The Original Secessionists

the tea party tribune ^ | 2/18/12 | jim funkhouser

[HMS Surprise]

There is nothing more irritating to a warrior-poet than an unwillingness to debate. If speech is troubling, or blatantly false, or amateurish, then it will fall of its own weight. I don’t need, and I suspect a majority of truthseekers don’t want, an administrator hovering above the public forum deciding which issues are too controversial for polite company.

The Civil War has become untouchable, unless you agree with the standard arguments. 1. Lincoln was a god among men. 2. The South was evil. 3. Union is the ultimate goal of the American experiment. 4. The Federal government’s design trumps the rights of the People, and the States. 5. Political bands are eternal, and must be preserved at all costs. 6. The ends justify the means.

The arguments for the necessity of the War between the States are considered unassailable, and I have noticed lately that the political-correctness has reached such a high level that even purportedly conservative blogs are beginning to remove threads that stray into pro-rebellion territory.

I understand the temptation to ignore this issue for political expediency, but the goal of individual liberty (personal freedom), as well as State sovereignty (political freedom), can never be accomplished unless we acknowledge and understand that the Civil War planted the seeds of the eventual unconstitutional federal takeover of every aspect of American life.

Some basics that are undeniable, albiet censorable, follows.

[KrisKrinkle]

“Perhaps you should have your tracks checked.”

That contributes nothing to the discussion.

“LOL! Don’t tell me you haven’t ever heard of irreconcilable differences.”

Don’t tell me you’ve never heard of “Till death do us part.”
What about “in sickness and in health”? What about “Forsaking all others”. Or maybe it’s just that if the contract can be broken at will, the terms don’t really matter.

As to “irreconcilable differences”, that’s a cultural/societal thing. In our larger society you can end a marriage due to irreconcilable differences, but you can’t necessarily just unilaterally leave it, not legally anyway. The other party may be due a penalty or a share of the goods, and the legal nits have to be taken care of. A lot depends on the law of the State you’re in.

[MamaTexan]

That contributes nothing to the discussion.

Since your only contribution to the discussion has been to tell me how wrong I am.....

consider us even.

-----

Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States, would bind the minority; in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes; or by considering the will of a majority of the States, as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules has been adopted. Each State in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation then the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal and not a national Constitution.
Federalist, no. 39,James Madison, 16 Jan. 1788

[Zionist Conspirator]

It's especially rankling when the lovers of localism and decentralism turn right around and idolize Francisco Franco, Antonio Salazar, George Papadopoulos, Rafael Trujillo, and Chiang Kai-shek--men who ruled highly centralized regimes and who would never have allowed any locality to secede from their regimes.

Did you pull that out of your arse? Reference?

I pulled it out of four years in the John Birch Society.

[rustbucket]

From your reply to MamaTexan:

"So to reword a little what you emphasized:"

And since the seceding states, those who break a contract, by establishing a new constitution and form of federal government among themselves, without the consent of the rest of the parties to the contract, have shown that they consider the right to do so break a contract whenever the occasion may, in their opinion require it they decide to, as unquestionable, we may infer that that right has not been diminished by any new compact which they may since have entered into, since none could be more solemn or explicit than the first, nor more binding upon the contracting parties.

Re contracts. From Daniel Webster in 1851:

If the South were to violate any part of the Constitution intentionally and systematically, and persist in so doing, year after year, and no remedy could be had, would the North be any longer bound by the rest of it? And if the North were deliberately, habitually, and of fixed purpose to disregard one part of it, would the South be bound any longer to observe its other obligations? I have not hesitated to say, and I repeat, that if the Northern States refuse, willfully and deliberately, to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress provide no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain cannot be broken on one side and still bind the other side.

Let's look at the actions and opinions of some of the Northern states with regard to compacts, the return of fugitive slaves, and secession (mostly con). The first one below should be of interest to you. It has been a while since I posted this.

