Posted on 09/02/2019 4:35:14 PM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
See the Lincoln-Douglas debate #6.
Stephen Douglas:
We then adopted a free State Constitution, as we had a right to do. In this State we have declared that a negro shall not be a citizen, and we have also declared that he shall not be a slave. We had a right to adopt that policy. Missouri has just as good a right to adopt the other policy. I am now speaking of rights under the Constitution, and not of moral or religious rights. I do not discuss the morals of the people of Missouri, but let them settle that matter for themselves. I hold that the people of the slaveholding States are civilized men as well as ourselves; that they bear consciences as well as we, and that they are accountable to God and their posterity, and not to us. It is for them to decide, therefore, the moral and religious right of the slavery question for themselves within their own limits. I assert that they had as much right under the Constitution to adopt the system of policy which they have as we had to adopt ours. So it is with every other State in this Union. Let each State stand firmly by that great Constitutional right, let each State mind its own business and let its neighbors alone, and there will be no trouble on this question. If we will stand by that principle, then Mr. Lincoln will find that this Republic can exist forever divided into free and slave States, as our fathers made it and the people of each State have decided. Stand by that great principle, and we can go on as we have done, increasing in wealth, in population, in power, and in all the elements of greatness, until we shall be the admiration and terror of the world. We can go on and enlarge as our population increase, require more room, until we make this continent one ocean-bound republic.
Abraham Lincoln:
Judge Douglas asks you, "Why cannot the institution of slavery, or rather, why cannot the nation, part slave and part free, continue as our fathers made it forever?" In the first place, I insist that our fathers did not make this nation half slave and half free, or part slave and part free. I insist that they found the institution of slavery existing here. They did not make it so, but they left it so because they knew of no way to get rid of it at that time. When Judge Douglas undertakes to say that, as a matter of choice, the fathers of the Government made this nation part slave and part free, he assumes what is historically a falsehood. More than that: when the fathers of the Government cut off the source of slavery by the abolition of the slave-trade, and adopted a system of restricting it from the new Territories where it had not existed, I maintain that they placed it where they understood, and all sensible men understood, it was in the course of ultimate extinction; and when Judge Douglas asks me why it cannot continue as our fathers made it, I ask him why he and his friends could not let it remain as our fathers made it?
The Founding Fathers could not undo in just a few short years what the King spent over a century doing.
Because of the false teachings of progressivism, it has become one of the greatest of ironies that the "Great Emancipator" was also one of the most ardent defenders of the Founding Fathers - specifically on the topic of slavery.
You don't use WARSHIPS for a "relief" expedition. You use them for an attack.
Did any warships attack? NOPE.
If you are going to be an @$$ about it, the Hariet Lane fired at the Nashville in the entrance to Charleston Harbor.
Also, the Powhatan fired at Confederate ships, and fully intended to fire at Confederate shore batteries, but was prevented from doing so by Captain Meigs who put his ship in the path of the Powhatan.
Look, I know you don't want to actually understand anything, but for the sake of others, I'll tell you why the ships didn't engage as their orders directed. Their orders required them to wait for the arrival of Captain Mercer in command of the Powhatan, and Captain Mercer would coordinate their efforts.
Captain Mercer and the Powhatan never arrived, because Lincoln issued secret orders relieving Captain Mercer of Command, and putting Lieutenant David Dixon Porter in charge of the Powhatan, which he then sailed to Pensacola, and then attacked some Confederate ships there.
The U.S.S. Pawnee arrived only after the Fort had surrender.
It was the fact that it was known to be coming that convinced them they couldn't wait for it and the other warships to arrive. Facing cannon fire from both the Ships and the Fortress would have been insane, and so Beauregard correctly chose to neutralize the fort before the ships arrived to join them in combat.
He didn't expect the ships to leave without firing at them. He even held batteries in reserve just to deal with those warships.
Who started the war?
Abraham Lincoln when he sent a fleet of warships to force the Confederates to obey him. The majority of his Cabinet told him he would trigger a war if he sent those ships, but he chose to do it anyways.
Major Anderson had already written an evacuation order, and would have left peacefully in a couple of days, but the arrival of Lincoln's warships triggered combat. Beauregard was empowered to give Major Anderson as much time as he required to peaceably evacuate the fort, but that all changed when warships showed up to engage them.
Why did Gen. P.T. open fire? He was ordered to do so by the Confederate Government.
Which left the final decision up to him. His orders, which you are clearly ignoring, said he was authorized to make a peaceful deal for the evacuation of the fort. He was in the process of doing so, and Major Anderson was in the process of agreeing to it, when a bunch of warships were sighted at the entrance to Charleston harbor.
Even the blind moles know this history.
As I said, you know *ONLY* this history. You don't know the parts that completely change the nature of the affair. Lincoln blundered a bunch of warships into a situation that was almost resolved peaceably, and the effect was to start a war which killed 750,000 people, and completely destroyed the existing relationship between the Federal government and the states.
If I thought it was worth the trouble, I'd give you the quotes from Lincoln's cabinet members urging him not to send those warships because it would start a war.
