Posted on 06/12/2003 5:58:28 AM PDT by Aurelius
Over the years I've heard many rail at the South for seceding from the 'glorious Union.' They claim that Jeff Davis and all Southerners were really nothing but traitors - and some of these people were born and raised in the South and should know better, but don't, thanks to their government school 'education.'
Frank Conner, in his excellent book The South Under Siege 1830-2000 deals in some detail with the question of Davis' alleged 'treason.' In referring to the Northern leaders he noted: "They believed the most logical means of justifying the North's war would be to have the federal government convict Davis of treason against the United States. Such a conviction must presuppose that the Confederate States could not have seceded from the Union; so convicting Davis would validate the war and make it morally legitimate."
Although this was the way the federal government planned to proceed, that prolific South-hater, Thaddeus Stevens, couldn't keep his mouth shut and he let the cat out of the bag. Stevens said: "The Southerners should be treated as a conquered alien enemy...This can be done without violence to the established principles only on the theory that the Southern states were severed from the Union and were an independent government de facto and an alien enemy to be dealt with according to the laws of war...No reform can be effected in the Southern States if they have never left the Union..." And, although he did not plainly say it, what Stevens really desired was that the Christian culture of the Old South be 'reformed' into something more compatible with his beliefs. No matter how you look at it, the feds tried to have it both ways - they claimed the South was in rebellion and had never been out of the Union, but then it had to do certain things to 'get back' into the Union it had never been out of. Strange, is it not, that the 'history' books never seem to pick up on this?
At any rate, the Northern government prepared to try President Davis for treason while it had him in prison. Mr. Conner has observed that: "The War Department presented its evidence for a treason trial against Davis to a famed jurist, Francis Lieber, for his analysis. Lieber pronounced 'Davis will not be found guilty and we shall stand there completely beaten'." According to Mr. Conner, U.S. Attorney General James Speed appointed a renowned attorney, John J. Clifford, as his chief prosecutor. Clifford, after studying the government's evidence against Davis, withdrew from the case. He said he had 'grave doubts' about it. Not to be undone, Speed then appointed Richard Henry Dana, a prominent maritime lawyer, to the case. Mr. Dana also withdrew. He said basically, that as long as the North had won a military victory over the South, they should just be satisfied with that. In other words - "you won the war, boys, so don't push your luck beyond that."
Mr. Conner tells us that: "In 1866 President Johnson appointed a new U.S. attorney general, Henry Stanburg. But Stanburg wouldn't touch the case either. Thus had spoken the North's best and brightest jurists re the legitimacy of the War of Northern Aggression - even though the Jefferson Davis case offered blinding fame to the prosecutor who could prove that the South had seceded unconstitutionally." None of these bright lights from the North would touch this case with a ten-foot pole. It's not that they were dumb, in fact the reverse is true. These men knew a dead horse when they saw it and were not about to climb aboard and attempt to ride it across the treacherous stream of illegal secession. They knew better. In fact, a Northerner from New York, Charles O'Connor, became the legal counsel for Jeff Davis - without charge. That, plus the celebrity jurists from the North that refused to touch the case, told the federal government that they really had no case against Davis or secession and that Davis was merely being held as a political prisoner.
Author Richard Street, writing in The Civil War back in the 1950s said exactly the same thing. Referring to Jeff Davis, Street wrote: "He was imprisoned after the war, was never brought to trial. The North didn't dare give him a trial, knowing that a trial would establish that secession was not unconstitutional, that there had been no 'rebellion' and that the South had got a raw deal." At one point the government intimated that it would be willing to offer Davis a pardon, should he ask for one. Davis refused that and he demanded that the government either give him a pardon or give him a trial, or admit that they had dealt unjustly with him. Mr. Street said: "He died 'unpardoned' by a government that was leery of giving him a public hearing." If Davis was as guilty as they claimed, why no trial???
Had the federal government had any possible chance to convict Davis and therefore declare secession unconstitutional they would have done so in a New York minute. The fact that they diddled around and finally released him without benefit of the trial he wanted proves that the North had no real case against secession. Over 600,000 boys, both North and South, were killed or maimed so the North could fight a war of conquest over something that the South did that was neither illegal or wrong. Yet they claim the moral high ground because the 'freed' the slaves, a farce at best.
