Posted on 01/10/2011 8:57:06 AM PST by cowboyway
It was 150 years ago today that Florida declared itself sovereign from the United States.
Some Southern states have marked the anniversaries of secession with celebrations; in South Carolina, a secession gala was met with protests and controversy.
In Florida, a reenactment was quietly held by the Sons of Confederate Veterans in Tallahassee on Saturday, where about 40 volunteers dressed in period attire performed a condensed version of the convention. It was at that convention where a 62-7 vote led to secession in 1861, making Florida the third state to leave and later join the Confederate States of America.
(Excerpt) Read more at jacksonville.com ...
Your position being ignorance is bliss, I suppose? I suggest you buy the book "Robert E. Lee In Texas" that I pointed out. On the other hand, here's a link to the book so you don't even have to buy it (my charity toward the Internet challenged): Link.
I think it's entirely accurate to say:
That Robert E. Lee was a major figure in protecting the Texas frontier
You are overstating Lee's importance compare to the Texans who had been fighting Indians for many years. As I remember, Lee led some fruitless expeditions (or expedition) after Indians. He was not as effective in this regard as my gr-gr-grandfather's old commander, RIP Ford. Ford was hell on wheels.
More later. I'm out for a while.
Great series of posts BroJoeK. One of the reasons I like to hang out on these ACW threads is to read exchanges like yours.
To: bushpilot1
prove its fake.
Sure, tell me where you got it and I will.
283 posted on Fri Jan 14 2011 21:32:44 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time) by mac_truck ( Aide toi et dieu t aidera)
You will begin to see my point when you start to realize how this same military leader, claimed by Texas to be so ineffective against frontier Indians, was soon to become the Greatest Military Genius of the Age in defending the Confederacy in Virginia.
So my theory is, there must have been two Robert E. Lee's -- the Great Genius who served in Virginia, and his Evil Twin that was exiled to Texas before disappearing in 1861!
Ha! ;-)
[BJK]: 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".
Big whoop. A quick count of my archived posts shows I've used the exact "necessary to their happiness" quote some 20 times from New York's ratification and twice from Rhode Island's. You and I even had a discussion about the phrase once in response to my posting it. You argued that "NONE include such terms as "states' unilateral secession," or "a states unapproved withdrawal from the Union." I pointed out in return:
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.
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.
Yet Hamilton and Jay voted for the "happiness" statement in the ratification document. If New York has that right, then all states have it through the Doctrine of the Equality of States. The New York statement clarified what the Constitution meant. It was not conditional.
Virginia said it this way: [quotes Virginia's statement] 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.
Yes, I've quoted Virginia's statement too. You seem to be in favor of the oppressing states deciding whether the oppressed can secede. Why would any state agree to such a requirement? In fact, they didn't and wouldn't have having just fought their way out from under an oppressing government.
So the conclusion is inescapable: the Southern slave-holders seceded, in Madison's words, "at pleasure" -- meaning they were neither Constitutional nor lawful.
Madison felt one way and thought there needed to be oppression or injury, and if there was, then withdrawing was permitted. Hamilton and Jay, on the other hand, thought it had to be "necessary to their happiness." Southerners were certainly unhappy with the sectional aggrandizement (partial legislation, protective tariff) that had gone on at their expense. The Georgia, Texas, Alabama, and South Carolina declarations of cause documents all refer to the violation of the Constitution by Northern States with respect to the return of fugitive slaves. Southern states and Southern slave owners had been fighting that battle for some 10 to 20 years. I think those Northern breaches of the Congressional compact were essentially "fundamental breaches" or "repudatory breaches" of contract allowing the compact to be broken and damages sought against the oppressing parties if desired. The Constitution would not have been ratified in the first place without the fugitive slave clause.
