Replies

I see you still think there was no good reason for secession. I'm not sure if you realized, but ever since our country was founded, the federal government had been slowly overreaching its bounds, and usurping more power to itself. This goes way back. And in the election of a candidate from a new party that was sectional (an unheard of thing before) and represented the interests of only one half of the country was the last straw. The South had good reason not to like Lincoln. He was a big government guy. He had campaigned on many big government issues. He campaigned on tariffs in Pennsylvania, promising to raise them, which made the North happy and the South upset. After all, the tariffs simply benefitted one half of the country at the expense of the other. The South was already paying more than half of all taxes despite her smaller population and more than half of that tax money was being spent on improvements up North. Lincoln also supported creating a National Bank, another big government move, an idea big-government-lover Hamilton had always loved. He passed the National Banking act in 1863 Having a National bank allowed the federal government control of the currency, and with this control they could influence the economy through inflating. We see were inflation has gotten us today. He was also a supporter of taxing individuals on their income and property and etc, and one of the first things he did as president was to pass the first income tax bill. This law demanded that taxes be "levied, collected, and paid, upon the annual income of every person residing in the United States, whether such income is derived from any kind of property, or from any profession, trade, employment, or vocation carried on in the United States or elsewhere, or from any other source whatever." Compare this to the Constitution, which says that "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid."

Based on what they knew of the things that he supported (and which he later made into law), don't you think that they had good reason to leave? Here was this guy who supported enlarging the role of government beyond the delegated powers in the Constitution and he comes from this new party which represented only one section of the country.

Also, in case you didn't know, Lincoln was the first to declare war. He declared it on April 27 1861. The Confederacy didn't declare war until May 15th. Their declaration of war reads thus:

"Whereas, the earnest efforts made by this government to establish friendly relations between the government of the United States and the Confederate States and to settle all questions of disagreement between the two governments upon principles of right, justice, equity and good faith, have proved unavailing, by reason of the refusal of the government of the United States to hold any intercourse with the Commissioners appointed by the government for the purposes aforesaid or to listen to any proposal they had to make for the peaceful solution of all causes of difficulties between the two governments; and

Whereas, the President of the United States of America has issued his Proclamation, making the requisition upon the states of the American Union for seventy-five thousand men, for the purpose as therein indicated of capturing forts, and other strongholds of the jurisdiction of, and belonging to the Confederate States of America, and has detailed Naval armaments upon the coast of the Confederate States of America, and raised, organized and equipped a large military force to execute the purpose aforesaid, and has issued his other Proclamations announcing his purpose to set foot a blockage of the ports of the Confederate States; and

Whereas, the State of Virginia has seceded from the Federal Union and entered into a convention of alliance, offensive and defensive, with the Confederate States, and has adopted the provisional Constitution of said states and the states of Maryland, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, and Missouri have refused, and it is believed that the state of Delaware and the inhabitants of the territories of Arizona, and New Mexico and the Indian Territory south of Kansas, will refuse to cooperate with the government of the United States in these acts of hostilities and wanton aggression, which are plainly intended to oppress and finally, subjugate the people of the Confederate States; and

Whereas, by the acts and means of aforesaid war exists between the Confederate States and the government of the United States and the states and territories thereof, except the states of Maryland, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, and Missouri and Delaware, and the inhabitants of the territories of Arizona and New Mexico and the Indian Territory south of Kansas."

The Confederate government in early 1861 had been sending peace delegations to Washington to try and negotiate friendly relations with the United States Government. Seward and Lincoln refused to even see them. The Confederate government, seeing that the North didn't want peace and rather had declared war on them with the object being their subjugation, they were left with no choice but to fight back. But notice they were not eager for the war. They waited over two weeks after getting Lincoln's declaration of war before they put out their own.

Virginia wasn't waiting for an excuse. They and the other border states had not intention of seceding. They wanted to remain neutral. It was only when Lincoln demanded that they supply troops to fight their brothers that anyone even considered secession.

It was, after all, the Slave Power which insisted the Federal Government enforce fugitive slave laws in Northern states regardless of those states own laws. So all Federal usurpations and abuses were instituted by, and in support of the Southern Slave Power.

Hold on a moment. The fugitive slave laws were part of the compromise of 1850, in which the South gained nothing except the FSL, which were just a full faith and credit thing. In the compromise, Texas ceded its claim on New Mexico, California was admitted as a free state, and the South adopted the Wilmot proviso outlawing slavery in the territories. Also, the South was a minority in the congress. They were a far cry from controlling it. And your claim that all federal usurpation were relay the fault of the South is ludicrous. Got any proof for that?
Also about those fugitive slave law: The North complained about them a lot, yes, but did they really care about blacks? No. If they did, then why did so many Northern states at that time have laws prohibiting free blacks from moving there? They didn't like blacks. That was also a large part of the reason for banning slavery in the territories. It wasn't out of any love for the slaves, rather, for most free-soilers it was because they wanted the territories reserved for "free white labor".

Have to laugh about the idea that the Fort Sumter attack was done with the aim of getting Virginia into the Confederacy. If that was the real reason for it as you say, then it failed. Virginia didn't join after fort Sumter. They didn't join until Lincoln demanded that they supply troops.

