Posted on 12/22/2019 4:23:47 AM PST by Bull Snipe
"I beg to present you as a Christmas gift the City of Savannah, with one hundred and fifty heavy guns and plenty of ammunition and about twenty-five thousand bales of cotton." General William T. Sherman's "March to the Sea" was over. During the campaign General Sherman had made good on his promise d “to make Georgia howl”. Atlanta was a smoldering ruin, Savannah was in Union hands, closing one of the last large ports to Confederate blockade runners. Sherman’s Army wrecked 300 miles of railroad and numerous bridges and miles of telegraph lines. It seized 5,000 horses, 4,000 mules, and 13,000 head of cattle. It confiscated 9.5 million pounds of corn and 10.5 million pounds of fodder, and destroyed uncounted cotton gins and mills. In all, about 100 million dollars of damage was done to Georgia and the Confederate war effort.
Not going to play this silly game with you.
If the Republican party with its platform of principles, the main feature of which is the abolition of slavery and, therefore, the destruction of the South, carries the country at the next Presidential election, shall we remain in the Union, or form a separate Confederacy? This is the great, grave issue. It is not who shall be President, it is not which party shall rule – it is a question of political and social existence.
;Alfred P. Aldrich South Carolina politician
The anti-slavery party contends that slavery is wrong in itself, and the Government is a consolidated national democracy. We of the South contend that slavery is right...
—;Laurence Massillon Keitt, Speech to the House January 1860
Then after the election, and before Lincoln was inaugurated, they kept saying it was about slavery.
Resolution to Call the Election of Abraham Lincoln A Hostile Act That this General Assembly is satisfied that Abram Lincoln has already been elected President of the United States, and that said election has been based upon principles of open and avowed hostility to the social organization and peculiar interests of the slave holding states of this Confederacy.
Resolved, that it is the sense of this General Assembly that South Carolina is now ready to dissolve her connection with the government of the United States, and earnestly desires and hereby solicits the cooperation of her sister slave-holding states in such movement.
Resolved, that the Governor be requested forth with to forward a copy of the foregoing resolutions to the Governor of each of the slave-holding states of this confederacy, with the request that it may be submitted to their respective Legislatures.
November 9, 1860
Our people have come to this on the question of slavery
— Laurence Massillon Keitt, South Carolina secession debates, (December 1860)
Heck, even the clergy in South Carolina chimed in.
Anti-slavery is essentially infidel. It wars upon the Bible, on the Church of Christ, on the truth of God, on the souls of men.
—;Southern Presbyterian of S.C., 10 November 1860
The triumphs of Christianity rest this very hour upon slavery; and slavery depends on the triumphs of the South... This war is the servant of slavery.
—;John T. Wightman, The Glory of God, the Defence of the South, (1861)
I keep looking at what the South Carolina rebels said and wrote about why they were rebelling and this darn slavery thing keeps coming up.
The people who invaded them said it was about slavery too, and pay no attention to all that economic data that demonstrates it was about hundreds of millions of dollars in lost income to the powerful robber barons in the North.
Yeah, people don't always tell you the truth, especially when they are hiding the money trail from you.
Since you responded to message 824, and since that message is about the actions of Lieutenant Porter, would you care to answer the same point I made to BroJoeK about Porter's actions?
Porter tried to initiate an attack on the Confederates. Captain Meigs stopped him.
Was his actions in initiating this attack in compliance with the President's orders, or was he going rogue?
Here is your opportunity to demonstrate how you won't ignore facts to support your premise.
I suppose it depends on which side of the Dictator you were on when he was doing his dictatoring.
I just ran across bit from Wikipedia regarding Septimus Winner. I was looking up information on the song he wrote "Listen to the Mockingbird."
In 1862, Winner was court-martialed and briefly jailed, accused of treason, because he wrote and published a song entitled "Give Us Back Our Old Commander: Little Mac, the People's Pride". It concerned General George B. McClellan, whom President Abraham Lincoln had just fired from the command of the Army of the Potomac.[6] McClellan was a popular man, and his supporters bought more than 80,000 copies of the song in its first two days of publication.[citation needed] He was released from arrest after promising to destroy all of the remaining copies.