Once Southern states started seceding, Northern states started repealing or amending their personal liberty laws that had prevented the return of fugitive slaves. I don't think you were on the thread when I posted the following information about that, and as you seem to like long posts, I'll repeat my post about how the Northern states responded about secession when, all of a sudden (sarc), they realized that their personal liberty laws were unconstitutional. Here goes:
If the South were to violate any part of the Constitution intentionally and systematically, and persist in so doing, year after year, and no remedy could be had, would the North be any longer bound by the rest of it? And if the North were deliberately, habitually, and of fixed purpose to disregard one part of it, would the South be bound any longer to observe its other obligations? I have not hesitated to say, and I repeat, that if the Northern States refuse, willfully and deliberately, to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress provide no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain cannot be broken on one side and still bind the other side. [Massachusetts Senator Daniel Webster, 1851]
THE CITIZENS OF MASSACHUSETTS AND THE PERSONAL LIBERTY BILLS. Chief Justice Shaw, B. R. Curtis, Joel Parker, and other citizens of Massachusetts equally distinguished, have addressed a letter to the people of that State on the Personal Liberty Bills, which they declare to be unconstitutional. They urge strongly the repeal of them. … “We would repeal them under our own love of right; under our own sense of sacredness of compacts; under our own convictions of the inestimable importance of social order and domestic peace; … [they] stand as conspicuous and palpable breaches of the national compact by ourselves.” [Philadelphia Public Ledger, December 20, 1860. rb note: Shaw was Chief Justice of the Mass. Supreme Court, Curtis was a former Justice of the US Supreme Court, Parker was professor of constitutional law at Harvard and former Chief Justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court.]
Frederick County, Va. Resolved. That in our judgment the refusal and failure of the New England States to keep the obligations of the federal compact would long since have justified any Southern or any slaveholding State in pronouncing the compact broken, and the Union made by it dissolved. [Baltimore Sun, Jan. 2, 1861]
That was the nature of the offence [high treason as defined by Chief Justice Marshall years before the offence] which Theodore Parker, Wendell Phillips, and their associates were charged with when they incited the mob in Fanueil Hall to go to the Courthouse to rescue Burns, the fugitive slave, in which unlawful enterprise Batchelder, one of the marshal's deputies, was murdered. [Baltimore Sun, Jan. 4, 1861, recounting the 1854 return of Burns, the last slave returned from Massachusetts.]
Annual Message of the Governor of New York. It [the New York law] has been universally held to be obsolete by all our commentators, and all our public authorities [by virtue of Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842)] although now improperly classed among what are technically called “personal liberty laws,” and made occasion for jealousies and discontents. I recommend its repeal. In this connection, and while disavowing any dispositions to interfere with what exclusively pertains to the individual States, and in a spirit of fraternal kindness, I would respectfully invite all those States which have upon their statute books any laws of this character, conflicting with the federal constitution, to repeal them at the earliest opportunity … [Baltimore Sun, Jan. 4, 1861]
Gov. Banks Recommends the Abrogation of the Personal Liberty Bills. Boston, Jan. 3,. – Gov. Banks to-day delivered his valedictory to the Legislature in the presence of a large crowd of citizens. He recommended the abrogation of the personal liberty bills. [Baltimore Sun, Jan. 4, 1861]
It would be the same in Massachusetts, if, under the personal liberty bill, a fugitive from labor should be taken before a jury to be tried. No Massachusetts jury could be found to agree that he was a fugitive slave. [Baltimore Sun, Jan. 4, 1861. rb note: If a Massachusetts jury found him not to be a fugitive slave even though he might be, the Massachusetts law could severely jail and fine the person seeking his return.]