Hey, I'm talking Liberal History. Traditional history is boring compared to Liberal History. You have to learn to appreciate the poetic symmetry Farber created. He only moved the date a couple of days and just think of how many Libs can now have a warm, fuzzy feeling.
Walt has repeatedly quoted this source, so it must be authoritative. I was thinking of stipulating everything in the book is accurate and proving John Wilkes Booth was an innocent man, wrongly accused. Based on Farber's research, I can show that Booth did not get to the theater until days after Lincoln was already dead.
LOL! That's exactly it. Real history does not matter to these people. It's all about the soundbyte. Same goes for Partisan's book. All the documentation in the world of Lincoln's bigotry, or Stephens' gambling habit, or Ingersoll's atheism, or the Grant Administration's corruption is not enough so long as it may be responded to with a poetically interesting but largely irrelevant anecdote. Nor does it matter if that anecdote is told with errors of its own, or if it is an apocryphal story that in fact never happened.
It's always about sounding good and invoking a warm and fuzzy feeling. Also it seems that stories about unnamed black people walking up to yankee politicians on the street and kissing their rings etc, even if apocryphal, are especially good at bringing about that feeling cause Partisan's book and posts are loaded with those.
On April 4, 1861, Lincoln approved the expedition to Fort Sumter. Unless attacked, the task force was only supposed to carry supplies to the fort. If the supply boats were attacked, however, the ships would return fire and attempt to land additional troops at Sumter. Thus, Lincoln sent troops into a possible combat situation without prior congressional approval. On April 6, he sent a messenger to inform the South Carolina governor that an "attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumter with provisions only; and that, if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition, will be made without further notice," unless the fort was attacked. Apart from outright surrender, this was the least confrontational course open to Lincoln, but he could not have been surprised at the violent southern reaction.Lincoln's Constitution, Daniel Farber, 2003, p. 116
CONVENTIONAL HISTORY
March 28, 1861 the Senate adjourned.
The next day, Lincoln got busy initiating a war.
Lincoln did not fail to obtain Congressional approval because Congress was not in session, he waited until Congress adjourned and then he commenced to initiate a war.
March 29, 1861
To the Secretary of the Navy
I desire that an expedition, to move by sea be go ready to sail as early as the 6th of April next, the whole according to memorandum attached: and that you co-operate with the Secretary of War for that object.
Signed: Abraham Lincoln
The memorandum attached called for:
From the Navy, three ships of war, the Pocahontas, the Pawnee and the Harriet Lane; and 300 seamen, and one month's stores.
From the War Department, 200 men, ready to leave garrison; and one year's stores.
April 1, 1861 by General Scott
April 2, 1861 approved by Abraham Lincoln
To: Brevet Colonel Harvey Brown, U.S. Army
You have been designated to take command of an expedition to reinforce and hold Fort Pickens in the harbor of Pensacola. You will proceed to New York where steam transportation for four companies will be engaged; -- and putting on board such supplies as you can ship without delay proceed at once to your destination. The object and destination of this expedition will be communicated to no one to whom it is not already known.
Signed: Winfield Scott
Signed approved: Abraham Lincoln
April 4, 1861
To: Lieut. Col. H.L. Scott, Aide de Camp
This will be handed to you by Captain G.V. Fox, an ex-officer of the Navy. He is charged by authority here, with the command of an expedition (under cover of certain ships of war) whose object is, to reinforce Fort Sumter.
To embark with Captain Fox, you will cause a detachment of recruits, say about 200, to be immediately organized at fort Columbus, with competent number of officers, arms, ammunition, and subsistence, with other necessaries needed for the augmented garrison at Fort Sumter.
Signed: Winfield Scott
April 1, 1861
To Captain H.A. Adams
Commanding Naval Forces off Pensacola
Herewith I send you a copy of an order received by me last night. You will see by it that I am directed to land my command at the earliest opportunity. I have therefore to request that you will place at my disposal such boats and other means as will enable me to carry into effect the enclosed order.
Signed: I. Vogdes, Capt. 1st Artly. Comdg.
Captain Adams REFUSED TO OBEY THE ORDER and reported to the Secretary of the Navy as follows:
It would be considered not only a declaration but an act of war; and would be resisted to the utmost.
