Posted on 09/09/2019 9:42:11 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
Nearly all modern historians agree with Professor James McPherson’s conclusion that the Civil War was caused by Southern objections to the 1860 Republican Party’s resolve to prohibit slavery’s extension into any of the federal territories that had not yet been organized as states. The resolution originated with the Wilmot Proviso fourteen years earlier before the infant GOP had even been formed. In 1846 Pennsylvania Congressman David Wilmot introduced a rider to a $2 million appropriation intended for use in a negotiated settlement to end the Mexican War. The rider stipulated that the money could not be used to purchase land that might be acquired in the treaty if slavery was allowed in such territories. After considerable wrangling, the bill passed without the rider.
Contrary to first impressions, the Proviso had little to do with sympathy for black slaves. Its purpose was to keep blacks out of the new territories so that the lands might be reserved for free whites. As Wilmot put it, “The negro race already occupy enough of this fair continent . . . I would preserve for free white labor a fair country . . . where the sons of toil, of my own race and color, can live without the disgrace which association with negro slavery brings upon free labor.”
The same attitude prevailed during the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln readily admitted that his September 1862 Emancipation Proclamation was a necessity of war. Major General George McClellan, who then commanded the North’s biggest army and would become Lincoln’s opponent in the 1864 presidential elections, believed it was a deliberate attempt to incite Southern slave rebellions. Lincoln was himself aware that such uprisings might result.
(Excerpt) Read more at civilwarchat.wordpress.com ...
Yes star of the West was sent by Buchanan. So what? South Carolina made it clear it did not consent to be invaded and would defend itself.
Sumter was not sovereign US territory. It was in South Carolina and South Carolina seceded. It was sovereign South Carolina territory.
Gitmo was always s sparsely populated bay on the far side of the island. It was not their principal harbor like Charleston was and is. No country would allow another to maintain a fort in its principle harbor.
Chase said when discussing trying Jefferson Davis that his capture was a mistake, his trial would be a bigger mistake for by the constitution secession is not treason. He was right about that - also that was a startling admission for him to make.
Chief Justice Salmon P Chase found the actions of the treasury secretary to be completely correct........treasury secretary Salmon P Chase.
Yeah, we should take that seriously. :rolleyes:
Not me, them. And before you bust a gut laughing look at the 1860 Democrat platform. It called for acquiring Cuba.
The facts do indeed stand up for anybody who has read up on the subject.
Then maybe you should read up on it?
Yeah it was.
It was in South Carolina and South Carolina seceded. It was sovereign South Carolina territory.
South Carolina had deeded it free and clear to the federal government. They had no legal claim to it.
Gitmo was always s sparsely populated bay on the far side of the island. It was not their principal harbor like Charleston was and is. No country would allow another to maintain a fort in its principle harbor.
It is at least as important to Cuba as Charleston was to the Confederacy. Depending on which measure you use - imports or exports - Charleston was the third or fourth busiest port in the South.
Because you said it was sent by Lincoln.
Do you have a source for that?
Do you want to argue that they seceded for the opportunity to acquire Cuba? It wouldn’t be spreading slavery where it already existed either but why let that fact get in the way?
I’ve read the facts and the historiography. Obviously you haven’t.
No it wasn’t. South Carolina had seceded.
It was on sovereign South Carolina territory and any sovereign can lay claim to any property within its sovereign territory.
Gitmo was never as important to Cuba as Charleston was to the Confederacy let alone South Carolina. Charleston was one of the two largest ports in the then CSA and was obviously the largest in South Carolina.
Fine. I’ll own up to that misstatement. It was sent by the federal government but not by Lincoln.
For what? Chase’s statement? I have 2 sources for that and I’ve posted it dozens of times on this board. You’ll have to wait until I get home for me to get to the source to post it again though.
Assuming for the sake of argument that their act of secession was legal then they'd be entitled to take their land and property with them. But they had given up all claims of ownership to Sumter. It wasn't theirs and they had no legal claim to it.
It was on sovereign South Carolina territory and any sovereign can lay claim to any property within its sovereign territory.
Not if it doesn't belong to them.
Gitmo was never as important to Cuba as Charleston was to the Confederacy let alone South Carolina. Charleston was one of the two largest ports in the then CSA...
By what measure?
...and was obviously the largest in South Carolina.
And Guantanamo City is obviously the largest port in Guantanamo province. What's your point?
Chase also said Texas secession was null, void and unconstitutional. He was right about that. You may find that a startling admission to make.
Like I said, the central tenet of the “lost cause” cult is that any reason, except slavery, is acceptable to justify secession and civil war.
Not startling at all. Secession is not treason. The Constitution says treason "shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." Secession, even secession done illegally, does not meet that definition. And rebellion, armed rebellion like that waged by the southern states, may or may not rise to the level of treason either since by definition war is waged between sovereign nations and not parts of the same one. However the term 'civil war' seems to mean it does fall under the constitutional definition. One can argue either way.
Chase's opinions of the illegality of the Southern actions were made clear in several court cases. Chase may have thought the trial of Jefferson Davis was unwise but he never thought it was illegal. If he had he could have easily refused to participate or insist the charges be dropped. It wasn't until the passage of the 14th Amendment that Chase found a loop-hole he could use to end the trial, which he did without ever saying Davis had been charged improperly.
I believe that what he is asking is what is the legal procedure for leaving the Union. Is it the same as the process to join?
No he didn’t Reb. He was resupplying a United Sates military installation in an American harbor during peacetime. The Confederate shore batteries opened fire. Learn some real history ding bat. And again: You’re side lost. It lost the war it started 154 years ago. Get a life.
It’s interesting (and telling) that he holds Chase’s words as praiseworthy when it dovetails to his agenda and otherwise mocks the man...
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.