Views of Gov. Banks. Governor Banks, of Massachusetts, in his valedictory delivered Thursday, contended that there can be no peaceable secession. The government cannot be dissolved at the bidding of any dissatisfied State, nor can that portion of the continent occupied by the American States, be portioned out to hostile nations. [Baltimore Sun, Jan. 5, 1861]
Message of the Governor of Delaware. Gov. Burton, in his message to the Legislature of that State, reviews at some length the aggressive spirit exhibited by the North toward the South, and maintains with forcible arguments the necessity for each state to enforce the laws and comply fully with the letter and spirit of the constitution, as the only means by which the Union can be preserved. [Baltimore Sun, Jan. 5, 1861]
The Michigan Legislature. … The retiring Governor delivered his annual message to both Houses. He takes strong ground against the right of secession; charges the President of the United States with misrepresenting the principles of the republican party … In relation to the personal liberty laws of this State, he says if they are unconstitutional and in conflict with the fugitive slave law, they should be repealed, but says these laws are right and speak to the sentiments of the people; are in strict accordance with the constitution, and ought not to be repealed. [Baltimore Sun, Jan. 5, 1861]
The Governor of Michigan Advocating Coercion. The Governor denies that the personal liberty bills have prevented the execution of the fugitive slave law in a single instance. The law has always been enforced on an appeal being taken. ... He recommended the State Legislature to manifest its loyalty to Michigan and proffer the President the use of the whole military power of the State to sustain the integrity of the Union. [Baltimore Sun, Jan. 5, 1861]
Absurd and Impudent Action by the Michigan Legislature. We can conceive of nothing more absurd than the passage by either house of the Legislature, at Lansing, of the resolutions which are reported to have passed concerning national affairs, while the personal liberty bill still stands. The personal liberty law -- so the legislature of 1859 construed it, and such is the only construction which it will bear -- "was designed to and if faithfully executed will prevent the delivering up of fugitive slaves." It is therefore plain, palpable, unadulterated nullification of the fugitive slave law. … how absurd is it, how impudent is it, in her to pass resolutions that the Constitution of the United States, and all laws in pursuance thereof, "are the supreme law of the land" … that "Michigan is now, as she has always been, entirely loyal to the Constitution.” ... We know of nothing better calculated to stimulate secession than this action, especially as it is the action of a State whose professions of loyalty to the Constitution are a lie. [The Detroit Free Press as quoted in the State Gazette of Austin, Texas, March 2, 1861]
Detroit, Monday, April 8. About three hundred fugitive slaves, principally from Illinois, have passed into Canada at this point since Saturday, and large numbers more are reportedly on the way. Many are entirely destitute, and much suffering is anticipated, notwithstanding the efforts made for their relief. [New York Times, April 9, 1861]
Inaugural Message of Governor Andrew of Massachusetts. The enrolled militia in the state exceeds 155,000 men, while the active militia numbers about 5,600. The Governor suggests that a larger number be placed on an active footing, so that the state may be ready to contribute her share of force in any exigency of public danger. … The personal liberty law he believed to be strictly constitutional, as the right of a person to reclaim an alleged fugitive must always be subordinate to the indefeasible right of every free man to liberty. … He denies the right of a state to secede …[Baltimore Sun, Jan. 7, 1861]
Message of the Governor of Pennsylvania. … He declares the doctrine of secession erroneous. The Constitution is something more than a mere compact. … He recommends that the consent of the State be given to the master, while sojourning in or passing through Pennsylvania, to retain the services of the slave. He suggests the reenactment of the Missouri Compromise and that the line be extended to California by amendment of the Constitution … He adds: " But before assuming the responsibilities that are foreshadowed, it is the solemn duty of Pennsylvania to re-move every just cause of complaint, so that she can stand before high Heaven without fear and without reproach, and than she will be ready to devote her lives and fortunes to the best form of government ever devised by the wisdom of man. …” [Harper’s Weekly, Jan. 12, 1861, pg 23, reporting the governor’s message of Jan. 2]
Fugitive Slaves in Pennsylvania. A bill has been reported in the Pennsylvania Legislature to repeal the sections of the penal code of that State which obstruct the enforcement of the fugitive slave law. The part punishing kidnapping, &c., is allowed to remain, but the part obstructing the recapture of fugitives, and punishing the magistrates or other officers who may aid (for they are not compelled to do so) in the execution of the fugitive slave law is repealed. … [Baltimore Sun, Jan. 9, 1861]
The Fugitive Slave Law in the Pennsylvania Legislature. Harrisburg, Pa., Jan. 10, midnight. –The republican resolutions relative to the Union were up to-day for consideration in the Senate. Senator Welsh, of York, offered a substitute declaring the provision in the constitution relative to fugitive slaves binding upon the people of all States, recommending the repeal of all statutes interfering with the fugitive slave law, asserting the equal rights of all the States in the Territories, and expressing the devotion of Pennsylvania to the Union and the constitution. This will be endorsed by the democratic Senators. [Baltimore Sun, Jan. 11, 1861]
