Virginians refused to take up arms against fellow Americans and are branded traitors. New England refuses to take up arms against an invading foreign nation and are hailed as patriots.
I don’t get it. New England was committing treason when they refused to answer the call to war.
“But that in no way implies that either secession or war were any more necessary in 1860 than they had been in 1820.”
Again, I contend what was possible as late as probably ‘52 or maybe ‘55 was not possible in ‘60. The crisis had been bubbling up for close to 30 years. Remember, Lincoln received the fewest percentage of votes from the American electorate of any president, before or since. He did not have any sort of mandate, especially not in the South where he didn’t even appear on the ballot.
Yes, that’s right - the president of the United States wasn’t even on a Southern Ballot. That says to me that there wasn’t one America in 1860, but 2.
Would you feel represented by a President who didn’t even campaign in PA, or in the NE corner? Who didn’t even appear on the ballot?
“the genius in our Southern Founding Generations, still strong in 1820, had utterly deserted us by 1860.”
I suggest you review Chancellorsville. 60k Confederates attacked 133k Union troops and routed them. Yes, that’s right, Lee attacked despite having half the forces and crushed a Union army twice his size.
Again - it was the Union that invaded them. They defended, and defended brilliantly. That is why it took 4 years despite 2 to 1 odds against, and having to travel scarcely 100 miles from capitol to capitol.
You’re telling me that an army twice the size couldn’t quickly win a war having to travel only 100 miles instead of taking 4 years to win it?
“had nothing to do with anything except slavery”
Then why did Lee, an American hero prior to the war insist that he was obliged to defend his state and resigned his commission? Lee was commissioned by Lincoln himself to head the entire Union army and declined.
So clearly - history shows that the war wasn’t about slavery. It was about subjugation of the South. Lee understood it, and made his decision to defend the state of Virginia, the home once of George Washington.
“Certain individuals in New England talked about secession, but no government ever declared it.”
Yet they are considered patriots. New England established that it wasn’t only proper to secede, but that it was the proper response to foreign invasion.
Why should Virginia bleed and die for such cowards and traitors?
“And when Southern states began declaring secession in 1861, Presidents Buchanan and Lincoln both responded similarly.”
Where was the foreign invasion?
“What actual historical documents show is Deep South secession to protect their “peculiar institution” of slavery, period, nothing else of significance.”
Then why doesn’t their commander mention it? Why didn’t Lincoln say so either? Lincoln was up front - the cause of the war was subjugation of the South.
The South actually says that they simply wished to govern themselves. They had no desire to rule the North. There was a president once who wrote about Self-determination.
“I personally suspect the South’s Final Alternative to Civil War”
Wow, the prophet BroJoeK has spoken.
“was an end to slavery along the lines of Germany’s WWII “Final Solution” of the Jews.”
[[citation needed]]
Of course, neither statement is true.
First, the 1814 Hartford Convention wherein secession was merely discussed not declared, soon resulted in the disgrace and destruction of the old Federalist party.
Second, Virginians in 1861 not only refused to support Lincoln's call for troops, they quickly declared secession and war on the United States!
So there's no comparison as you've suggested.
JCBreckenridge: "I contend what was possible as late as probably ‘52 or maybe ‘55 was not possible in ‘60.
The crisis had been bubbling up for close to 30 years..."
Sure, especially in the minds of Deep-South Slave Power.
They felt their "peculiar institution" under criticism as never before, and their only solution recommended by "Fire Eaters" was secession and war.
But the Union in 1860 was just as willing and eager for compromise solutions as it had been in 1820.
The difference was the Slave Power, which had moved beyond any compromises.
JCBreckenridge: "Yes, that’s right - the president of the United States wasn’t even on a Southern Ballot.
That says to me that there wasn’t one America in 1860, but 2."
Again, all this has been rehearsed many times on these threads.
Republicans -- aka "Black Republicans" -- in 1860 were the brand new anti-slavery party, which in no way ever would be allowed on Deep South ballots.
Two Southern parties weren't on some Northern ballots, and iirc, only Northern Democrats were on every ballot.
In due time, Republicans could possibly move into Border or even parts of Upper South states, but that was not yet the case in 1860.
But the key fact to remember about 1860 is that the politically dominant Democrat party engineered its own defeat, when Southern Democrats walked out of their Convention in Charleston, SC., forming a new party lead by your own namesake.
Had Democrats remained as united in 1860 as they were in 1852 and 1856, they could still have elected a president, and maintained strong coalitions in both houses.
Yes, Republican anti-slavery was gaining strength, but it did not have to mean total defeat of the Slave Power.
But once Slave Power chose self destruction, Republican victory was inevitable.
JCBreckenridge: "I suggest you review Chancellorsville. 60k Confederates attacked 133k Union troops and routed them.
Yes, that’s right, Lee attacked despite having half the forces and crushed a Union army twice his size."
Again, we have debated RE Lee's military prowess at great length, and doubtless he was one of the best.
It certainly helps that at Chancellorsville his opponent was not capably lead.
When Lee finally did face a half-worthy opponent at Gettysburg, Lee lost the battle.
And in the face of fully capable opposition (Grant) Lee lost the war.
But set all that aside as irrelevant to our current discussion, which is how the Civil War first started, and the answer is because of a severe case of political stupidity amongst the Fire-Eating Deep-South Slave-Power class.
Lee had nothing to do with all that, and indeed had recommended against their chosen course of action.
JCBreckenridge: "So clearly - history shows that the war wasn’t about slavery.
It was about subjugation of the South."
So clearly -- history shows that secession was all about protecting slavery against the perceived threat to it represented by the election of "Black Republican" President Lincoln.
War was all about the Confederacy hoping to expand its domain out of the Deep South and into the Upper South and Border States.
Confederates tried and failed.
War is hell, best not to get into it unless absolutely necessary.
JCBreckenridge on the 1814 Hartford Convention: "Yet they are considered patriots.
New England established that it wasn’t only proper to secede, but that it was the proper response to foreign invasion."
Again, as has been pointed out now several times: New England secessionists were not considered "patriots" by anybody in 1814 or later.
Just the opposite -- their secession talk disgraced and destroyed the old Federalist Party.
Democrats, of course, never have a problem with treason-trash talk, they're fine with it, and all you old Southern Democrats who now vote Republican probably miss those "good old days", right?
Sorry, but real Republicans just don't like that kind of trash-talk, FRiend -- didn't like it from Federalists, don't like it from Democrats, and sure as h*ll don't want to hear it from fellow Republicans.
Comprender?