Posted on 01/10/2011 8:57:06 AM PST by cowboyway
I didn't say anything about any photo. You must be addled.
Daniel Websters 1850 speech
During the drafting of the Constitution in 1787...”a gentleman from the North wanted the importation of slaves banned in 20 years.” “The Southern gentlemen opposed....as being too long.”
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Webster7th.pdf
Thank you for the link to Webster’s speech. I’ve archived it.
Please note in the speech..free blacks in the North employed on ships as stewards and cooks were picked up by the police, at the port of New York when the ship arrived..thrown in jail and kept there until the ship was ready to depart.
Of course I understand that you might want to change the subject, from "who started the Civil War" to "all the evil deeds of those nasty Republicans during Reconstruction."
And no one can defend "evil deeds," but nevertheless, not everything Republicans have been accused of is necessarily true.
For example, this case. What you need to remember is that Republicans were the party of Abolition from Day One -- it was their original reason for existence.
Indeed, you might even say that Abolitionists were the Republicans' Tea Party of that day.
And that was the reason South Carolina and other Deep South slave-states first seceded, then declared war on the United States.
However, freeing the slaves was not the reason President Lincoln originally accept the war the South started, rather he just hoped to preserve the Union against those, in Lincoln's words: "combinations" which had declared themselves seceded.
So the idea of using the war to free the slaves came slowly, but once there, it became a major theme and Union rallying-cry.
So, after the war, there were three major anti-slavery amendments passed: 13th (1865), 14th (1868) and 15th (1870).
These were primarily intended to fulfill the promise of freedom for slaves first made in Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation.
As for punishing the South, Lincoln intended there would be no punishment, and his Vice President, Johnson, did his best to blunt the anger of Northerners at the carnage Civil War wrought.
Johnson's efforts eventually contributed to his impeachment (1868), though as in the case of Bill Clinton 131 years later, Johnson was not convicted.
Nevertheless, anti-South "Radical Republicans" dominated the Federal government for many years, leaving a sad legacy which persists to this day.
Lincoln's idea was the right one, but sadly it mostly died with him in 1865.
In murdering Lincoln, John Wilkes Booth also murdered the best chance the South could have for a less bitter reconstruction.
In no way, shape or form had the compact been broken in 1860 when the Deep South slave-states began to secede.
The only thing which had changed from before was the election of Abolitionist Republicans, and these had not yet even taken office, much less "broken the compact."
So, in 1860 there was no break in the compact, only the Deep South's concerns about potential future Federal actions to restrict the expansion of slavery into non-slave states and territories.
cowboyway: "You're trying to draw an analogy from the thinnest of links.
No, it's an entirely realistic future scenario.
cowboyway: "A combination of hispanics desiring to reunite the southwestern territories with old Mexico is not even close to a state government representing the people of that state seceding from a union that has refused to uphold it's end of the Constitutional compact that all the states had signed onto."
No, not today of course, but Hispanics & other minorities will soon be majorities in several states, and may wish to secede from the Federal Union.
So let's assume, for sake of argument, they will do just what the Southern slave-holding states did -- in some states conventions, in others the state legislature, in still others referendums of voters.
The question remains: do such declarations of secession -- however legitimate, semi-legitimate or bogus -- automatically grant a state the right to seize by force every US military asset in that state?
cowboyway quoting South Carolina Secession Declaration: ""We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences."
And that, of course, is the Big Lie -- the Lie which Southerners tell each other, and which some even believe.
But in 1860 there was no "failure to perform" period, none.
There was only the election of Abolitionist Republicans, who had not yet even taken office!
Further, the Original Intent of our Founders was not that any states might secede "at pleasure," but only under conditions of "mutual consent" (i.e., by Congress), or in the case of "usurpations" or "abuses" having that same effect.
Since none of these conditions existed in 1860, the Southern slave-holders' secession was not Constitutional or lawful -- regardless of how the "combination" gussied it up with state conventions, voter ratifications and legislatures' resolutions.
cowboyway: "...hopefully, whoever the POTUS is will deal with it the way Madison dealt with the Hartford Convention and not the way Lincoln dealt with the Confederacy, i.e., peacefully."
Yet another Big Lie.
Like Southern-stooge President Buchanan before him, Lincoln intended to deal with the Southern slave-owners peacefully.
But they never gave him that opportunity.
Instead the South first provoked, attacked and then declared war on the United States (May 6, 1861).