I see you seriously misunderstand the facts of pre-Civil War history...

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "I see you still think there was no good reason for secession.
I'm not sure if you realized, but ever since our country was founded, the federal government had been slowly overreaching its bounds, and usurping more power to itself.
This goes way back."

In fact, there was not only "no good reason", there was no reason, period -- zero, zip, nada.
The truth is that, from the beginning of the Republic, it had been under the effective control of the Southern Slave-Power, through its domination of the national Democrat party.
To list just a few of the results:

Before 1860, no openly anti-slavery president had ever been elected, indeed, since 1800 the only two non-Democrats elected President, were both slave-owning southern Whigs (Harrison & Taylor).
Even Northern "Dough-faced" Democrat presidents, like James Buchanan, had majority Southerners in their Cabinets, including Georgian Cobb at Treasury, Virginian Floyd at War, North Carolinian Thompson at Interior and Virginian Brown as Post Master General.
By 1830, the Slave Power had dozens of extra representatives in Congress, due to the Constitution's 3/5 rule in counting slaves as "citizens".
These extra representatives allowed the Slave Power to control the Speaker and other Congress leadership positions.
Slave Power control in Congress meant such laws as higher tariffs could only pass with Southern leadership approval, such as happened, for example, in the 1828 35% "Tariff of Abominations" proposed and passed by Southerners President Jackson and Vice-President Calhoun.
Of course, that was highly exceptional, and Slave Power influence was instrumental in reducing tariffs to a low of 15% by 1860.
The Slave Power was effective until 1850 in maintaining equal numbers of slave & free states admitted, despite the huge & growing majority of population in the Northern & Western free-states.
Even when the Slave Power finally gave up equal-state-numbers in 1850, it was in exchange for imposing on the Federal Government unconstitutional responsibility for executing fugitive slave laws in Northern States.
By 1857 the Slave Power had overwhelming control of the US Supreme Court, allowing it to pass the Dred-Scott Decision by vote of 7-2, effectively making slavery lawful in every state, regardless of that state's laws.

Bottom line: every "overstep" you allege was instituted by, and for the benefit of the Southern Slave Power.
So what actually happened in 1860 was the Slave-Power's loss of absolute control over Federal Government, a loss which anticipated federal antipathy to Slave-Power interests, and that, that alone, was the "reason" for the Deep South's declarations of secession.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "And in the election of a candidate from a new party that was sectional (an unheard of thing before) and represented the interests of only one half of the country was the last straw."

First of all, in 1796 and again in 1824, both Adams became president without carrying a single Southern state.
Second, Presidents Jefferson (1800), Madison (1808), Jackson (1828) and Buchanan (1856) were all elected with Solid South support and virtually none in New England.

Third, the election of 1860 was totally engineered by Slave-Power & fire-eaters, when they first united Northerners in opposition to the Supreme Courts' Dred-Scott decision, then split their majority Democrat party in half, thus guaranteeing that victory must go to the minority Republicans.
In short, the Slave Power had only itself to blame for Republican victory in 1860, and indeed, it was exactly what the Southern Fire-Eaters had hoped for to unite Southerners for secession.

But there was certainly nothing unconstitutional about the 1860 election, nothing about the election itself to justify declarations of secession, "at pleasure".

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "He was a big government guy.
He had campaigned on many big government issues.
He campaigned on tariffs in Pennsylvania, promising to raise them, which made the North happy and the South upset.
After all, the tariffs simply benefitted one half of the country at the expense of the other.
The South was already paying more than half of all taxes despite her smaller population and more than half of that tax money was being spent on improvements up North."

Like most Republicans, and even some Democrats, Lincoln favored higher tariffs to protect Northern manufacturers from foreign competition.
But your claim that "the South" paid "more than half of all taxes" is totally bogus to the max.
It was impossible, because first, the Deep-South secession states made up only 10% of total US white population, and could not have paid significantly more than 10% of all taxes.
Second, Upper South and Border States were split in their support or opposition to higher tariffs.
For example, manufacturers in Tennessee were OK with higher tariffs, and should not be counted in your "over half" figure.

So the actual number must be in the 10% to 20% of all taxes paid by anti-tariff Southerners.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Lincoln also supported creating a National Bank, another big government move, an idea big-government-lover Hamilton had always loved.
He passed the National Banking act in 1863."

In fact, the First Banks of the US, chartered by our Founders, were used to control inflation and when abolished in in 1811 and again in 1836, inflation ran wild.
Republicans, like Whigs before them, favored reestablishing a central bank, and when they became the majority in Congress, did so.
That was certainly not a case of "growing big government", but of simply reestablishing our Founders' original intent.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "He was also a supporter of taxing individuals on their income and property and etc, and one of the first things he did as president was to pass the first income tax bill.
This law demanded that taxes be "levied, collected, and paid, upon the annual income of every person residing in the United States..."