Both sides are faithfully observing the agreement (armistice) entered into by the United States Government and Mr. Mallory and Colonel Chase, which binds us not to reinforce Fort Pickens unless it shall be attacked or threatened. It binds them not to attack it unless we should attempt to reinforce it.
The Secretary of the Navy issued a CLASSIFIED response to Capt. Adams:
April 6, 1861
Your dispatch of April 1st is received. The Department regrets that you did not comply with the request of Capt. Vogdes. You will immediately on the first favorable opportunity after receipt of this order, afford every facility to Capt. Vogdes to enable him to land the troops under his command, it being the wish and intention of the Navy Department to co-operate with the War Department, in that object.
Signed: Gideon Welles, Secty. of the Navy
April 11, 1861 (USS Brooklyn, official ship's log)
"April 11th at 9 P.M. the Brooklyn got under way and stood in toward the harbor; and during the night landed troops and marines on board, to reinforce Fort Pickens."
April 1, 1861 To: Lt. D.D. Porter, USN
You will proceed to New York and with least possible delay assume command of any steamer available.
Proceed to Pensacola Harbor, and, at any cost or risk, prevent any expedition from the main land reaching Fort Pickens, or Santa Rosa.
You will exhibit this order to any Naval Officer at Pensacola, if you deem it necessary, after you have established yourself within the harbor.
This order, its object, and your destination will be communicated to no person whatever, until you reach the harbor of Pensacola.
Signed: Abraham Lincoln
Recommended signed: Wm. H. Seward
April 1, 1861
Telegram
To: Commandant, Brooklyn Navy Yard
Fit out Powhatan to go to sea at the earliest possible moment, under sealed orders. Orders by confidential messenger go forward tomorrow.
Signed: Abraham Lincoln
April 1, 1861
To: Commandant, Brooklyn Navy Yard
You will fit out the Powhatan without delay. Lieutenant Porter will relieve Captain Mercer in command of her. She is bound on secret service; and you will under no circumstances communicate to the Navy Department the fact that she is fitting out.
Signed: Abraham Lincoln
The Secretary of the Navy was unaware that President Lincoln had relieved Captain Mercer and was "borrowing" the Powhatan. It was a real secret mission.
April 1, 1861
Telegram
To: Commandant, Brooklyn Navy Yard
Fit out Powhatan to go to sea at earliest possible moment.
April 5, 1861
To: Captain Mercer, Commanding Officer, USS Powhatan
The U.S. Steamers, Powhatan, Pawnee, Pocahontas, and Harriet Lane, will compose a naval force under your command, to be sent to the vicinity of Charleston, S.C., for the purpose of aiding in carrying out the object of an expedition of which the war Department has charge. The expedition has been intrusted to Captain G.V. Fox.
You will leave New York with the Powhatan in time to be off Charleston bar, 10 miles distant from and due east of the light house on the morning of the 11th instant, there to await the arrival of the transports with troops and stores. The Pawnee and Pocahontas will be ordered to join you there, at the time mentioned, and also the Harriet Lane, etc.
Signed: Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy
April 6, 1861
Lt. Porter took the Powhatan and sailed.
Seward sent a telegram to Porter: "Give the Powhatan up to Captain Mercer."
A dispatch boat caught up with Powhatan and delivered Seward's message.
Lt. Porter responded to Seward: "I received my orders from the President, and shall proceed and execute them.
Before leaving, Lt. Porter instructed the Navy Yard officials, "Detain all letters for five days."
Storms and boiler problems delayed Powhatan, but she arrived disguised and flying English colors.
Porter filed this report:
I had disguised the ship, so that she deceived those who had known her, and was standing in (unnoticed), when the Wyandotte commenced making signals, which I did not answer, but stood on.
The steamer then put herself in my way and Captain Meigs, who was aboard, hailed me and I stopped.
In twenty minutes more I should have been inside (Pensacola harbor) or sunk.
Signed: D.D. Porter
Crochity old man, huh?
I notice you seem to be free to post during normal working hours. Do you have a government job?
Nope, Thursday was just a day off. Well, Peeshwank, it's been a pleasure as always.
many were property owners;many were slaveowners as well (nobody wants to talk about that uncomfortable fact.).
public attitude in the north was MUCH more hostile to freed blacks than it was in any southern state. furthermore, we southerns have NEVER been hostile to Jews, Roman Catholics & other minorities, as is STILL common up north.
free dixie,sw
Sectionalism and "state's rights" are certainly major issues, and you have in past posts brought up the issue of economics and tariffs. Stephen A. douglas's concept of "popular sovereignty" in the territories also caused a great deal of soutehrn consternation.