A Declaration of War against the United States is pretty serious, and certain to invite a major response.
Clearly, what the Southern slave-owners wanted was not endless legal battles in Federal courts over a supposed "states right of secession" or endless negotiations in Congress over conditions for "mutual consent" to secede, but rather they wanted something simple, quick and relatively easy: they wanted a "test by arms."
Well, they got their "test by arms," so I'd say any such debates should now be finished.
cowboyway: "What you yanks have always refused to discuss is are there any circumstances where secession is, not just an option, but a moral obligation?"
Nonsense.
What most posters here have said is that Constitutional and lawful secession depended on, in Madison's words, "mutual consent" or "abuses" or "usurpations" having that same effect.
Virginia's ratification document (the only one which did this) uses similar words: "oppression" and "injury."
But in 1860, none of those conditions existed, and so the Deep South slave-holding states' secession was not Constitutional, lawful or legitimate.
cowboyway: "Or, like some of your compadres, some of which have recently been banned, do you maintain that the union must remain together, even if the cost is individual liberty?"
Now listen carefully, pal, and I'll explain this yet again: according to our Founders, if a state wishes to secede Constitutionally, it must be with "mutual consent" of Congress, or from major, recognized "abuses," "usurpations," "oppressions" or "injury" having that same effect.
Yes, of course, you have a "right of rebellion," but if you appeal to a "test by arms," then you must accept the results of that test!
Let me put it straight & simple to you: don't start a war you can't win, pal.
All you'd do is get a lot of people killed for no good reason.
Nothing "moral" about that.
Check out any web site for Fort Mason, Texas.
It will tell you that Robert E. Lee was commander of the 2nd Cavalry there.
The point is the Texas slave-holders' complaints in their Reasons for Secession document are totally bogus -- even silly.
They have nothing to do with "mutual consent," or "usurpations" or "abuses," or "oppressions" by the Federal Government.
All they really say is: Texas wanted more money from the Federal government, money to build more Post Offices, Customs Houses and harbor improvements!
And to see how ludicrous those complaints were, just ask yourself this question: how much money did Texas receive from the Confederate government for such purposes?
That's your interpretation.
My interpretation is based on the Founders' words, especially Madison -- "Father of the Constitution" -- and Virginia's Ratification Statement.
Madison said specifically (to his friend Hamilton, reference New York's intention for a conditional ratification) that the Constitution must be ratified "in toto and forever".
Later Madison wrote that secession could not be "at pleasure" but rather:
"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."
rustbucket: "See my old post about Lincoln's efforts to provoke a shooting war:"
Bogus to the max.
The Southern slave-holders first provoked war by seizing dozens of Federal forts, ships, customs houses, armories, a mint, etc. -- some of these even before "official" secession.
The South started war by firing on Federal forces supporting those forts, of which the second Fort Sumter assault was only the most eggregious.
One month after firing on and seizing Fort Sumter, the Southern slave-holders declared war on the United States.
And even before officially declaring war, the Confederacy was offering military support to slave-holders in Union states!
Indeed, within a few months of declaring war, the the South had forces operating in every Union state and territory adjacent to the Confederacy -- Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, New Mexico and the seceded-from-the-Confederacy part of West Virginia.
rustbucket: "Jefferson Davis thought Lincoln's April 15th call for troops to invade the South was a declaration of war."
It was not, of course.
It said nothing about "war," or "rebellion" or "insurrection."
Lincoln did use those words later -- after the South declared war on the United States -- but as of April 19, his stated intention was simply to reestablish control over those Federal forts.
Of course Davis interpreted Lincoln's proclamation as a "declaration of war," because that's what Davis wanted.
rustbucket: "The Supreme Court thought the war started with Lincoln's April 19th and 27th call for a blockade of Southern ports.
Southern newspapers and many Northern newspapers called Lincoln's first inaugural speech a declaration of war against the South.
All of this was before the South issued a declaration of war on May 6."
Factually speaking, war began when the South started illegally seizing by force Federal forts, armories, customs houses, ships, a mint, etc.
And that's nothing more than saying, as President Roosevelt later said: that war with Japan began when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, not when Congress later declared war.
Lincoln's proclamation of April 19 was only his first serious public response to many serious Southern provocations.
That Davis, many Southern and even some Northern newspapers may have interpreted Lincoln's April 19 proclamation as a "declaration of war" is not Lincoln's fault.