Pennsylvania Legislature Refuses to Repeal the Anti-Fugitive Slave Law. Harrisburg, Pa., Jan 11. – Senator Welsh’s resolutions, proposing to repeal the obnoxious provisions of the act of 1847, and the penal code, were voted down to-day, all the republicans voting against them. [Baltimore Sun, Jan. 12, 1861]
Message of the Governor of New Jersey. Governor Olden, of New Jersey, in his annual message, opposes secession, but advocates concession and compromise, urges the repeal of all laws of the State, if such there be, which are unjust to the South, calls upon Congress to agree upon some plan of adjustment of the national troubles, and in case of failure, urges the New Jersey Legislature to invite all the States to meet in national convention to concert measures whereby the Union may be saved. [Baltimore Sun, Jan. 12, 1861]
The Case of the State of Kentucky Against the Governor of Ohio, for Refusing to Issue a Warrant for the Arrest of Lago. Washington, Jan. 11. – The case of the State of Kentucky against the Governor of Ohio, who refused to issue his warrant for the arrest of Lago, charged with having enticed a slave from Kentucky into Ohio, was set for to-day, in the Supreme Court, but the Attorney-General of Ohio having forwarded an affidavit of a professional engagement which prevented his attendance, the case was postponed until the 8th of February. Kentucky was ready by counsel. [Baltimore Sun, Jan. 12, 1861]
Washington, Jan. 12. Hon. Wm H. Seward, of New York, addressed the Senate to-day, on the President's message. He said Congress ought, if it can, redress any real grievances of the offended States, and then supply the President with all the means necessary to maintain the Union. He argued that the laws contravening the constitution, in regard to the escape of slaves, ought to be repealed. He was willing to vote for an amendment to the constitution, that Congress should never have the power to abolish or interfere with slavery within the States. [The Daily Mississippian, Jackson, Mississippi, Jan. 16, 1861]
Departure of Fugitive Slaves for Canada. Chicago, Monday, April 8. One hundred and six fugitive slaves left this city last night for Canada via the Michigan Southern Railroad. It is estimated that over one thousand fugitives have arrived in this city since last Fall, most of whom have left since the recent arrest of five by the United States Marshal. … [New York Times, April 9, 1861]
Lincoln’s two secretaries, Nicolay and Hay, in Volume 3 of their book Abraham Lincoln, A History noted that a careful 1860 study of the personal liberty laws by the National Intelligencer found that the personal liberty laws of Vermont, Massachusetts, Michigan and Wisconsin were clearly unconstitutional.
Many citizens in the northern states did not really perceive the danger of interfering with enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law until South Carolina withdrew from the Union, and the secession of the other states seemed imminent. ... Finally realizing the danger, a concerted effort was begun in December, 1860 by several northern governors to seek repeal or modification of their personal liberty laws. ... During the four months preceding the outbreak of the Civil War, Rhode Island and Maine repealed their personal liberty laws. The personal liberty laws of Massachusetts and Vermont were modified, and the legislature of Wisconsin passed a resolution which recommended the revision of her personal liberty laws. ... A majority of the northern states now exhibited every effort to prevent the personal liberty laws and opposition to enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law from being used as a pretext for secession. They were too late. [The Slave Catchers by Stanley Campbell]
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.
As you probably know, the New York ratification convention did remove the words "on condition" that their proposed amendments be ratified within a certain number of years and replaced the words "on condition" with "in confidence that the Amendments which shall have been proposed to the said Constitution will receive an early and mature Consideration."
New York ratified the Constitution after receiving Madison's letter. Virginia ratified the Constitution before Madison sent his letter to Hamilton. Was Madison somehow in his letter arguing that Virginia couldn't resume its own governance? He certainly had earlier voted for the statement that they could "if perverted to their injury or oppression."
Lee's reconnaissance expedition to find the Indians was a bust. If he had known the Indian's habits, he would have known that at the time of year he went looking for them, they were usually up on the Arkansas River hunting buffalo.
It is true that Grant beat Lee in the war, but what Grant had going for him against Lee was a seemingly endless supply of soldiers and material and the willingness to have his men chewed up on the battlefield.
Lee lost 38,866 in battle against Grant, while Grant lost 60,369. These approximate figures are from "Attack and Die" by Whiney and Jamieson. Even Sherman was appalled by Grant's losses in men.
1958 = 1858
I meant the Georgia, Texas, Mississippi, and South Carolina declarations of cause documents. Link
From Mississippi, for example: "It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain."
Actually, the way Rush Limbaugh and Frank Church use the word "pal", it is just barely this side of an insult.