In fact, our Founders first proposed a temporary war-time income tax during the War of 1812, but that war ended before Congress acted.
During the Civil War, a temporary war-time income tax was again proposed in Congress, and this time passed, repealed in 1872.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Based on what they knew of the things that he supported (and which he later made into law), don't you think that they had good reason to leave?
Here was this guy who supported enlarging the role of government beyond the delegated powers in the Constitution and he comes from this new party which represented only one section of the country."

In fact, nothing in the 1860 Republican platform was new, "unconstitutional" or justification for declarations of secession.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Also, in case you didn't know, Lincoln was the first to declare war.
He declared it on April 27 1861."

Total pure pro-Confederate bogus propaganda.

In fact, neither Lincoln, nor (more important) Congress ever "declared war" on the Southern Rebellion, for the simple reason that in those days, it was not considered appropriate to do so.
Indeed, in August 1775, when Britain's King George declared war on the American rebels, that was unusual -- countries typically did not formally declare war on rebellions, and neither did the US Federal Government in 1861.

Of course, when Lincoln got up in the morning, the Secessionist press proclaimed, "Lincoln declares war", and when Lincoln ate his breakfast, the Secessionist media decried, "Lincoln declared war", and when Lincoln took his morning dump, the Secessionist press again hollered: "Lincoln declares war".
But it was all rubbish and nonsense, in fact there was no such declaration, period.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "...war exists between the Confederate States and the government of the United States and the states and territories thereof..."

This language precisely corresponds to Franklin Roosevelt's "Day of Infamy" speech on December 8, 1941:

"I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire."

So the specific language of such declarations is immaterial.
Regardless, it was a formal declaration of war.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "The Confederate government, seeing that the North didn't want peace and rather had declared war on them with the object being their subjugation, they were left with no choice but to fight back.
But notice they were not eager for the war.
They waited over two weeks after getting Lincoln's declaration of war before they put out their own."

First, it's a fantasy to claim a "declaration of war" from Lincoln, there was none.

Second, the Confederacy was already fully engaged in war against the United States, long before their formal declaration on May 6, 1851.
For one example: on April 23, Davis sent military aid to Confederates fighting in the Union state of Missouri.

Third, Lincoln believed (as do I) that those Confederate "negotiators" should have negotiated with Congress to secure votes authorizing their secession and property claims.
Absent some instruction from Congress, Lincoln had no peacetime powers to deal with such emissaries.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Virginia wasn't waiting for an excuse.
They and the other border states had not intention of seceding.
They wanted to remain neutral.
It was only when Lincoln demanded that they supply troops to fight their brothers that anyone even considered secession."

Yes, in early 1861 secessionists were not the majority in Virginia -- or North Carolina, Tennessee & Arkansas.
To become the majority, to convince weak Unionists to change sides, secessionists needed some excuse -- any dramatic excuse -- that could be used to claim "oppression" and flip votes.
Jefferson Davis gave them that excuse, when he assaulted Federal troops in Fort Sumter.

Lincoln's response -- calling for troops to retake the fort -- was certainly not a "declaration of war", but it certainly did provide secessionists with the excuse they wanted to declare & launch full-scale war against the United States.

And it doubled the Confederacy's size & white population.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "...the South adopted the Wilmot proviso outlawing slavery in the territories."

No, the Wilmot Proviso was never adopted, period, slavery was never outlawed in the territories.
Indeed, that was a Republican platform issue in 1860.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Also, the South was a minority in the congress.
They were a far cry from controlling it.
And your claim that all federal usurpation were relay the fault of the South is ludicrous.
Got any proof for that?"

The only serious Federal "usurpations" which ever happened were 1) the 1850 Compromise causing the Federal Government to enforce Fugitive Slave Laws in the North, regardless of their own state laws.
Combined with 2) the Supreme Court's 1857 Dred-Scott decision, effectively making slavery lawful in every state, those solidified Northern anti-slavery sentiments.

Yes, it's true that Southern Democrat power in Congress was slowly, slowly slipping away, but it was still considerable, especially given their decades-long alliance with Northern "Dough-Faced" Democrats.
In 1860 they were still strong enough to block, for example, the proposed Morrill Tariff.
But when Slave-Power Fire-Eaters split their majority party in half, in 1860, they became a very small minority, exercising little power or influence in Washington.

And whose fault was that?

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "It wasn't out of any love for the slaves, rather, for most free-soilers it was because they wanted the territories reserved for "free white labor"."

Of course, in the same way that most Americans today oppose illegal immigrants over-running our country, Northerners in 1860 did not want the South's slaves overrunning their states.

So what exactly is your problem with that?

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Have to laugh about the idea that the Fort Sumter attack was done with the aim of getting Virginia into the Confederacy.
If that was the real reason for it as you say, then it failed. Virginia didn't join after fort Sumter.
They didn't join until Lincoln demanded that they supply troops."

Following the April 14, 1861 surrender of Union troops at Fort Sumter, Lincoln's April 15 request for troops was the inevitable result.
Virginia then switched its vote from Union to secession on April 17.
So, in ordering that assault, Jefferson Davis instantly doubled the size of his Confederacy, but also started a war the Confederacy could not ultimately win.

Those are the facts.