It was not in any sense a "declaration of war," indeed the Union never did "declare war" on the Confederacy.
But it was the Union's first serious response to the South's provocations, and as such could be called the "beginning of war" by the Supreme Court.
rustbucket: "In April 1861, the New York Times couldn't understand why the South had not already attacked Fort Sumter, saying the delay would result in a Northern victory at Sumter.
They seem to have forgotten that the Confederates had sent commissioners to negotiate peacefully with Lincoln about the forts, the public indebtedness, etc., but Lincoln stiff armed them and would not see them. Real man of peace, that Abe."
I can't answer for the New York Times.
Indeed, it almost sounds as if they were as insane then as they are today.
But let's be clear, their words were irrelevant to what Jefferson Davis did.
As for those Souther emissaries, Lincoln had no constitutional authority to negotiate with them.
The place for negotiations to achieve "mutual consent" was in Congress, and of course the South had no intention ever to seek "mutual consent" from Congress.
In 1860 and early 1861 the slave-holding states would far rather fight a quick and easy Second War of Independence than spend months, years or even decades of patient political work required to achieve "consent of the other parties"
That's just a lie. You either don't know history or you're purposely attempting to revise it.
No, it's an entirely realistic future scenario.
The scenario may be realistic but the analogy is absurd.
The question remains: do such declarations of secession -- however legitimate, semi-legitimate or bogus -- automatically grant a state the right to seize by force every US military asset in that state?
Ask the Founders.
And that, of course, is the Big Lie -- the Lie which Southerners tell each other, and which some even believe.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's a lie. If you want to buy into the revisionist history that has been rewritten specifically for the feelings of blacks that's fine. But don't try to peddle that bilge around here.
Now listen carefully, pal,
I'm not your 'pal'.
according to our Founders, if a state wishes to secede Constitutionally, it must be with "mutual consent" of Congress, or from major, recognized "abuses," "usurpations," "oppressions" or "injury" having that same effect.
Can you provide the section of the Constitution where that is spelled out?
Let me put it straight & simple to you: don't start a war you can't win, pal. All you'd do is get a lot of people killed for no good reason. Nothing "moral" about that.
There's nothing moral about accepting oppression.
Would you have advised the Spartans to abandon Thermopylae? What about Bowie and Travis at the Alamo? What would your advice have been to them?
But, you didn't answer my question. Are you willing to sacrifice your liberty to avoid a fight that you don't think you can win? If so, and if there are a lot of people like you, then the future of a free America is doomed.
And don't call me 'pal' anymore. Save your terms of endearment for your comrades.
Not true.
New York and Rhode Island included the following statement:
"That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness."
Note especially the word "necessary."
New York and Rhode Island did not claim they could secede "at pleasure".
And note that no reference to "happiness" appears in any Southern Reasons for Secession document, so New York and Rhode Island statements are irrelevant to the Deep South's actions.
Virginia said it this way:
"the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression"
Well, the Slave-holders' Reason for Secession documents do use Virginia's words "injury" and "oppression", but in fact, they enumerate nothing of any material consequence.
So the conclusion is inescapable: the Southern slave-holders seceded, in Madison's words, "at pleasure" -- meaning they were neither Constitutional nor lawful.
And in the end, all these fine points of Constitutional interpretation become irrelevant, since the Confederacy provoked, declared and made war against the United States.
They wanted and they got, not some legalistic Constitutional ruling, but rather a "test of arms."
rustbucket: "Those ratification documents were voted for by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay, the authors of the Federalist Papers.
Did other states say at the time that those ratifications were not acceptable or that states couldn't secede? "
Here are more of Madison's words to Hamilton in New York on this subject:
"My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan.Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved.
The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever.
It has been so adopted by the other States."An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only.
In short any condition whatever must viciate the ratification.
What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present."
rustbucket: "A man of peace would have met with the commissioners."
Lincoln had no Constitutional authority to negotiate with rebels or insurrectionists.
If the South had wanted some peaceful resolution, they would have negotiated in Congress for "mutual consent" to their withdrawal.
But of course, the Southern slave-holders did not want a peaceful resolution.
They wanted a Second War of Independence.
And they got one.
So all Southerners should be happy with the results.
Go back and count the heads again -- you're missing the most important points here.
But they didn't.
Enough Southerners didn't even show up to vote so the result went for higher tariffs.
Buchanan was the South's stooge, but he was no stooge of some other country!