Jailed and accused of treason because he liked McClellan?
What was the treason? I think the treason was doing or saying anything that pissed off Lincoln.
Not at all surprised.
Works very well except for folks like you and Mr. Olive.
They already had slavery. They weren't leaving to get something they already had.
And a newly elected administration bound and determined to keep it from expanding. With every newly admitted state the power of the slave states would decline. Better to leave and establish there own country where the idea of a non-slave state wasn't something they had to worry about.
Because by leaving they were going to get more slavery?
That was one of their aims, yes.
I used to believe that "expansion" bullsh*t, but then I started looking at the facts. It wasn't going to expand.
Efforts to contain "expansion" of slavery were in fact, efforts to contain the slave states voting numbers in the House and the Senate. Had nothing to do with actually containing slavery.
Yes, I know, you think slavery would have somehow been made to work in the territories, even though i've shown you they couldn't do anything with their primary cash crops in the territories.
I think i've also pointed out to you that when "New Mexico Territory" extended from the West border of Texas all the way to California, they only had a dozen slaves in the entire territory.
If there was any money in it, they would have had far more, so clearly there wasn't any money in it.
With every newly admitted state the power of the slave states would decline.
But the 75% of all the taxes being paid by them would remain exactly as it was. This is a really good deal for those on the spending side of the equation and those on the receiving side of the money.
Makes it a lot easier to understand why the "Free Soil Party" was headquartered in New York city, just like the sort of Soros style Astroturn organization it was.
The whole thing about "expansion" was just a sham to insure the money people in Washington DC and New York kept getting the money.
Five Union states did ratify it. Seward was promising New York would also ratify it. Presumably all the slave states would also ratify it, so that brings the total to 22 states that were pretty sure bets on ratification.
What did we need, 3/4ths?
Well out of 33 states, 25 states represent the 3/4ths mark, so only three additional states needed to vote for it to pass it.
And you think it had no hope of passage? With New York and Virginia supporting it, it's passage was virtually guaranteed.
More important than that is the actual 13th Amendment and Lincoln pushed for that far harder than his tepid support for Corwin's mistake.
So tepid that his own secretary of State was leading the effort in the Senate, and so timid that he not only called for it's passage in his first inaugural, he took the additional step of writing letters to the governors of every state to inform them of it's passage of the house and senate.
And that's just the stuff that's not in dispute. If you look into it, you discover he was promoting it behind the scenes in every manner he possibly could, because when it comes down to it, Lincoln's concern was about the money, not about the slaves.
Why do these things always come in threes?
At the time the Corwin Amendment was introduced and voted on in Congress seven Southern states had already announced their secession. Why would they have a vote on ratification? They had already adopted a constitution that protected slavery to an extent undreamed of under the Corwin amendment. So of the states left, 18 would have had to ratify. I don't see where they come from.
So tepid that his own secretary of State was leading the effort in the Senate, and so timid that he not only called for it's passage in his first inaugural, he took the additional step of writing letters to the governors of every state to inform them of it's passage of the house and senate.
Plus added its ratification to the 1864 Republican platform. Plus personally lobbied for its passage among members of Congress. Lincoln's support and intervention was vital for getting the amendment through the lame-duck Congress.
And that's just the stuff that's not in dispute. If you look into it, you discover he was promoting it behind the scenes in every manner he possibly could, because when it comes down to it, Lincoln's concern was about the money, not about the slaves.
Your opinion is duly noted.
Well when it comes to bullsh*t who better than you would know?
Yes, I know, you think slavery would have somehow been made to work in the territories, even though i've shown you they couldn't do anything with their primary cash crops in the territories
You have presented your opinions on that, yes.
But the 75% of all the taxes being paid by them would remain exactly as it was
The South was not paying 75% of all the taxes, your opinion to the contrary notwithstanding.
“The rebels in the southern states started a war by firing the first shot at an American fort.”
That is an interesting comment. But what does “firing the first shot” have to do with who “started” a war?
They would have a vote because Lincoln and his supporters would insist they have a vote because it would bolster the point that they remained part of the Union.
