Posted on 11/11/2002 1:23:27 PM PST by l8pilot
After the convention decided to leave the union the state government cast its lot with the Confederacy and acted accordingly. Before the convention had decided there was room for discussion and compromise. Afterwards, everyone knew what was happening and what would likely happen. Rebellion had already begun in Virginia. For the federals, a referendum or plebecite would not make what was illegitimate legitmate. You may argue with this view but it the unionist view at the time.
Whether or not a blockade was a legitmate response to the taking of an inland arsenal it certainly was a proper rejoinder to the seizure of a major naval base with its ships and weaponry. It would have been irresponsible not to respond to this.
I know nothing about the situation in North Carolina, but to say that it was "was very closely divided on the secession issue a few months prior to their withdrawal from the union" says nothing. This was true of all of the Upper South and some of the Border states as well. It tells us nothing about the post-Sumter situation there.
This has been a great learning experience for me. I certainly don't have complete knowledge of what happened. I learn things as I go along. But the discussion also proceeds. New questions and controversies arise as older ones are resolved or clarified or dropped.
All the Internet sources I found on short notice gave the date of Virginia's secession as April 17, and there must be some reason for this. Thank you for pointing out about the referendum. I'm grateful for learning something that I did not know before. But that fact, like all the others has to be weighed, analyzed and put into context. If you want to keep score, fine. I'm just interested in learning more.
had DE been a southron state, she would have had a star for her on the dixie flag.
DE is NOT now, nor ever has been, a southron state, though as i've said before, we had a number of INDIVIDUAL soldiers from there.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
slavery caused the war in precisely the same way that FISH cause FLOODS!
the notion that chattal slavery was anything but a "side issue" is a REVISIONIST heresy of historiography, which came out of the most extreme,leftist,anti-southern, poison-ivycovered walls of NE academia in the 1960s. prior to the rise of REVISIONISTS, academics of all sorts were NOT so extreme in their judgements on comlicated issues like "the causes of war".
to quote an old prof of mine, the late & much lamented Bob C. Riley, PhD: "only the simpletons need or attempt to formulate SIMPLE ANSWERS for complex probems".
free dixie,sw
nontheless, walt, as a scalawag, can have NOTHING said of him that is worse than that title.
free dixie,sw
do you really enjoy being laughed AT?
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
Coming from the person who has addressed me variously as "idiot," "ignoramus," and "boyo," this seems rather harmless. I have NEVER advocated the overthrow of the US Government.
You have repeatedly endorsed the actions of rebels who fought to that effect, and have urged the disintegration of the Union. If that isn't advocating the overthrow of the Government, I don't know what is.
If you are the combat veteran you say, you should be ashamed to insult another veteran.
Your childish posts and anti-government rants have negated whatever deference I might ordinarily have afforded you.
I think the technical term for this, for all you Latin scholars, would be an argumentum ad vexillum. Sorry, that doesn't cut it. I can't vouch for Southern mapmakers, but there were definitely powerful elements within the State of Delaware urging secession. Many members of the DuPont family, which then exercised effective control over the state, were secessionists. Governor Burton strongly supported the South, and pushed for a convention on secession.
Secessionist militias stole arms from armories and gun factories, and there is copious correspondence between the South and Rebel agents in the state.
LOL - you are a card ;)
Are you now trying to make the false suggestion that I have used profanity. I have used common vulgar words. I have used no profanity, don't you even know the difference?
I made an objective, factual statemmnt about Hitler. For you to go from that to the suggestion that I supported HItler would be analogous to my taking a statement of yours to the effect that you liked children and suggesting that it followed therefrom that you were a pederast. How would you like it if I did something like that to you. Well, I see what you have done, and you do similar things on a regular basis, as every bit as low and despicable.
I made an objective, factual statemmnt about Hitler. For you to go from that to the suggestion that I supported Hitler would be analogous to my taking a statement of yours to the effect that you liked children and suggesting that it followed therefrom that you were a pederast. How would you like it if I did something like that to you. Well, I see what you have done, and you do similar things on a regular basis, as every bit as low and despicable.
Have you denied it outright yet? Maybe I missed it.
All I did was open a door and you tripped right through it.
Walt
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.