THE NATIONAL CRISIS: Highly Important from the Federal Capital; THE SECESSION MOVEMENT; DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS: War Dept., The Indians (12/6/1860)

New York Times archives – Times Machine ^ | 12/6/1860

[Homer_J_Simpson]

WASHINGTON, Wednesday, Dec. 5. The Committee on the Judiciary had under consideration to-day the case of Judge WATROUS, of Texas. Much testimony has been adduced, tending so strongly against him that it is understood they will report soon in favor of his impeachment. Gov. HOUSTON is understood to have done much to bring about this result. I am told by a gentleman from Texas that WATROUS is understood to sympathize with the secession movement in Texas. Mr. REYNOLDS, the successor of S.M. BURROUGHS, of New-York, appeared in the House to-day and took the oath and his seat on the Republican side. Senator BAKER, of Oregon, the successor of DELAZON SMITH, arrived to-day, and appeared in the Senate and took the oath and his seat on the Republican side. He was warmly welcomed by the Republicans. While waiting to take the oath, LANE, of Oregon, spoke, and referring to the Territorial question, he attempted to be severe. He evidently aimed at BAKER. The Putnam Phalanx arrived to-day. They were received by the Light Infantry, and welcomed by the Major in an appropriate speech, which was conservative and conciliatory. The company creates a favorable impression. Mr. HAMLIN will tender his resignation, to take effect on the 1st of February, with a retiring speech, which will, it is thought, reflect somewhat the policy of the incoming Administration.

[Homer_J_Simpson]

Free Republic University, Department of History presents U.S. History, 1855-1860: Seminar and Discussion Forum
Bleeding Kansas, Dred Scott, Lincoln-Douglas, Harper’s Ferry, the election of 1860, secession – all the events leading up to the Civil War, as seen through news reports of the time and later historical accounts

First session: November 21, 2015. Last date to add: Sometime in the future.
Reading: Self-assigned. Recommendations made and welcomed.

Posting history, in reverse order

https://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:homerjsimpson/index?tab=articles

To add this class to or drop it from your schedule notify Admissions and Records (Attn: Homer_J_Simpson) by reply or freepmail.

Link to previous New York Times thread

https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3912501/posts

[Homer_J_Simpson]

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

[Homer_J_Simpson]

The National Crisis: Highly Important from the Federal Capital – 2-3
The Secession Movement – 3-4
Departmental Reports: The War Department – 4
Departmental Reports: The Indians – 4-5
Editorial: One-Sided Compromises – 5-6
Editorial: The President and the Attorney-General – 6
Editorial: A Phenomenon of the Frontier – 6-7
South Carolina Afraid of Delay – 7
Meeting of the Electoral Colleges – 7
What the President Considers Justice to Kansas – 7
Naval and Military Intelligence – 7

[BrexitBen]

The South should’ve been allowed to secede peacefully.

Technological advances would’ve ended slavery peacefully and quickly, and all states would’ve been spared the horrible war.

The U.S. would’ve eventually been partitioned into at least 8 separate confederations of states, with no designs on foreign wars or colonialism.

Oh well. Hindsight is 20/20/

[M Kehoe]

Hi Ben and welcome FR.

You make some interesting guesses.

“Technological advances would’ve ended slavery peacefully and quickly, and all states would’ve been spared the horrible war.

The U.S. would’ve eventually been partitioned into at least 8 separate confederations of states, with no designs on foreign wars or colonialism.”

Possibly, but when September 1 1939 rolled around, you had to have an “alliance” or you were dead.

5.56mm

[BroJoeK]

BrexitBen: " The South should’ve been allowed to secede peacefully. "

"The South" never seceded.
Seven states of the Deep South were allowed to secede entirely peacefully, but they refused to stay peaceful.
Instead they began immediately provoking war, then started war, formally declared war against the United States and refused to stop fighting for any terms better than Unconditional Surrender.

BrexitBen: "Technological advances would’ve ended slavery peacefully and quickly, and all states would’ve been spared the horrible war."

Even today, where cheap farm labor is available, it reduces or prevents the introduction of expensive farm machinery.
So there's no reason to suppose that machines were going to magically abolish slavery on their own.
Plus, exactly how do you define such words as "quickly" and "peacefully"?
Is 100 years "quick" in your mind?
Are massive slave-revolts "peaceful"?

BrexitBen: "The U.S. would’ve eventually been partitioned into at least 8 separate confederations of states, with no designs on foreign wars or colonialism.
Oh well. Hindsight is 20/20/ "

And this would benefit who, exactly?
U.S. Southern slaveholders & others around the world?
The German Empire expanding in Europe?
Japanese Imperialists rule in Asia?
Stalin's Communist Soviet Union?
The Chinese Communists?
Islamic Jihadists?

So you think those were\are the good guys and we are the bad guys?