Posted on 07/22/2015 7:36:12 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
We call the war of 1861 the Civil War. But is that right? A civil war is a struggle between two or more entities trying to take over the central government. Confederate President Jefferson Davis no more sought to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington sought to take over London in 1776. Both wars, those of 1776 and 1861, were wars of independence. Such a recognition does not require one to sanction the horrors of slavery. We might ask, How much of the war was about slavery?
Was President Abraham Lincoln really for outlawing slavery? Let's look at his words. In an 1858 letter, Lincoln said, "I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion neither the General Government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists." In a Springfield, Illinois, speech, he explained: "My declarations upon this subject of Negro slavery may be misrepresented but cannot be misunderstood. I have said that I do not understand the Declaration (of Independence) to mean that all men were created equal in all respects." Debating Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln said, "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."
What about Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation? Here are his words: "I view the matter (of slaves' emancipation) as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion." He also wrote: "I will also concede that emancipation would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition." When Lincoln first drafted the proclamation, war was going badly for the Union.
London and Paris were considering recognizing the Confederacy and assisting it in its war against the Union.
The Emancipation Proclamation was not a universal declaration. It specifically detailed where slaves were to be freed: only in those states "in rebellion against the United States." Slaves remained slaves in states not in rebellion — such as Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and Missouri. The hypocrisy of the Emancipation Proclamation came in for heavy criticism. Lincoln's own secretary of state, William Seward, sarcastically said, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."
Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been heartily endorsed by the Confederacy: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. ... Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit." Lincoln expressed that view in an 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives, supporting the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.
Why didn't Lincoln share the same feelings about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our nation's history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What "responsible" politician would let that much revenue go?
“So you’re saying because the north didn’t use their full resources to return slaves to their “masters” that the southern states were not bound by anything in the Constitution.”
That’s what Daniel Webster said. Read it for yourself.
Note to self: P.G. disagrees with Daniel Webster.
“I believe in states following the Constitution when they want to leave . . .”
Please post the language of the Constitutional procedure for leaving the union whose existence you infer.
I don't understand where your reference to barns and chains originated. I do remember that Jimmy-the-Greek was fired for saying less.
In terms of the peculiar institution, conditions then must have been harsh even by today's standards.
And Webster's opinion on when states should follow the Constitution matters because?
Note to self: P.G. disagrees with Daniel Webster. “I believe in states following the Constitution when they want to leave . . .” Please post the language of the Constitutional procedure for leaving the union whose existence you infer.
Pretty easy. South Carolina wants to secede. South Carolina takes their proposal to the Congress so Congress can decide how South Carolina will prove it's secession to the other states. Terms are reached regarding Fort Sumter and any other debts South Carolina owes or is owed. Federal facilities in the state are reckoned with and on a certain date when everything is settled to the satisfaction of the other states, the union is dissolved.
Instead, they stole stuff and tried to murder American soldiers.
Slaves were never chained in barns in the south?
In terms of the peculiar institution, conditions then must have been harsh even by today's standards.
Not the Hilton, but God's rules were much better than the southern plantation owners rules.
Because he studied the Constitution and was a recognized expert. And you are not.
Actually, I shouldn't say that. For all I know you could be the professor that taught President Obama how to be an expert on constitutional law.
“Pretty easy. South Carolina wants to secede. South Carolina takes their proposal to the Congress so Congress can decide how South Carolina will prove it's secession to the other states.”
Are you absolutely certain this language is in the Constitution? It sounds like something you made up.
“Not the Hilton, but God’s rules were much better than the southern plantation owners rules.”
I didn’t make myself clear. I was referring to the peculiar institution in the northern and southern states when I wrote “conditions then must have been harsh even by today’s standards.”
So you believe that there is an "elite" class. And when this elite class decides something, then that's it, the issue is settled and nobody's opinion matters after that? And everyone should vote according to these elite's opinions at all times and offer no debate?
Actually, I shouldn't say that. For all I know you could be the professor that taught President Obama how to be an expert on constitutional law.
South Carolina didn't follow the Constitution, similar to Obama.
Are you absolutely certain this language is in the Constitution? It sounds like something you made up.
I know you've never read the Constitution but Article IV says Congress has the duty to lay general rules on how a state proves it's acts.
