Posted on 06/13/2003 6:22:01 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
Davies reports that his men took "320 white prisoners and an equal number of colored teamsters." He was mistaken in identifying them as teamsters though, as the unit they captured was Turner's Richmond Brigade - the blacks that had been mustered into the army on March 23rd in Richmond.
Pull up the following link and you can see it: http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/gifcache/moa/waro/waro0095/01167.TIF6.gif
You obviously have issues. Maybe you should seek some form of professional help.
May I suggest Nullifiers Anonymous?
Wait just a minute there, buddy. I just spent MY time searching through the 100 volume Official Records set for the documents YOU requested. I did so out of professional courtesy and in recognition of my own obligation to provide documentation for my claims upon the request of others. I normally do not mind doing so even if it takes a little time as this one did.
In this particular case, the documentation I have provided directly contradicts several statements you have made on this thread and others. But rather than act like an adult by conceding your error and correcting what you say in the future, you not only persist in the same old debunked lie but now you shoot your mouth off with statements such as the above. Behavior such as that is rude and unprofessional for any historian, as you profess yourself to be. I expect it from Walt and mac_truck, and I expect it from some of the rabid south bashers who appear from time to time on this forum, but for some reason thought that you were more civilized than that. Yet here you are, staring in the face of incontrovertable evidence that shows you were wrong. So what do you do? Out of an obvious case of frustration you respond by telling me off and ignoring the evidence I have provided you at your own request! Sorry to bear the bad news, Partisan, but you hurt your credibility and reputation as an historian with stunts such as these.
I don't think one can unequivocally assert that states or individuals wanted or counted on a right of unilateral state secession when they ratified the Constitution. Perhaps some did, at least for their own states. Others who wanted the right of secession didn't see it, and therefore opposed ratification. But Virginians and others might well have thought twice about Westerners assuming a right to secession and taking the lands that they had fought for out of the union, and out from under the debt obligations that were incurred in winning those lands.
One can't generalize from Jefferson's comment in a private letter to how Virginians would have reacted to the possibility of Western secession, had it been brought up earlier or later. The predictions of genteel liberals have often proven to be false, and their prescriptions vain and unheeded. It's not clear that Jefferson spoke for anyone but himself in his letter, and maybe not even that. In writing to Breckenridge, a Westerner, Jefferson expresses some sympathy with Western independence, especially if it's directed against the "Eastern states," by which he usually meant New England, his great enemy. If Western self-assertion involved a revolt against Jefferson's own administration, his response may have been different, as his decisive actions against Burr's conspiracy suggest.
Here's Jefferson writing to his fellow Virginian Madison in 1787:
I feel very differently at another piece of intelligence, to wit, the possibility that the navigation of the Mississippi may be abandoned to Spain. I never had any interest Westward of the Alleghaney; & I never will have any. But I have had great opportunities of knowing the character of the people who inhabit that country. And I will venture to say that the act which abandons the navigation of the Mississippi is an act of separation between the Eastern & Western country. It is a relinquishment of five parts out of eight of the territory of the United States, an abandonment of the fairest subject for the paiment of our public debts, & the chaining those debts on our own necks in perpetuum. I have the utmost confidence in the honest intentions of those who concur in this measure; but I lament their want of acquaintance with the character & physical advantages of the people who, right or wrong, will suppose their interests sacrificed on this occasion to the contrary interests of that part of the confederacy in possession of present power. If they declare themselves a separate people, we are incapable of a single effort to retain them. Our citizens can never be induced, either as militia or as souldiers, to go there to cut the throats of their own brothers & sons, or rather to be themselves the subjects instead of the perpetrators of the parricide. Nor would that country requite the cost of being retained against the will of it's inhabitants, could it be done. But it cannot be done. They are able already to rescue the navigation of the Mississippi out of the hands of Spain, & to add New Orleans to their own territory. They will be joined by the inhabitants of Louisiana. This will bring on a war between them & Spain; and that will produce the question with us whether it will not be worth our while to become parties with them in the war, in order to reunite them with us, & thus correct our error? & were I to permit my forebodings to go one step further, I should predict that the inhabitants of the U S would force their rulers to take the affirmative of that question. I wish I may be mistaken in all these opinions.
I don't know the specifics of what Jefferson was writing about, but he does express the Virginian concern that the land that they had once claimed and had won from the English should be used to pay off the expenses of the revolution, and not allowed to drift away from the rest of the country. He doubted the practicality and desirability of using troops to keep the territories in the union against their will, but it's clear that keeping them in the US was very much on Jefferson's mind at this point. In this I'd say he spoke for most Virginians and most Americans, whatever his later, more abstract speculations were. More passionate and less philosophical souls might well have taken up arms if Western secession had meant "the chaining those debts on our own necks in perpetuum." In both letters, Jefferson is looking into the future, but in the Breckenridge letter he is more of a pure visionary, while in the Madison letter, he is very much concerned with hard-headed practical matters, such as national defense, international commerce, and government finances -- the kind of considerations that influence all realistic political leaders.
As is the case with all statements about the dissolution of the union, one has to distinguish between dissolution by mutual agreement and constitutional procedures, and rash, unilateral acts of rebellion. The former were regrettable, even tragic, but would have been acceptable to most of the Founders, the latter -- not. Jefferson would not have objected to the former, or to a justified rebellion against tyrants. How he would have reacted to a unilateral revolt against a constitutional and popularly elected government is a very different matter.