The big issue, if you had to name just one, would have been "state's rights." This problem cropped up constantly from the 1820's to the 1860's. (In a sense, it is still an issue today - but dealing with other matters). "State's rights" was a code word for nullification and the continuation of slavery. It had less to do with the States' relationship with the Federal government, than it did with the political balance of power. The southern stats could do the arithmatic. The old North's population was growing faster than that of the old South. The new West and Plains states and territories were predominantly free territory. The balance of power on the abolition-related issues had already passed away from the South in the House. However, the Southern Senators, with the help if border-state and sympathetic Northern Senators had been able to hold the line on legislation the the South felt threatening. Thus, legilation such as the Compromise of 1850 and the Kansas-nebraska Act of 1854, could only move forward with Southern participation. And, the South had a majority in the US Supreme court (as in the Dred Scott decision).
When the South felt politically marginalized, the issue of "State's right" came again to the forefront. When that wedge issue lost its effectiveness, the South chose the course of secession.
SOME of what you posted MAY be true, but the majority is NOT. the portion that MAY be true is a part of the lust for LIBERTY for southerners.
free dixie,sw
Therein lies the crux of the matter. It is interesting that you will not find the words "slave" or "slavery" in the text of the original Constitution.
The "Sectional Compromise of 1790" established the legal basis for the continuation of slavery. The compromise was the work of Madison and Jefferson. They wished to establish a precedent that clarified the power Congress had in regulating slavery. A congression committee met and reported out seven resolutions discussing the issue.
The following comes from "Founding Brothers" by historian Joseph Ellis:
"The committee report consisted of seven resolutions that addressed this salient point: What are "the powers vested in congress, under the present constitution, related to the abolition of slavery?" The first resolution was designed to appease the Deep south by confirming that the Constitution prohibited any federal legislation limiting or ending the slave trade until 1808. the fourth was a gesture toward northern interests, authorizing Congress to levy a tax on slave imports designed to discourage the practice withoout prohibiting it. The seventh was a nod to the Quaker petitioners (note: two groups of Pensylvania Quakers had petitioned Congress to abolish slavery in the entire county), declaring that "in all cases, to which the authority of Congress extends, they will exercise it for the humane objects of the memorialists, so far as they can be promoted on the principles of justice, humanity, and good policy."
The key to the slavery issue, however, was found in the second resolution, which read: "That Congress. bu a fair construction of the Constitution, are equally restrained from interfering with the emancipation of slaves, who already are, or who may, within the period mentioned, be imported into, or born within any of the said States."
Ellis continues: "This was the key provision. In keeping with the compromise character of the committee report, it gave the Deep south the protection it had demandedby denying congressional authority to pass any gradual empancipation legislation. But it also set a chronological limit to this moratorium. The prohibition was to only last "within the period mentioned" - that is, until 1808."
It is fair, then, to say, after 1808, slavery was less a Constitutional issue than it was a political issue.
It is fair, then, to say, after 1808, slavery was less a Constitutional issue than it was a political issue.
I believe Ellis is not quite accurate there.
Article 5 states in relevant part, "Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article."
There would still be no congressional authority to pass any gradual emancipation legislation. It would require a Constitutional Amendment after 1808.
Right answer. There were, in fact, more free blacks in the Union states than there were in the confederate states. Plus the free black population in almost all Northern states was growing. I states like Alabama and Arkansas it actually declined between 1850 and 1860.
public attitude in the north was MUCH more hostile to freed blacks than it was in any southern state. furthermore, we southerns have NEVER been hostile to Jews, Roman Catholics & other minorities, as is STILL common up north.
Bull...manure.
when we go north, there are MANY places where she is NOT welcome in the NE. Boston for one.
sorry, but that's FACT.
free dixie,sw
LA GRANGE, TENN., November 9, 1862.
Major-General HURLBUT, Jackson, Tenn.:
Refuse all permits to come south of Jackson for the present. The Israelites especially should be kept out.
What troops have you now, exclusive of Stevenson's brigade?
U. S. GRANT,
Major-General.