If I say so, it's only because the Founders established the principle and set the Precedent. You might look at this document called "The Declaration of Independence" which spells out the pertinent concept.
Yep, it was treason against the king, and we had to fight to keep our land. The south didn't run their secession through the Congress so it was an illegal secession to begin with.
OMG. I feel like I'm arguing with children. The Founders didn't "run their secession through" Parliament. This means such a step is unnecessary when invoking a God given right to independence. Again, see the Declaration thereof. In the future, if you are going to make some inane observation, I would suggest you see if it applies to the founders first, and if it does, you need to not speak it, because it therefore makes no point useful to you.
Amazing to me Lincoln waited for an act of war before responding.
Obviously he didn't. Had you been reading the thread with the due diligence of someone interested in learning things, you would have discovered that Lincoln had launched an Invasion by Sea, and it was a fortuitous circumstance for him that the Confederates fired on Sumter. Had they not started shooting, He was going to do so. Again, read the thread more closely.
I'm not going to finish reading your message. You've flubbed important points three times, and I figure that's enough to bother with for one message.
Morality was on the Founder's side, not so with the slavers.
OMG. I feel like I'm arguing with children. The Founders didn't "run their secession through" Parliament. This means such a step is unnecessary when invoking a God given right to independence.
The was no God-given right to murder those at Fort Sumter. Acts of states must be ran through the Congress as agreed to by the states in the Constitution.
Again, see the Declaration thereof. In the future, if you are going to make some inane observation, I would suggest you see if it applies to the founders first, and if it does, you need to not speak it, because it therefore makes no point useful to you.
The states agreed to the Constitution. Acts of states must be ran through the Congress.
Obviously he didn't. Had you been reading the thread with the due diligence of someone interested in learning things, you would have discovered that Lincoln had launched an Invasion by Sea, and it was a fortuitous circumstance for him that the Confederates fired on Sumter. Had they not started shooting, He was going to do so. Again, read the thread more closely.
LOL! So if the idiots surrounding Sumter had just waited there would have been an invasion? lol again!
I'm not going to finish reading your message. You've flubbed important points three times, and I figure that's enough to bother with for one message.
At least i know the difference between the Alamo and the Mexican War! lol!
Well that's just bad logic. That Lincoln trampled constitutional principles, and most especially trampled the Declaration of Independence which was the foundational principle of this nation, does not establish the confederacy as a threat one way or the other.
Someone with the mindset of a dictator does not need good reasons for their abuses. They are just of a mind to force people to bend to their will whether a threat they pose or not.
In actual fact, in early 1861 the Confederacy posed an existential threat to the United States, not only in the Deep South which declared secession over slavery alone.
Every time I see someone bringing up "Slavery" as the South's reason for leaving, I think "Liar wants to change the subject." If something is a "right" then they don't have to have reasons of which you approve to exercise that right. The main point here is "Do they have a right?" If they do, then their "reasons" don't matter. They are entitled to do it anyway.
What you are trying to do is dismiss their right by focusing on their reasons which are objectionable, and thereby deceive people regarding the fact of their rights.
And of course we find out from Abraham Lincoln and General Sherman that it is an utter lie that the Union fought because of slavery. The Union fought ONLY to subjugate the South, and not because they gave a whit about the peculiar institution.
Again, Here's the words of General Sherman which I quoted in a previous message.
" Last year they could have saved their slaves, but now it is too late."
The General simply admits the obvious. "Stop fighting and you can keep your slaves. Stop resisting control from Washington D.C. and you can keep your slaves. "
So why are you talking about Slavery when that is not the Moral reason for why the Union invaded and destroyed the South? "DECEIT" is the only reason that comes to mind. You want the evil which was done by the Union atoned for by the after the fact good that was done by the Union, and you want to completely ignore the fact that the Union never had any intention of doing this "good thing" and when they finally did it, they didn't do it because it was the right thing to do, they did it for reasons of "Military/Tactical Advantage," and "REVENGE" and "PUNISHMENT."
You just want to believe that your team was the "good guy" and it really bothers you when the correct and proper truth is pointed out to you.
No, your side was not the good guy in this story. Your side was the most evil of all participants. When it finally did do something good, it didn't do it because it was good, it did it just to be a little bit more evil.