Walt, we agree about something. The Constitution protected the institution of slavery. At one time slavery was legal. Let me quickly add that it was always wrong, indefensible, and morally repugnant.
I have provided a review of pertinent sections of the Constitution, and Lincoln's comments from his First Inaugural Address.
As the Constitution protected slavery, does it not logically follow that to uphold the Constitution as it existed would have required Lincoln to have upheld the protected right of slavery?
Assume the Union army had crushed the Confederates prior to issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation. Would that not have defeated the alleged purpose of war? It would seem that the institution would have then continued to be Constitutionally protected.
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. ...
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
[see Article 5, below]
Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
Article 5
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; 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; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
LINCOLN FIRST INAUGURAL ADDRESS
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
. . .
There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions: No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law.
. . .
I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution-which amendment, however, I have not seen-has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
. . .
The Slavery Amendment cited by Lincoln
In 1861, an amendment prohibiting the Congress from making any law interfering with the domestic institutions of any State was proposed and sent to the states. The amendment apparently was ratified by two states, the last being in 1862.
The text:
No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.
President Lincoln -did- protect the right of slavery. He anulled General Hunter's and General Butler's early emancipation efforts. He held to that policy for about 18 months. This is all well known.
"You dislike the emancipation proclamation; and perhaps, would have it retracted. You say it is unconstitutional--I think differently. I think the Constitution invests the commander in chief with the law of war, in time of war. The most that can be said, if so much, is, that slaves are property. Is there--has there ever been--any question that by the law of war, property, both of enemies and friends, may be taken when needed? And is it not needed whenever taking it helps us, or hurts the enemy?"
-- Letter to James Conkling
The rebels exposed themselves to the war power of the president. And they lost their property.
Your very deep analysis is of something well known for almost 140 years.
Walt
Where do you read that?
Certainly not in the United States Constitution.
Article [IX.]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Article [X.]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
You werent tyrying to mislead people were you?
The sovereignty of the United States rests not on the people "of the several states", but on the people of the whole United States. See "Martin vs Hunter's Lessee (1816)
Walt Walt
President Lincon was fairly elected by rules agreed to by all.
"And this issue embraces more than the fact of these United States. It presents to the whole family of man, the question, whether a constitutional republic, or a democracy--a government of the people, by the same people--can or cannot, maintain its territorial integtrity against its own domestic foes. It presents the question, whether discontented individuals, too few in numbers to control administration, accroding to organic law, in any case, can always, upon the pretenses made in this case, or on any other pretenses, or arbitrarily, without any pretense, break up their government, and thus practically put an end to free government upon the earth. It forces us to ask: "Is there in all republics, this inherent, and fatal weakness?" "Must a government, of neccessity, be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existance?"
A. Lincoln, 7/4/61
What President Lincoln and the loyal Union men did was for all time, and all people.
Walt
The statement made in this exceable article was still wrong. The rebel government did not free the slaves and under confederate law had no power to do so.
Walt
No more so than the American *revolutionaries* of the 1770 were trying to overthrow the British crown government and take over Great Britain to rule as an American colony.
That's right. The two situations, as far as the law goes, are very similar.
What is not similar is that the rebels of 1776 had a moral basis to their revolution; the rebels of 1860-61 had none.
Walt
One of the problems that the rebels would have had if they really had fielded black units is that the white soldiers didn't want them around.
"I think that the proposition to make soldiers of our slaves is the most pernicious idea that has been suggested since the war began. . . You cannot make soldiers of slaves or slaves of soldiers. . . The day you make soldiers of them is the beginnign of the end of the revolution. If slaves make good soldiers, our whole theory of slavery is wrong."
- Howell Cobb
"Mr. Wickham, of Virginia, moved the indefinite postponement of the bill. He was opposed to its going to a select committee. If it went to any committee it should go, in the regular channel, to the Committee on Military Affairs. He wished, however, this question of arming and making soldiers of negroes to be now disposed of, finally and forever. He wished it to be decided whether negroes are to be placed upon an equality by the side of our brave soldiers. They would be compelled to. They would have to camp and bivouac together.
Mr. Wickham said that our brave soldiers, who have fought so long and nobly, would not stand to be thus placed side by side with negro soldiers. He was opposed to such a measure. The day that such a bill passed Congress sounds the death knell of this Confederacy. The very moment an order goes forth from the War Department authorizing the arming and organizing of negro soldiers there was an eternal end to this struggle."
-- minutes of the rebel congress, 2/10/65
Walt
What happened then? Did they just drop off the face of the earth?
The word "companies" implies organization. Who were the company commanders? Ten companies made up a typical ACW era regiment. What regiment was formed from these companies.
There were no more than a handful of black rebel soldiers and no organized units until the last weeks of the war. And that was an act of desperation only.
Walt
Would you agree with this statement?
"This sad little lizard told me that he was a brontosaurus on his mother's side. I did not laugh; people who boast of ancestry often have little else to sustain them. Humouring them costs nothing and adds to happiness in a world in which happiness is always in short supply."
-- Robert A. Heinlein
Should we humor you?
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.