But I don't think you are amenable to evidence that goes against what you wish to believe. You will just dismiss or ignore it.
Cadets of the Citadel opened fire on the Star of the West. They were not instructed to do so by the Confederate Government, and they took it upon themselves to do so.
Also, the Star of the West was secretly carrying troops and munitions to reinforce the Union occupation of Ft. Sumter, and so was therefore already a belligerent ship trying to provoke a war. No significant damage was done to it.
Sorry Slaver, you already just claimed President Buchanan started the war with the Star of the West.
President Lincoln was not President yet when the your friends started the War!
Sorry Slaver, the States governor admitted to giving the order.
Shame on you trying to place the blame on ‘Cadets’.
You are a complete disgrace..
Are you like twelve or something?
It would have been much easier if you would have started with this.
I'm not interested in re-litigating the Civil War. I'm interested in targeting the progressives(which started roughly at 1900) or their arguments made today which are too easy to refute.
Sorry Slaver, The majority of Lincoln’s cabinet was in favor of resupplying the Fort.
“On April 6, with the Sumter mission ready to go, Lincoln sent State Department clerk Robert S. Chew to see South Carolina Governor Francis W. Pickens and read the following statement:
“I am directed by the President of the United States to notify you to expect an attempt will be made to supply Fort-Sumpter [sic] with provisions only; and that, if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition, will be made, without further notice, or in case of an attack upon the Fort.”
The message was delivered to Pickens on April 8.
The information was telegraphed that night to Confederate President Jefferson Davis in Richmond.
The Confederate cabinet was already meeting to discuss the Sumter crisis, and on April 10 Davis decided to demand the surrender of the fort and bombard it if the demand was refused.
The attack on the fort was initiated on April 12, and the fort surrendered the next day.
The relief expedition sent by the Union arrived too late to intervene.
The Civil War had begun.”
Thank you! I noticed this some time ago but with the recent ramp up in use of the race card with so blatantly obvious falsehoods it is making me want to compile all of it in one easy to reference spot. The challenge is I don't have a good place to put it.
With what I need to do a blog just isn't the place.
Sure. Later. After he had told him that he was going to do it anyway. When he first asked them for advice, they said it would be a horrible idea and start a civil war.
You just don't care what the reality is.
So far as I have been able to find out, the reduction of the fort was ordered well before the relief ships arrived at Charleston.
But when did facts ever stop you, Diogenes?
There was no government of the confederacy that day.
Buchannon wasn’t going to prosecute a war after the election of Lincoln. The south was directing actions at the president-elect who they feared would bring in free states in the territories and not match 1 for 1 with new slave states.
i merely believe trying to assassinate the president elect was an actor war by people loyal to the confederacy and in a city that was also pro-south. In the book you can see who the conspirators were and the power and influence they had.
Great stuff!
Can’t believe I’ve never read these debates. If only we could have the like now!
Yes, at the time of our founding the elimination od slavery would have meant one of two things:
A. The destruction of SC, and it’s permanent capture by England.
or
B. The voluntary accession by SC to England.
Either would result in a British harbor at Charleston and the end of any dream of an American nation.
That’s a great post, your #37!
I don’t think the Mississippi route could compete with the Erie Canal, but have no other complaint.
Though, of course the NW of the country had shown slavery to be a very inferior economic system.
It appears you conflate the “ownership” of Southern trade profits with the “management” of them.
Yankees made profit from their management of Southern trade funds, however it was not theirs. It ultimately belonged to those Southern traders.
Of course that management was very lucrative.
Yet slavery was the predominant institution of Mankind for uncounted centuries.
Most reasonably until the fall of the Ottoman Empire circa WW1.
Maybe a question to be asked of the 4 million slaves in the United States at the time
“sent warships to attack the Confederates?”
you know well what the orders to those ships were. Do not fire unless the resupply effort is resisted. Since Sumter was under attack when they arrived, the resupply effort was not launched. Not one of Lincoln’s “war fleet” actually fired a gun at South Carolina installations. The did not have orders to attack. Had they, they would have fired on the SC batteries at Moultrie.
“Harriet Lane fired at the Nashville in the entrance to Charleston Harbor.”
Nashville was sailing without flying a national ensign and was underway without customary running lights.
When challenged by Lane, Nashville broke the U.S. Flag and illuminated on her running lights. She was allowed to precede.
Nothing out of the ordinary, nothing sinister. Any naval vessel of the Royal Navy, French Navy, U.S. Navy, Spanish Navy etc. would challenge a ship not displaying a national ensign or the usual running lights. These are normally considered signs of either pirates or smugglers.
The Slaver is always fact free.
N
‘Diogenes arrived in Athens with a slave named Manes who escaped from him shortly thereafter. With characteristic humor, Diogenes dismissed his ill fortune by saying, “If Manes can live without Diogenes, why not Diogenes without Manes?”’
Hmmm, interesting. The Nashville flew a U.S. flag, not a Confederate flag!
So a U.S. vessel firing a warning shot across the bow of a ship, that then raises an American flag...
Clearly not a hostile act of war.
Next lie Mr. Slaver.
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.