Go ahead, read them again. The word "tariff" appears nowhere in any of those documents.
Secession was not about tariffs.
Secession was all about, it was only about protecting the future of slavery,
Thanks ditto for the link.
Southern-stooge Buchanan's actual statement was vastly different from what bushpilot1 would have us think.
Here is the actual sentence:
"In that event the injured States, after having first used all peaceful and constitutional means to obtain redress, would be justified in revolutionary resistance to the Government of the Union."
And that, of course, is what the Southern slave-holding states did not do: use "...all peaceful and constitutional means to obtain redress..."
Indeed, they had no real "injuries" or "oppressions" to complain about.
It was all fears over the future of slavery under the new Abolitionist Republicans -- who had not yet even taken office.
I'll say again: the Constitution allows for some restrictions on liberty during times of war or rebellion, insurrection, etc.
Further, some restrictions have been practiced in every major war, beginning with the Revolutionary War -- again, consider the fate of Loyalists to Britain, or restrictions on anti-Revolution "free press".
Lincoln's actions were no worse than other wartime presidents, and certainly no worse than, say, Jefferson Davis sending Confederate troops into Union states and territories, hoping no doubt thus to win over their "hearts and minds".
I bought a book, "Robert E. Lee in Texas" by Rister when visiting the remains of Fort Griffin north of Albany, Texas. Lee's first assignment was at Camp Cooper, two miles above the Comanche Reservation I mentioned and a few miles from the later site of Fort Griffin, which was founded in 1867. From the Handbook of Texas web site about Camp Cooper:
The post was founded by Col. Albert Sidney Johnston in January 1856 and became headquarters for four companies of the Second United States Cavalry under the command of Lt. Col. Robert E. Lee. This was Lee's first command of a fort. He remained in charge for fifteen months, from April 9, 1856, until July 22, 1857. Captains under his command included Earl Van Dorn and Theodore O'Hara.
Although the camp initially had adequate military stores, it was plagued by severe weather, insects, dust, and irregular supply trains. Rattlesnakes were constant visitors, and Lee kept one as a pet.
The book I bought also describes Lee's experiences at Ringgold Barracks. The book also says General Twiggs who was in command of the Texas department admitted that the federal policy was "defensive" regarding the wild Indians on the frontier and he sought authority to destroy the villages of the Indians who raided the settlers. Then the book mentions the Texas Ranger and reservation Indian expedition I posted about above as making the pattern for Twiggs for raids against the Indians. Secretary of War Floyd gave Twiggs the go ahead to emulate the Rangers tactics.
The book notes that Lee's stay at Fort Mason was brief. Mostly the book covers his command at Camp Cooper, Ringgold Barracks, and San Antonio (while General Twiggs was gone). Here is a link to some pictures of Lee's house at Ringgold (present day Rio Grande City): Link.
The point is the Texas slave-holders' complaints in their Reasons for Secession document are totally bogus -- even silly.
Perhaps to you, but not to Texas. They weren't bogus, as I showed you regarding Congress' refusal to fully pay Texas for protecting its own frontier from invasion, a Federal responsibility. Another clause in the Texas secession document addressed sectional aggrandizement by the North: "They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance." The examples I gave above from the Congressman's speech attest to that aggrandizement.
The reasons Texas gave were quite valid, certainly valid enough for a large majority of Texas voters to approve them. As the New York ratifiers had said many years earlier, they could resume governance if it made them happier.
Not a lie, it's the truth and here's the proof:
You cannot cite a single major "usurpation," "abuse" or "oppression" by the Federal Government listed in any Southern slave-holders' Reasons for Secession.
So slave-holders seceded, in Madison's words, "at pleasure", not for any material cause.
cowboyway: "Can you provide the section of the Constitution where that is spelled out?"
Possibly no one ever explained this to you, but here at Free Republic we are constitutional conservatives, and what that means is that we pay close attention to our Founders' original intent.
No Founder is more helpful in understanding original intent than James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," whom I have quoted at length on this subject.
cowboyway: "There's nothing moral about accepting oppression."
The only oppression in 1860, when the slave-holding Deep South began to secede, was their oppression of slaves.
Protecting their ability to oppress slaves is why they first seceded, then provoked war, then declared war and then made war against the United States in every state and territory adjacent to the Confederacy.
Indeed, Lincoln was perfectly willing to accept the South's oppression of slaves, if that might preserve the Union.