The Founders were themselves slavers. All 13 colonies were slave states. Try again. Now i'm not going to read the rest of your message. You start off a message with that sort of boner and it's just not worth the trouble of addressing the rest.
The Founders cause was freedom, the south's cause was slavery. Big moral difference there.
The Founders cause was Independence. The Founders owned Slaves and did not free them.
The Southern States cause was Independence and just like the founders, they owned slaves.
The Union freed no slaves because they were moral, the Union freed slaves as punishment to the South for trying to be independent.
As I have already pointed out before, but perhaps you didn't see it because you don't look like you are reading anything very closely, according to General Sherman, the South could have kept their slaves if they just accepted rule from Washington D.C.
General Sherman addressing a crowd at a Southern Town which his troops were occupying:
" Last year they could have saved their slaves, but now it is too late."
Do you know what is immoral? Fighting a war to subjugate another people, and then lying about it by telling everyone you fought to free slaves when you really fought to make slaves.
Yes, certainly by contrast with other soldiers from other wars at other times.
Nevertheless, you well know that every Confederate force operating in Union states or territories, first of all, "lived off the land", meaning they took what they needed from the local populations, sometimes pretending to pay for "requisitions" with Confederate money, sometimes not.
But anything deemed militarily significant was declared "contraband" seized and transported back to the Confederate main force.
Finally, such missions were usually charged to destroy Union infrastructure such as railroads and bridges.
Examples include Morgan in Indiana & Ohio, Forrest & Morgan in Kentucky, Newburg and Hines in Indiana, Quantrill in Kansas, as well as Stuart, Jenkins and Early in Maryland and Pennsylvania.
In New Mexico it was a slightly different story since Baylor having driven off the few remaining Union forces, declared himself governor and so "taxed" New Mexicans to support his army.
Typical was Morgan's second raid into Kentucky, 1862:
Other raids cost more:
"...'Remember Chambersburg' soon became a Union battle cry.[46]"
Even more so was Quantrill at Lawrence, Kansas:
I believe that you have stated in the past that you consider all of us in this country to be slaves, but the vast majority of the people who live in this country (including those who live in the South) do not consider themselves to be slaves. If you truly believe that we are all slaves, you must concede that your view is shared by few others.
The vast majority of people in this country are opposed to slavery and are grateful that it is gone. I'm sure that deep down inside you oppose slavery, too. I'll never understand why you insist on advancing positions that are historically burdened by the baggage of slavery. Certainly, one can argue for more personal liberty without trying to also prove that secession or division is some kind of legitimate solution.
Nearly everyone wishes that the blood shed by Americans in the early 1860's had not happened, but the vast majority of Americans (including those living in the South) are grateful for the outcome. Americans, by and large, love their country, the United States of America. They support the notion that "We, the people" are a nation, indivisible. And, they do not see themselves as slaves.
Things aren't nearly as bad as you make them out to be.
I had always thought of article IV as the “Full Faith and Credit Clause”, plus Sections dealing with Privileges and Immunities, and Service and Labour and new state admission, and Republican Form of Government.
Now you tell me there is Secession provision in Article IV. If so, it must be in the Full Faith and Credit clause.
The traditional explanation of Section 1 is usually something along the lines of that found in “The Heritage Guide to the Constitution.” It reads, in part:
“An essential purpose of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is to assure that the courts of one state will honor the judgments of the courts of another state without the need to retry the whole cause of action. It was an essential mechanism for creating a “union” out of multiple sovereigns. The first sentence of the Full Faith and Credit Clause appeared almost verbatim in Article IV of the Articles of Confederation, which read: “Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these States to the records, acts and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other State.” At the Constitutional Convention, the originally proposed article also specifically required each state to enforce the other states’ judgments regarding debts, but that portion was dropped. There was little discussion of the constitutional provision during the Convention and ratifying period, but it was commonly assumed that the clause was at least in part intended to ensure that debtors could not escape their creditors by crossing into other states. Moreover, the “public Acts” requirement was apparently added to force state courts to enforce each other’s insolvency laws.”
Please cite any founding fathers that state or imply the Full Faith and Credit Clause (or any other part of Article IV) was intended to regulate secession.