And that's not really correct, or rather, I should say it's only correct in a speaking sense, where you can hear a person's tone of voice.
In a written context, "pal" carries some of that same flavor, but not very much. It actually means what I intend by it:
Or, you might say, "pal" is a common ordinary way of expressing, as they do in Congress: "the Honorable Gentleman from the State of Louisiana, my friend, the horse's *ss."
"Pal" is friendlier than, say, "buster" or "buddy," but not as friendly as, say, "friend" or well, "Bro"... ;-)
What's so amazing is how many different ways "pal" gets misinterpreted and and objected to here.
Must be something going on...
;-)
In summary, my argument is based on original intent of the Founders, and for that I turn first to James Madison, "the Father of the Constitution".
Madison clearly says the Constitution, like the earlier Articles of Confederation, was intended to be "forever," and that dissolving it would require either:
Note the word "justly", meaning reasonable people have to agree to the "justice" of the causes.
Madison also said: "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."
Nor did New York, Rhode Island or Virginia disagree.
The first two said, powers reassumed when "necessary to their happiness".
Necessary is a strong word, implying some major material reason, not dissolving the compact "at pleasure".
But regardless, the Deep South slave-holding states did not use the New York or Rhode Island language in their Reasons for Secession documents, so any argument over "necessary" or "happiness" is irrelevant.
What the Deep South slave-holders did use was the Virginia language of "oppression" and "injury".
This, I say, is even more serious, major and legally "material" than even "necessary" or "happiness."
So the question is, in any of their Reasons for Secession documents did the Deep South slave-holders cite any material "oppressions" or "injuries" caused by the Federal Government?
In all these many threads and postings, I've seen not one.
Therefore, I conclude, the Deep South slave-holders effectively seceded "at pleasure" and without "mutual consent".
Yes, of course they had very compelling reasons, but these had nothing to do with "oppression" or "injury" and everything to do with protecting the future of slavery.
In the words of the South Carolina Reasons for Secession document:
"On the 4th day of March next, this party [Abolitionist Republicans] will take possession of the Government.
It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States."
What we need to understand about this statement is:
So, in a nutshell, that's my argument.
Now, what do you present that might break it?
Well, let's see what you've written here:
rustbucket: "The Georgia, Texas, Alabama, and South Carolina declarations of cause documents all refer to the violation of the Constitution by Northern States with respect to the return of fugitive slaves."
Oh sure, Fugitive Slave Laws:
In short, the Deep South's complaint about Fugitive Slave Laws as a Reason for Secession is total and complete b*ll cr*p.
It is hereby laughed out of "court"!
What else do you have?
No, the opposite is true: for "some 10 to 20 years" the Deep South slave-holders did not secede despite the alleged failure to enforce Fugitive Slave Laws.
This proves beyond any reasonable doubt that any such failure had been of no major consequence to the Deep South slave-holders.
So why, all of a sudden, at the end of 1860 does this matter get listed in their Reasons for Secession documents?
The answer is obvious: because they had nothing serious to complain about.
They were just making cr*p up, excuses, not reasons -- and none of it having anyhing to do with "usurpations" or "oppression" by the Federal government.
Well, duh! Doesn't this tell you that Fugitive Slave Laws were not a major problem, and could have been easily resolved peacefully, without secession, if that's the Big Problem the Deep South slave-holders really wanted addressed?
But of course it wasn't a Big Problem.
The real Big Problem for slave-holders was how to keep expanding slavery into non-slave states and territories.
Anyway, this post is now already "long of tooth" so it's time to stop.
But feel free to respond and address whatever I might have missed.
;-)
First, thanks a lot for the history lesson on the Texas Revolution.
I confess to not knowing much about it.
Now, if you note carefully what Jesus actually said in that quote, it's really just a warning to "kings" to be careful before you send your outnumbered army into battle.
He does not say "don't do it," or even as the Chinese genius Sun Tzu said: never fight an unnecessary war.
Jesus is only really saying: think, for God's sake, before you jump into something stupid!
Seems to me that's great advice, even today.
;-)
"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.
That last part contained three essential and critical elements;
1. Compacts must be reciprocal. All states must carry common weight and authority to address common issues.
2. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever. This doesn't mean a "suicide pact" as some have suggested, but it does mean that the compact must be durable and not approached frivolously. Decisions that affect more than one state must be mutually agreed by all the states.