LA GRANGE, November 10, 1862.
General WEBSTER, Jackson, Tenn.:
Give orders to all the conductors on the road that no Jews are to be permitted to travel on the railroad southward from any point. They may go north and be encouraged in it; but they are such an intolerable nuisance that the department must be purged of them.
U. S. GRANT,
Major-General.
GENERAL ORDERS,
HDQRS. 13TH A. C., DEPT. OF THE TENN.,
Numbers 11.
Holly Springs, December 17, 1862.
The Jews, as a class violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department and also department orders, are hereby expelled from the department within twenty-four hours from the receipt of this order.
Post commanders will see that all of this class of people be furnished passes and required to leave, and any one returning after such notification will be arrested and held in confinement until an opportunity occurs of sending them out as prisoners, unless furnished with permit from headquarters.
No passes will be given these people to visit headquarters for the purpose of making personal application for trade permits.
By order of Major General U. S. Grant:
JNO. A. RAWLINS,
Assistant Adjutant-General.
HDQRS. THIRTEENTH A. C., DEPT. OF THE TENN.,
Oxford, Miss., December 17, 1862.
Honorable C. P. WOLCOTT,
Assistant Secretary of War, Washington, D. C.:
I have long since believed that in spite of all the vigilance that can be infused into post commanders, the spice regulations of the Treasury Department have been violated, and that mostly by Jews and other unprincipled traders. So well satisfied have I been of this that I instructed the commanding officer at Columbus to refuse all permits to Jews to come South, and I have frequently had them expelled from the
department, but they come in with their carpet-sacks in spite of all that can be done to prevent it. The Jews seem to be a privileged class that can travel everywhere. They will land any wood-yard on the river and make their way through the country. If not permitted to buy cotton themselves they will act as agents for some one else, who will be at military post with a Treasury permit to to receive cotton and pay for it in Treasury notes which the Jew will buy up at an agreed rate, paying gold.
There is but one way that I know that I know of to reach this case; that is, for Government to buy all the cotton at a fixed rate and sent it to Cairo, Saint Louis, or some other point to be sold. Then all traders (they are a curse to the army) might be expelled.
U. S. GRANT,
Major-General.
Washington,
January 21, 1863.
Major-General GRANT,
Memphis:
GENERAL: The President has directed that so much of Arkansas as you may desire to control be temporarily attached to your department. This will give you control of both banks of the river.
In your operations down the Mississippi you must not rely too confidently upon any direct co-operation of General Banks and the lower flotilla, as it is possible that they may not be able to pass or reduce Port Hudson. They, however, will do everything in their power to form a junction with you at Vicksburg. If they should not be able to effect this, they will at least occupy a portion of the enemy's forces and prevent them from re-enforcing Vicksburg. I hope, however, that they will do still better and be able to join you.
It may be proper to give you some explanation of the revocation of your order expelling all Jews from your department. The President has no objection to your expelling traitors and Jew peddlers, which, I suppose, was the object of your order; but, as it in terms proscribed an entire religious class, some of whom are fighting in our ranks, the President deemed it necessary to revoke it.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
H. W. HALLECK,
General-in-Chief.
free dixie,sw
Provide a quote or link for any reputable source which alleges Bennett is, or ever has been, a "notorious Black separatist."
Sure.
How about Lentulusgracchus, the person who actually said it to you? 1913
After you disagreed with him using some of your patented bullshit , I responded to him in rare agreement , making a short citation wherein Lerone Bennett Jr. credits the founding fathers with inventing racism.
Now, if you have a problem with Lerone Bennett Jr. being charecterized as a notorious black separtist, I'd suggest you take it up with LG.
Otherwise, persist in defending Lerone Bennett Jr. as NOT being a known black liberation theorist, and leftwing revisonist historian on this forum, and I'm going to make you look like a bigger fool than Dennis Kucinich.
AWARDS
Book of the Year Award from Capital Press Club, 1963; Patron Saints Award from Society of Midland Authors, 1965; Literature Award from American Academy of Arts and Letters, 1978; honorary degrees from Morehouse College, Wilberforce University, Marquette University, Voorhees College, Morgan State University, University of Illinois, Lincoln College, and Dillard University.
WTF t is this bullshit from AFRICANPUBs.com?
Are you Lerone Bennett Jr's publicity agent?
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.