I've never heard of it but I'm willing to learn.
Two totally different situations and people involved, not comparable in any way.
In the American context, we have the example of Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt trampling on the rights of over 100,000 Japanese-American civilians.
The US Supreme Court, many years later, ruled it to have been unlawful, but at the time FDR's actions were justified as a necessity of war.
That is the proper context to view any of Lincoln's alleged "trampling", none of which was ever officially rebuked by either Congress or the Supreme Court.
The Coalition of the very Rich and the Very poor are not slaves. It is only those people who carry the burden that have the fruits of their labor deprived of them for the benefit of others.
I'm sure that deep down inside you oppose slavery, too. I'll never understand why you insist on advancing positions that are historically burdened by the baggage of slavery.
Because when you put forth the concept that states have a right to leave the United States if they wish to do so, Every Union Apologist will come out of the woodwork and make themselves hoarse from screaming about how much they hate slavery more than anyone else.
They will simply not allow the topic to be discussed on it's own merits. They have not the wit or intelligence to comprehend the larger question outside of the topic of slavery.
In other words, nobody chooses to advance positions that are historically burdened by the baggage of slavery, it's just that it is virtually impossible to discuss the concept of "freedom to leave" without some slack witted cheerleader bringing the topic up.
The discussion generally goes like this:
People have a right to leave the United States.
"Why do you support Slavery?"
Nobody is supporting Slavery, I'm simply pointing out that our Central Government is abusive and out of control, no longer serves our interests, is empowering the lazy and the wicked and collapsing our currency. "
"Why are you supporting Slavery?"
I am not supporting Slavery, i'm supporting Independence."
"Well the last time people were talking about Independence, they supported Slavery, so therefore you must be supporting slavery."
And So on ad infinitum ad nauseum.
Certainly, one can argue for more personal liberty without trying to also prove that secession or division is some kind of legitimate solution.
My understanding of the Principles involved in the founding of this nation shows secession or division is indeed a legitimate solution. In fact, I fail to see how you can support the founding of this country while opposing the founding of another and from appeal to the very same foundational principle.
As a matter of fact, Many of our early population left Europe because they had differences of opinions that could not be reconciled with the existing civil or religious structure. They in effect, left to create a different country where their opinions and ideas were accepted.
Nearly everyone wishes that the blood shed by Americans in the early 1860's had not happened, but the vast majority of Americans (including those living in the South) are grateful for the outcome.
Because they are ignorant of any other possible outcome. People are biased towards what they regard as "normal", and do not give much thought to a potentially better version of "normal."
This also ignores a salient point. One might argue that a drug addict wife is much better off staying with her abusive husband, but it completely ignores the fact that what is in her best interest is not for anyone else to decide but her.
This is freedom of will at it's basest level. That people can decide rightly or wrongly upon the course they wish to take in their lives.
You can say that the United States is a lot better off for Keeping the South as part of it, You can even say the South is better off for remaining in the United States, but what you cannot say is that because they would be better off, they must not be allowed to do what they want.
The South made the exact same argument with slaves. "They are better off by remaining under our control."
Why is it that you can recognize the fallacy of this argument when applied to slaves, but cannot recognize the same fallacy as applied to nations?
Your statement helps me to better understand why you write the things you do. You want to see slavery (and perhaps racism) as a southern problem rather than a national or global problem.
You don't refute that every northern colony signed on for slavery - you ignore it.
I can understand your thinking because we see it on display so often today - every time the television is turned on.
You can tell all your friends you are not prejudiced, or you are not a racist, because you are emotionally schnchonized with Abraham Lincoln and he, after all, “freed the slaves.”
In other words, cheap grace.
Obviously depends on what you define as "tactical" and what "strategic".
Both of Lee's invasions of Union states, Maryland in 1862, Pennsylvania in 1863, are often described as "raids", but both had strategic goals as well:
Finally we could note that in 1862, Jefferson Davis planned a major strategic invasion of Illinois, the invasion only cancelled because of Grant's victories on the Tennessee River.
central_va: "OTH the Union strategy was to conquer and occupy the South."
The Union plan was to defeat the Confederate military and then restore constitutionally mandated republican government in those states, but this time with the full voting participation of emancipated former slaves.
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.