But the slave-owning Deep South would have none of it.
They wanted war instead.
cowboyway: "Would you have advised the Spartans to abandon Thermopylae?"
Sparta did not provoke war with Persia, nor declare war with Persia, nor make war in Persian territory.
Spartans at Thermopylae were merely defending their home country.
cowboyway: "What about Bowie and Travis at the Alamo? What would your advice have been to them?"
If I remember, it was Santa Anna attacking the Alamo, not the other way around.
And didn't Texas never ratify the the new Mexican constitution?
Didn't Texas first declare their independence from Mexico, then successfully defend the new country against Santa Anna?
So, might we say that Texians were careful to follow the advice of that famous "philosopher" (you may have heard of him, since young George Bush mentioned him in a debate with ol' Al Gore): Jesus Christ?
Luke 14:31
“Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king.
Won’t he first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand?"
Isn't it amazing how Christ could foresee the utter stupidity of Southern slave-holders 19 centuries before it happened?
cowboyway: "But, you didn't answer my question.
Are you willing to sacrifice your liberty to avoid a fight that you don't think you can win?
If so, and if there are a lot of people like you, then the future of a free America is doomed."
Again: in 1860 there was no "sacrifice of liberty" except by the South's approx. 4 million slaves, so your question is ludicrous.
No sane person provokes a war, especially war they're doomed to lose, especially when war is not totally necessary -- and war certainly was not necessary in 1860.
As for today, that's a very different discussion, but anyone who imagines that recent Arizona shooter was some kind of hero needs their own head examined as much as the shooter did.
cowboyway: "And don't call me 'pal' anymore. Save your terms of endearment for your comrades."
You guys are something else -- what is that, a Southern thing?
You don't understand what the word "pal" means in this context?
But I hear people like Rush Limbaugh (from Missouri) and Frank Church (Louisiana) using the word "pal" the same way I do -- so it can't be a "Southern thing."
Maybe you just don't get out enough?
;-)
I'll say it again: in those days, Congress, the President's cabinet and Supreme Court were dominated by Southern Democrats.
If Congress would not give Texas everything their little hearts desired, it was not because of Northern Republicans.
The blame lies with Southern Democrats -- those same Democrats who later ran the Confederacy.
And I'll ask again: how many Post Offices, Customs Houses, Harbor Improvements and Indian frontier troops did the Confederacy pay Texas for??!
So, there was only one real reason for secession, and that was to protect the future of slavery.
All the rest was just silly-talk.
As for where and when Robert E. Lee was assigned in Texas, and what ranks he officially held, I'll stand corrected when I see something spelled out clearly.
In the mean time, I think it's entirely accurate to say:
rustbucket: "As the New York ratifiers had said many years earlier, they could resume governance if it made them happier."
Once again, you've misquoted the New York ratification statement which actually said "necessary to their happiness".
Necessary is not the same as seceding, "at pleasure."
"Necessary" implies that something actually happened to change conditions of "happiness."
But nothing did happen, in 1860 or 1861 when Texas seceded.
Nor did Texas use the word "happiness" in their Reasons For Secession.
Yes, they did use the word "oppression" (once), but never with reference to any specific action of the Federal government.
" I have purposely confined my remarks to revolutionary resistance, because it has been claimed within the last few years that any State, whenever this shall be its sovereign will and pleasure, may secede from the Union in accordance with the Constitution and without any violation of the constitutional rights of the other members of the Confederacy; that as each became parties to the Union by the vote of its own people assembled in convention, so any one of them may retire from the Union in a similar manner by the vote of such a convention.
In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties.
If this be so, the Confederacy is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States. In this manner our thirty-three States may resolve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and hostile republics, each one retiring from the Union without responsibility whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course.
By this process a Union might be entirely broken into fragments in a few weeks which cost our forefathers many years of toil, privation, and blood to establish. Such a principle is wholly inconsistent with the history as well as the character of the Federal Constitution.
The key difference being that I tried to verify the 1958 photograph independently and could not, while you didn't even try to verify the slave letter before making this lame snark. The fact is the origin of the Jourdan Anderson letter is well documented, if you'd get off your lazy azz and go look.
Considering the unknown pedigree of the 1958 photo as well as other known attempts by neo-rebs to use forged photographs to create a false narrrative about their 'heritage', I'd say the onus is on your side to prove the 1958 photograph isn't a fake.
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.