Read Article I of the Treaty of Paris.
And, apart from the original 13 States:
Posted on 02/17/2006 5:47:19 PM PST by Mobile Vulgus
I don't know how many of you get the Federalist Patriot report via email, but it is a great source of conservative news and opinion that all of you should get.
You can find their site at:
http://patriotpost.us/
Anyway, even though I support them, they sent out an email today that bashed Abe Lincoln fiercely. I was so moved to annoyance by their biased and ill thought out email that I had to write them and say how disappointed I was.
You can go to their site and see the anti-Lincoln screed that they put out to know exactly what I am replying to if you desire to do so.
Now, I know some of you freepers are primo confederate apologists so I thought this would stir debate on freerepublic!!
Now, let the fur fly as we KNOW it must...
Agreed. As I wrote in Post 515, “The butcher’s bill of the war was therefore a monumental failure on the part of the politicians on both sides of the Potomac that, as the Europeans already have, should have addressed the secession issue before young men had to die to settle the issue for them.”
Secession was a revolution against the Constitutional government ………
On that point, however, we part ways.
Unless one totally ignores the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution, the right of secession was one of the infinite number of potential rights of a State not “prohibited by it (the Constitution) to the States” and therefore “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”. The duly elected Legislatures of the Southern states exercised that right.
We may argue about whether the exercise of that right was moral, selfish or downright stupid but, according to the language of the Tenth Amendment, it was a right “reserved to the States”.
As I noted before, New England politicians considered secession during the War of 1812 (when New England economic interests were threatened) and after the Louisiana Purchase (that guaranteed a dilution of the political clout of New England in the Union).
Those were exactly the same reasons as:
the Confederate State's growing dissatisfaction at their diminishing power in the Senate, an increasing rejection of Constitutionally enacted laws and tariffs, the rejection of the outcome of a Constitutional presidential election, and fear of the economic impact on them by the inevitable emancipation of slaves being promoted by the Northern States.
Prior to the Civil War, whether or not the North or the South threatened secession from the Union depended on whether the Northern ox or the Southern ox was being gored at the time.
While Cuba did not want to rule Spain, the Confederacy did intend to contest the United States for control of this continent, and promoted the idea of expanding beyond them into other nations. So the difference between Cuba and Spain and the US and the CSA, is that Cuba did not promote the idea of expanding her power, and competing with Spain in that expansion.
Such are the sovereign rights of nations. In the 19th Century, every nation claimed the right to compete and expand. That is how, by 1899, the United States had gained possession of Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines and the Republic of Hawaii.
"Even after the bombardment of Fort Sumter, a military action that resulted in no deaths, dialog could have been maintained. Instead, the South was invaded by military force." …………..So, if Mexico bombards Brownsville tomorrow, and occupies it, you would argue in favor of dialog while Mexican troops occupied it?
Is Brownsville in Mexico? No.
Is Fort Sumter in South Carolina? Yes.
Did Virginia fire on Fort Sumter? No.
A more accurate analogy is having Federal troops invade Virginia if there is a riot in Liberty City.
I can't believe that you think that Lincoln "blundered" into a shooting war, when the shooting was initiated by the other side. South Carolina secedes as a reaction to Lincoln's election in December, six States follow suit; they all secede as a protest to the result of a Constitutional election. Confederate troops fired on the Star of the West.
By the wording of the Tenth Amendment, secession was not a power “prohibited by it (the Constitution) to the States” and therefore “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”. The elected representatives of South Carolina exercised that right.
The blunder was precisely the provocation of sailing the Star of the West into Charleston Harbor and transferring the Federal troops from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter (which controlled entry into Charleston Harbor) in violation of prior agreement.
The Confederacy creates its own Constitution, and elects a President BEFORE Lincoln is inaugurated.
Such was their right after secession. It should be noted that Virginia was then still part of the Union.
The CSA demands the immediate surrender of Union ports in their States, southern troops seize them; no attempts of diplomacy were made by the CSA to arrive at a withdrawal without use of force.
As I said in Post 515, “The butcher’s bill of the war was therefore a monumental failure on the part of the politicians on both sides of the Potomac…”
Lincoln is inaugurated, and his entire inaugural speech is spent on reassuring the South that he does not intend to emancipate the slaves, that he wished to maintain the Union intact, and that diplomacy is the solution to secession.
That was a good start. Moving the Federal garrison from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter where they could deny entry to any ship attempting to reach Charleston was not “diplomacy”. It was waving the red cape in front of the bull.
If indeed the States had a right to secede, and a right to become a sovereign nation unto themselves, then how can you blame Lincoln for retaliating against armed attacks on American citizens and American troops by a foreign government?
Because you can’t have it both ways.
If South Carolina was considered a sovereign state at the time, then Lincoln had no business putting U.S. troops in a fort controlling the entrance to Charleston Harbor.
If Cuba had gained independence without U.S. intervention, would the Republic of Cuba have tolerated a Spanish garrison in Morro Castle controlling the entrance to the harbor of La Habana? If the Spanish Government had sent the ship Estrella del Oeste into the harbor of La Habana to bring arms and supplies to the Spanish garrison, would the Republic of Cuba have allowed the ship to deliver those supplies? With our Cuban character (not unlike the character of the American Southerner), the answer would be “Coño, claro que no!”. A more phlegmatic people may have reacted otherwise.