3. It has been so adopted by the other States. Everyone who signed knew what they were signing, and agreed to the terms of the compact. Individual states retained the option of secession, but not unilaterally. They were obliged to sue for it. Or they chose the outlaw way out and took their chances.
It would be more correct to say that Lee lost his entire army in battle against Grant.
They certainly seceded without mutual consent. Mutual consent wasn't required except by those states that were oppressing the South.
Georgia said they wouldn't have ratified the Constitution in the first place without the fugitive slave clause being in it.
At pleasure? No injury?
I've seen two estimates in the old newspapers at the value of slaves they were losing. A study in Virginia 20 years before the war had estimated they were losing $100,000 worth of slaves annually. With the rise in the value of slaves that dollar figure would have gone up considerably. In 1860, Louisiana had also estimated a $100,000 annual loss.
In the summer of 1860, abolitionists and slaves had burned towns in Texas resulting in a huge economic loss. Basically, parts of Dallas, Denton, Pilot Point, Belknap, Gainesville, Black-jack Grove, Kaufman, Navarro, Waxahachie, Henderson, Jefferson, Tyler, Georgetown, Bright Star, Athens, Belleview, and Austin either burned or suffered arson attacks that were thwarted. A number of the arsonists were caught and confessed.
You may not have noticed, but the Texas Ordinance of Secession lists this among its justifications for secession. "They have sent hired emissaries among us to burn our towns and distribute arms and poison to our slaves for the same purpose." Here are some newspaper reports of the time:
Dallas. The fire was first discovered in front of Peak’s new drug store, on the west side of the square, and continued to spread rapidly until the whole north side were consumed and one half of the east side. … [Lists a bunch of fires a few miles outside of Dallas over the next few days] All of these were so plainly the work of an incendiary, that several white men and negroes were arrested and underwent an examination. This lead to the detection of a most diabolical plan to destroy the county. The scheme was laid by a master mind, and conceived with infernal ingenuity. It was determined by certain abolition preachers who were expelled from the country last year, to devastate with fire and assassination, the whole of Northern Texas, and when the country was reduced to a helpless condition, a general revolt of the slaves aided by white men from the North, and many in our midst, was to come off on the day of election in August. [State Gazette July 28, 1860, July 16th letter from a Dallas newspaper publisher]
Denton. The fire at Denton occurred on Sunday, 8th July, being the same day as at Dallas. … The whole west side of the public square with the solitary exception of Messrs. Blount & Scruggs store on the extreme N. W. corner is in ashes. [State Gazette, July 28, 1860]
Navarro. These fires have all occurred so near the same time as to evince concert of action by a band of fiends, and the detection at Fort Worth of an abolitionist who had just distributed 50 guns and 50 six shooters among the negroes, places it beyond all doubt that abolition emissaries are at the bottom of it. We rejoice to learn that the man at Fort Worth was hung, and also one in Parker county for a similar act. [Navarro Express, July 21, 1860]
Tyler. Incendiaries. Our town, on Monday night last, was thrown into a fever of excitement, by the detection of an individual, a stranger in our place, in the act of attempting to fire the town. He was shot at two or three times by the patrol, but succeeded in making his escape, not, it is to be hoped, without carrying with him some evidence of the skill of our marksmen. Our people are on the alert, and woe to the scoundrel who, arrested in the act, falls into their hands. [Tyler Reporter, July 18, 1860]
Jefferson. … on that same ominous Sunday the 8th, an attempt was made to fire the buildings in Jefferson, Cass County; one of the buildings was the drug store of Messrs. Campbell & Co., and the other was the Jefferson Hotel. [Herald and Gazette, July 14, 1860]
Henderson. Dear Sir: I write to apprise you that the work of desolating the country is yet going on. Henderson was burned to ashes on Sunday night, while the guard were at supper. It was fired in eight places. Many wells have been poisoned and the slaves are running away. Be wide awake. These things are perfectly reliable. Respectfully yours, W. J. Sparks. [Arkansas True Democrat, August 25, 1860]
Georgetown. Last week the stable and kitchen of L. Gaus, of Georgetown, in Williamson county, were destroyed by fire. Suspicion attached to a negro boy, who had been a short time before near the consumed premises. This negro, on being arrested, at first equivocated, and then without whipping, admitted he had set fire to the stable. He stated that he had been instigated to do so by three white men; that he did not know the names of all of them, but knew their faces; that one of them told him he would take him safely to Mexico if he would fire the town, and other mischief. A music teacher, hailing from higher latitudes, finding himself implicated, made it convenient to decamp. He is said to be a Black Republican, and perhaps not the only one in the limits of the rich and fertile county of Williamson.
