Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: PeaRidge

Secession had no legal standing. It was merely a mask for insurrection in support of slavery. Further, the southern call for 100,000 men was in part to seize territories and border states which had not pretended to secession.

Secession was a lie. Insurrection was a continuing problem. Slavery was the goal, and the 100,000 soldiers called for the the leaders of the insurrection were enslaved as surely as any negro.


90 posted on 03/24/2012 12:11:26 AM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies ]


To: donmeaker
Slavery was the goal, and the 100,000 soldiers called for the the leaders of the insurrection were enslaved as surely as any negro.

The orignal call to arms was met with volunteers on both sides

The Conscription Act of 1862 was enacted by the Confederate Government because at that time men were needed to fight in the war. Many men had volunteered when the American Civil War began. They thought the war would be over quickly at least in time for spring planting.

92 posted on 03/24/2012 5:14:15 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies ]

To: donmeaker; PeaRidge

“Secession was a lie. Insurrection was a continuing problem. “

And where was the cradle of American secession? Well, it was among the Federalists of New England, especially those opposed to President Madison and the War of 1812:

” As early as 1804 some New England Federalists had discussed secession from the Union if the national government became too oppressive. “

“Secession was again mentioned in 1814–1815; all but one leading Federalist newspaper in New England supported a plan to expel the western states from the Union. Otis, the key leader of the Hartford Convention, blocked radical proposals like seizing the Federal customs house, impounding federal funds, or declaring neutrality. Otis thought the Madison administration was near collapse and that unless conservatives like himself and the other delegates took charge, the radical secessionists might take power. Indeed, Otis was unaware that Massachusetts Governor Caleb Strong had already sent a secret mission to discuss terms with the British for a separate peace.”

“the Madison administration had reasons to be concerned about the consequences of the Hartford Convention. Federalists were already blocking efforts to finance the war and bring it to a successful conclusion that included an invasion of Canada. There were fears that New England would negotiate a separate peace with Great Britain, an action in many ways just as harmful to the nation as actual secession. In preparing for a worst case scenario, Madison moved troops from the New York- Canadian border to Albany where they could quickly be sent to Massachusetts or Connecticut if needed to reserve federal authority. Several New England regiments that had participated in the Niagara campaign were returned home where it was hoped that they could serve as a focal point for New Englanders opposed to disunion.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartford_Convention


101 posted on 03/26/2012 10:56:56 PM PDT by Pelham (Marco Rubio, la raza trojan horse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies ]

To: donmeaker

Well, you can say all of that (and more later, I am sure) but you have no facts.

You are not one to listen to reason, so enjoy reading your post again. I won’t.


107 posted on 03/28/2012 12:28:30 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson