political leaders in the Confederacy recognized that Lincoln was pledging to hold Ft. Sumter, and use the military to do so. This President was prepared to use coercive military action on states that left the Union.
And you know it is a fact that “six weeks later sent a secret naval mission to invade Charleston harbor”
You said: “Bottom line: there was no serious effort by the South to negotiate a peaceful settlement at Fort Sumter.”
Bottom line. Not true.
Do you know the names Martin Crawford of Georgia, John Forsyth of Alabama, and A. B. Roman of Louisiana and where they were on March 7, 1861?
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.