Posted on 05/24/2007 6:03:30 AM PDT by Rebeleye
...he was stunned to see two large Confederate flags flying from trucks...emblazoned with the words "The South Shall Rise Again." I'm stunned, too, that people still think it is cool to fly this flag. Our society should bury these flags -- not flaunt them...because the Confederate flag symbolizes racial tyranny to so many... ...This flag doesn't belong on city streets, in videos or in the middle of civil discussion. It belongs in our past -- in museums and in history books -- along with the ideas it represents.
(Excerpt) Read more at kansas.com ...
Should have pinged you to my post 1220.
President Reagan demonstrated that is precisely the action of a man that wants peace through his "Peace Thru Strength" policy regarding the Soviet Union. Being prepared for war often times insures that a war will not become necessary.
So, according to this quote... Lincoln was told that reprovisioning the fort would lead to war and he did it anyway.
After the armory was raided, Brown was unconscious (Stuart believed he was pretending to be dead), Stuart was the first to expose his identity. Later in the day, Lee asked Stuart to led some into Maryland to confiscate 1500 pikes that Brown had stashed.
The next day, Brown was questioned by Henry A. Wise and others. Stuart was there and asked Brown that after all the killings, burnings, and theft he had committed in Kansas if he did not believe the teachings of the Bible.
The following editorial quote is from the New York Day Book (NYC) as reported in the Baltimore Sun of March 7, 1861. Here is the Sun's whole section about the Day Book editorial.
The New York Day Book has put in juxtaposition, as does the Express, the seemingly contradictory passages of the inaugural, and thus translates:
"In other words, though you do not recognize me as President, I shall not molest you if you will pay taxes for the support of my government. We must have your money, that we cannot bring ourselves to decline, and if you do not let us have it peacefully, why, we shall be compelled to take it from you by force; in which case you, not we, will be the aggressors. This means coercion and civil war and nothing else."
It’s interesting to see that quote in some type of context. I have only heard the last part “in which case you, not we, will be the aggressors” most of the time to show that Lincoln desired peace.
According to Hurlbut war was coming regardles of what Lincoln did or did not do. Might as well stick to your principles.
Which is it?
I'm not changing anything. Lincoln wasn't looking for war but what choices did he have? Of course, you would say he could have surrendered Sumter. But what would that have solved? Rebel focus would have immediately switched to Fort Pickens and then Fort Jefferson until there wasn't anything left to surrender. And at that point, having seized everything they wanted, what was left for the sides to talk about and what position could the U.S. have negotiated from? If there was going to be a negotiated settlement to the situation then Lincoln had to take his stand. He wasn't about to allow the garrison in Sumter to be starved into surrender, so he chose to resupply in the least provocative manner he could. He informed Governor Pickens of his intent and left the question of war or continued status quo in their hands. They chose war. So if anyone leaped into war with a shrug of their shoulders it was the South.
Nothing to say, just stopped in to say, “hi!”
Carry on.
You didn't believe he did because he told the South that he was going to reprovision the forts and why do that if you wanted war. Now Hurlbut's statement has been introduced. Hurlbut says, he told Lincoln that if you reprovision the forts, you have a war for that is what the South wants.
Let me repeat: this is the debate.
I am not arguing whether Lincoln was right or wrong in what he did. (I have an opinion on that but don't assume you know it... I just don't want it to get in the way of the true debate we are having) I am not arguing choices, etc.
In the light of both Lamon and Hurlbut's statements, and what he was told by commissioners, governors, etc., and what he read in both northern and southern newspapers... did he know that his actions would bring about a war?
If the answer is yes than my argument stands...The South was itching for a fight, and Lincoln gave it to them. If the answer is no than Lincoln was the stupidest man to ever occupy the White House for he could not properly discern the signs of the time.
The rest of your post is not germane to the debate we are having.
Abel P. Upshur listed the speech as occurring in 1854. What was interesting at all was that Chase believed (rightly so) that the states possessed powers superior to the federal government (the agent of the states).
OK, then let's tackle the question directly. Did he know he would start a war? I don't know for sure and neither do you. My belief is that he feared he might but that he hoped that he would not. And I base this on the fact that, knowing he had no choice but to resupply Sumter, he chose the least provocative method of doing it. He made his intentions clear to the authorities in Charleston and basically left the question of peace or war in their hands. He could have tried to sneak into Charleston and land supplies. He could have set out from the beginning to land munitions, reinforcements, and supplies under the guns of a fleet. Instead he chose the way designed to maintain the status quo. Looking back from inauguration through the opening of the war, not one of Lincolns actions could be considered provocation except for the fact that he refused to surrender to Southern demands. If that is wanting war, well then you are welcome to your defintiion.
By decreasing their standard of living.
How does a tariff hurt a subsistence farmer in the South more than it does one in the North?
See above.
When the topic is the socioeconomic makeup of the South, we hear that the vast majority of the population was dirt farmers with no stake in slavery.
Much of the North, South and the rest of the world depended on slavery.
When the Confederate army is discussed we hear that almost all reb soldiers were not slave owners.
True.
Yet when the tariff is discussed, "the South" becomes a land that was 100% populated with plantation owners growing cash crops who would be hurt by a tariff.
Wrong. Economics is not a difficult subject.
The regular Democrats had a little more moderation in their platform, but it was still dominated by slavery with a call for a railroad. No concern over tariffs expressed by the Douglas Democrats
You are right about the Republicans openly supporting tariffs, but even in their platform the subject takes a minor place compared to the slavery issue.
Here's the link where you can find all the party platforms over the years:
I just can't find a great Southern concern about tariffs in 1860 except as an after the fact justification for rebellion. Yet more evidence that from the Confederate side, the war was all about slavery.
What is even more interesting is that in this case the Southern states, to a man, would have denied that the states had such rights. Chase was talking about the right of the states to establish their own laws and court proceedings, including the right to require a writ of habeas corpus in fugitive slave cases. What Chase said was, "We have a right to have our state laws obeyed. We don't mean to resist federal authority. Just or unjust laws properly administered will be respected. If dissatisfied we will go to the ballot box and redress our wrongs. But we have rights which the federal government must not invade, rights superior to its power, on which our sovereignty depends; and we do mean to assert these rights against all tyrannical assumption of authority. I know not what will be done in Champaign County. The courts will determine that. But I do know that if the marshals who violated our laws are indicted and the writs for their arrests are placed in the hands of our state officials they shall be executed. And we expect the federal government to submit."
Abide by unjust, but valid laws? Rely on the ballot box? Work through the courts? Chase may have echoed some - some - of the arguements of the Southern leaders but note how his choices for redress differed. Law vs. rebellion.
The Secret Six aren't very secret. They were Thomas Wentworth Higginson, George Luther Stearns, Gerrit Smith, Samuel Howe, Franklin Sanborn, and Theodore Parker. All wealthy abolitionists. Samuel Howe was married to Julia Ward Howe.
By decreasing their standard of living.
I may be wrong, but I believe that by definition a subsistence farmer, which much of the country was in 1860, is pretty well insulated from the market. Especially in the cash poor South. There would a small investment in the simple farm equipment of the day, but he's not going to buy many manufactured goods, especially from the North. They grew their own food, produced their own clothing, but had no stake one way or the other over the economic issues that concerned the cash crop producers. I've seen a copy of my North Georgia great great great grandfathers' will of 1859 and there's not much there that wasn't produced locally.
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.