Do not trouble yourself on this point. Lincoln would have insisted that their vote would count if they had gone to the trouble of having one.
They had already adopted a constitution that protected slavery to an extent undreamed of under the Corwin amendment.
I have read large parts of the Confederate constitution. It is mostly a copy of the US constitution with a lot of additions to express a clear support for slavery.
Was it more pro-slavery than the US constitution? Not that I recall. Clearer on the point, and avoiding the use of euphemisms like "person held to service or labor" blah blah blah. It was just more honest on the point.
So of the states left, 18 would have had to ratify. I don't see where they come from.
You are doing the secessionists work for them. By placing them out of the Union, you are verifying their claim that they are. I don't think Lincoln or others in the North would have been so dumb. In fact, Lincoln insisted all throughout the war that they had never left and remained under the authority of the rightful government.
Plus added its ratification to the 1864 Republican platform.
Lincoln added the Corwin amendment to the 1864 Republican platform? I think you are mistaken. I think you are referring to what actually became the 13th amendment.
12 slaves in all of New Mexico territory pretty much establishes that slavery wasn't going to amount to much in that area of land. You can call this "opinion" if you wish, but that is just your "opinion."
:)
“The rebels in the southern states started a war by firing the first shot at an American fort.”
Ran across this awhile back. Thought it was interesting. Explains a lot about the Star of the West incident.
There are those that believe that the first shots of the Civil War were officially fired on January 9th, 1861 - and not in April 1861 with the firing on Fort Sumter. I certainly think the facts warrant such an interpretation.In January 1861 President Buchanan wanted to re-supply Fort Sumter and Major Robert Anderson. They decided that sending an armed Sloop-of-War (the Brooklyn) might be too provocative so they chartered an old side-wheel steamer (the Star of the West) and in secret transferred the men, supplies, and munitions to her at sea - and had the men hide below decks. They planned to slip into Charleston Harbor (a routine stop for the Star of the West on the way to New Orleans) and re-supply Fort Sumter. The Brooklyn was supposed to meet her at Charleston Harbor to provide cover if necessary.
Well, word got to Charleston before the Star of the West (and before the Brooklyn could get there to warn her that word had gotten out) and she was fired on by a battery on Morris Island and turned back. That battery was manned by cadets from the Citadel. The first shots of the war fired by South Carolinians!
There were approximately 200 soldiers on the Star of the West - men drawn from the depot (at Governor's Island I believe). They were commanded by Lt. Chas. R. Woods of the Ninth US Infantry. His officers came from the 1st and 5th Infantry. It appears that they pulled together whatever men they could and packed them on the Star of the West to re-enforce Fort Sumter. I suspect the roster had men from many different Army units.
So the original plan was to use a warship? And of course the information about the hidden troops got leaked to the Confederates, and *THAT* is why they were firing at the ship that normally made a port call in Charleston with no problems.
They knew what was going on before the ship arrived.
But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation. I hope, therefore,that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for “perpetual union,” so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession.
Robert E. Lee letter to his son George Washington Custis Lee January 23, 1861.
My god who would have thought that Lee was a big-government, central-planning Marxist, who despises the original Constitution. These damned Marxist are everywhere.
So if California seceded they would have every right to fire on any relief effort the US attempted for US bases in California, right? Cause all those bases now magically belong to California after they unilaterally proclaim that they are a free and independent country, right?
“Was it more pro-slavery than the US constitution? Not that I recall.
Three salient passages from the Confederate Constitution
“No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.”
“The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.”
“In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.”
I would venture a guess the Confederate Constitution was a tad more pro slavery than the U.S. Constitution.
“I would venture a guess the Confederate Constitution was a tad more pro slavery than the U.S. Constitution.”
The comment ‘just a little bit pregnant’ used to be a tawdry comment designed to highlight a person’s fundamental misunderstanding of - or inability to accept - reality.
The unspoken claim of virtue here - the United States Constitution was just a little bit pregnant with slavery - glosses over the fact that of the 13 original slave states, 13 of them voted to enshrine slavery into the U.S. Constitution.
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.