Bright Star. On yesterday, (Sunday,) about 4 o’clock, there was fire discovered in the kitchen of Dr. Reeves. It appears there had been no fire in the kitchen for some time. The fire was discovered on the opposite side of the house to that of the fire-place. The bed was set on fire first; no damage to any amount. The negroes arrested in Paris confessed that it was their intention, on the day of the election, while the men were at the polls voting, to kill the females at every house, and as the men returned from the polls, they were to be attacked. [Jefferson Herald of August 11, 1860, reporting a story dated July 30, 1860 from Bright Star]
More Abolition Outrages. — It is reported that an attempt has been made to burn Athens, and that two white men had been hung, some negroes shot, and others hung. Every negro who has been implicated in this plot, even more than a hundred miles off, has testified to the same facts, the same dates, names and circumstances that were detailed at Dallas. It is also reported that three men who fired Henderson have been taken and summarily punished. [The Ranchero, Corpus Christi, September 1, 1860, p. 2, c. 6.]
The Tyler Reporter of 7th says that a report has just reached there that Belleview, in Rusk county, was burned on the night of the 4th inst. The loss by fire at Henderson, will amount, it is estimated, to $250,000. Efforts have been made to fire many other places, but discovered in time to prevent its execution. [The Ranchero, Corpus Christi, September 1, 1860, p. 2, c. 6.]
The Vigilance Committee of Henderson sentenced a negro woman, concerned in burning that town, to be hung on the 26th ult. A man named Morrison was hung in the suburbs of Gilmer, for inciting negroes in Wood, Titus and Hopkins counties, to insurrection. Three abolitionists, named Templeton, Hensley and Kirk, were hung in Gainsville, Cook county. These men implicated fifteen other men belonging to the abolition conspiracy. [The Ranchero, Corpus Christi, September 8, 1860, p. 2, c. 3]
These attacks followed the plan outlined in an abolition circular reported in Congress on December 14, 1859:
Our plan is –
1. To make war (openly or secretly, as circumstances may dictate,) upon the property of the slaveholders and their abettors – not for its destruction, if that can be easily avoided, but to convert it to the use of the slaves. If it cannot be converted, then we advise its destruction. Teach the slaves to burn their master’s buildings, to kill their cattle and horses, to conceal or destroy farming utensils, to abandon labor in seed-time and harvest, and let crops perish. Make slavery unprofitable in this way if it can be done in no other.
The real Big Problem for slave-holders was how to keep expanding slavery into non-slave states and territories.
It takes two to make a problem. Another way of stating this was that Northern politicians wanted to keep the territories for white people, i.e., their constituents and voters. Lincoln himself had said that's what the territories should be for. That was consistent with the Illinois Black Code that prohibited the immigration of blacks into Illinois.
With all due respect, none of that - even collectively - rises to the level of “oppression”. Perhaps if it were shown to be an organized directive of Congress or the White House, but what you show were random acts whose perpetrators or ambitions were largely unknown.
Another poster was quick to claim (on another thread) that the south had just as prevalent an abolitionist movement as the north had. So how are we supposed to know that these acts by person or persons unknown, weren’t committed by them?
It doesn’t take two to make a problem. One can stir a hornets nest quite nicely on his own.
Where is the "not unilaterally" requirement written? Why did Republican legislators propose amendments to Congress in 1860 and 1861 to require approval for states to secede? Why did the Senate vote down a proposed amendment on March 2, 1861 that said, "Under this Constitution, as originally adopted and as it now exists, no State has power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States"? There were mostly Northerners in the Senate at that point in time.
If you accept an average slave price of $1000, that means 100 slaves a year were escaping Louisiana, out of a population of 331,725 (per 1860 census). That's 0.0301%. What an economic calamity!
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.