On the other hand, if South Carolina was considered part of the Union at the time, then Lincoln had a responsibility to try to avoid a Civil War between American citizens that ended up being the bloodiest chapter in American history.
Not a single man died during the bombardment of Fort Sumter. It could have treated as a “No harm, no foul” incident in order to spare American lives. Instead, it was used as a catalyst to a Civil War that drove Virginia into the Confederacy and resulted in the deaths of a modern day population equivalent of 5.8 million American deaths.
The politicians on BOTH sides of the Potomac failed miserably and over 600,000 Americans paid the ultimate price for that failure.
Read Article I of the Treaty of Paris.
Read Article I of the Treaty of Paris.
And, apart from the original 13 States:
Catton's "Coming Fury" captures some the wrangling between politicians.
Did England receive ambassadors from the individual states?
But I love it when there is so much hand wringing about the violation of the South's 'right' to leave the Union, while they held three million people were being held in chains and were fighting to add more.
Uh, I don't think so, B.M. Most of the southern heritage supporters here back up their arguments with historical documentation, while many of their opponents (especially yourself) rely on the ad-hominen. While their slander is tolerated by the moderators, they eventually out themselves in other ways and get banned, as the late-and-not-so-great Wlat and Modernman have. Most of you people don't even try to debate - you resort to slander. When people like yourself enter a thread, the level of discourse and the flow of debate enters the toilet.
Secondly, revisionism based on political correctness is the chief (if only) tool in the south bashers arsenal. Until left wing groups like the NAACP needed an issue, pride in southern heritage was part of Americana. It will be again. When your chief allies are mostly left wing malcontents, like Jesse Jackson Jr and his efforts to politicize civil war battlefields ("There is concern, however, about the isolated existence of these Civil War battle sites in that they are often not placed in the proper historical context."), you need to question your judgement. I would have guessed that even the most flatulent south basher would have been against making battlefields politically correct, but as the threads discussing the subject in the past have shown, they were all for it.
Lastly, there is absolutely nothing you can do about southern pride. We were here before you, and we'll be around for a long time - better get used to it.
The "bash the south movement" is nothing but a recent PC innovation by PC people.
Did you ever notice that when the left heaps praise on 'the great ones', they always and only mention Clinton, Kennedy, FDR, and LINCOLN -- the only Republican.
If I knew nothing else about Lincoln, that would disqualify him from being 'great'.
Where do you get the notion that rights must be enumerated to exist?
You show a gross ignorance of the Constitution and its purpose if you believe what you posted.
Are you a fool, and idiot, or a liar? That is the most idiotic nonsense that I've ever read.
You blather about your understanding of the Constitution, but that snippet reveals that you have no understanding whatsoever that exist in reality.
The Patriots of 1776 were not trying to overthrow King George.
And you replied:
"No, but they were trying to overthrow his government in America."
Correct me here if I am wrong.
Rather than 'overthrow' the King's rule of the Colonies, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the Colonies 'threw off' his rule because it didn't allow the freedom that the Founder's believed was our natural right as described in the DoI?
And if that's true, and what the Confederacy did was 'throw off' the concept of a Central Government that was to them as egregious as the King's, then Federal force was indeed misused. Since there was no insurrection in a secession, the Federal government had no authority to act with force to 'put down an insurrection'.
Am I thinking clearly on this?
No matter how you spin it, the so called "states rights" is just a red herring to divert attention from the fact that the civil war was fought to keep slavery from spreading out west, and to keep the union together.
If states continually left the union, chaos would ensue.
Lincoln was guided from above IMO
Lincoln was the best thing ever to happen to the south.
Sure it is. Its a vital part of the 'so are you' argument used by those who have already lost the argument. ;-)
Reviewing the platitudinous propaganda dibbled out daily by deception-DeLorenzo's delirious disciples, although pitiful & boring, it's also rather humourous, since this crowd is so self deluded into actually believing their kind can somehow force our nation's clock back to the ante bellum era of slavery plus post Civil War Jim Crow. They foolishly strive under the false banner of "heritage".
It's really beyond incredible how today's rabid neo-confederate 'lost causers' are so pathetically out of touch with reality, as evidenced in how this insignificant backward element frivolously wastes their time, plus harass others, attempting to resuscitate a dead issue, instead of focusing on the expanding current evils confronting the America of the here and now.
The neoconfederates all seem intellectually constipated.
They all need a large dose of reality laxitives to get the ______ out of their systems.
Perhaps you can, (or can't in some opinions) but those of us who had ancestors who fought for the Confederacy have factual information that you won't find in history books.
Just for your information, Texas had several hispanic regiments that fought for the Confederacy, including Col. Benevides, who served with distinction.
Thanks :) I was just about to bring up that point :)
Texas did. You can go to Austin this very day and see the former French Legation Building.
Texas retained the right of secession as part of the Treaty of Annexation.
NOT....Lincoln's Tyranny is STILL affecting us to this day.
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.