THE CITIZENS OF MASSACHUSETTS AND THE PERSONAL LIBERTY BILLS. Chief Justice Shaw, B. R. Curtis, Joel Parker, and other citizens of Massachusetts equally distinguished, have addressed a letter to the people of that State on the Personal Liberty Bills, which they declare to be unconstitutional. They urge strongly the repeal of them. … “We would repeal them under our own love of right; under our own sense of sacredness of compacts; under our own convictions of the inestimable importance of social order and domestic peace; … [they] stand as conspicuous and palpable breaches of the national compact by ourselves.” [Philadelphia Public Ledger, December 20, 1860. rb note: Shaw was Chief Justice of the Mass. Supreme Court, Curtis was a former Justice of the US Supreme Court, Parker was professor of constitutional law at Harvard and former Chief Justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court.]

Frederick County, Va. Resolved. That in our judgment the refusal and failure of the New England States to keep the obligations of the federal compact would long since have justified any Southern or any slaveholding State in pronouncing the compact broken, and the Union made by it dissolved. [Baltimore Sun, Jan. 2, 1861]

That was the nature of the offence [high treason as defined by Chief Justice Marshall years before the offence] which Theodore Parker, Wendell Phillips, and their associates were charged with when they incited the mob in Fanueil Hall to go to the Courthouse to rescue Burns, the fugitive slave, in which unlawful enterprise Batchelder, one of the marshal's deputies, was murdered. [Baltimore Sun, Jan. 4, 1861, recounting the 1854 return of Burns, the last slave returned from Massachusetts.]

Annual Message of the Governor of New York. It [the New York law] has been universally held to be obsolete by all our commentators, and all our public authorities [by virtue of Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842)] although now improperly classed among what are technically called “personal liberty laws,” and made occasion for jealousies and discontents. I recommend its repeal. In this connection, and while disavowing any dispositions to interfere with what exclusively pertains to the individual States, and in a spirit of fraternal kindness, I would respectfully invite all those States which have upon their statute books any laws of this character, conflicting with the federal constitution, to repeal them at the earliest opportunity … [Baltimore Sun, Jan. 4, 1861]

Gov. Banks Recommends the Abrogation of the Personal Liberty Bills. Boston, Jan. 3,. – Gov. Banks to-day delivered his valedictory to the Legislature in the presence of a large crowd of citizens. He recommended the abrogation of the personal liberty bills. [Baltimore Sun, Jan. 4, 1861]

It would be the same in Massachusetts, if, under the personal liberty bill, a fugitive from labor should be taken before a jury to be tried. No Massachusetts jury could be found to agree that he was a fugitive slave. [Baltimore Sun, Jan. 4, 1861. rb note: If a Massachusetts jury found him not to be a fugitive slave even though he might be, the Massachusetts law could severely jail and fine the person seeking his return.]

Views of Gov. Banks. Governor Banks, of Massachusetts, in his valedictory delivered Thursday, contended that there can be no peaceable secession. The government cannot be dissolved at the bidding of any dissatisfied State, nor can that portion of the continent occupied by the American States, be portioned out to hostile nations. [Baltimore Sun, Jan. 5, 1861]

Message of the Governor of Delaware. Gov. Burton, in his message to the Legislature of that State, reviews at some length the aggressive spirit exhibited by the North toward the South, and maintains with forcible arguments the necessity for each state to enforce the laws and comply fully with the letter and spirit of the constitution, as the only means by which the Union can be preserved. [Baltimore Sun, Jan. 5, 1861]

The Michigan Legislature. … The retiring Governor delivered his annual message to both Houses. He takes strong ground against the right of secession; charges the President of the United States with misrepresenting the principles of the republican party … In relation to the personal liberty laws of this State, he says if they are unconstitutional and in conflict with the fugitive slave law, they should be repealed, but says these laws are right and speak to the sentiments of the people; are in strict accordance with the constitution, and ought not to be repealed. [Baltimore Sun, Jan. 5, 1861]

The Governor of Michigan Advocating Coercion. The Governor denies that the personal liberty bills have prevented the execution of the fugitive slave law in a single instance. The law has always been enforced on an appeal being taken. ... He recommended the State Legislature to manifest its loyalty to Michigan and proffer the President the use of the whole military power of the State to sustain the integrity of the Union. [Baltimore Sun, Jan. 5, 1861]

Absurd and Impudent Action by the Michigan Legislature. We can conceive of nothing more absurd than the passage by either house of the Legislature, at Lansing, of the resolutions which are reported to have passed concerning national affairs, while the personal liberty bill still stands. The personal liberty law -- so the legislature of 1859 construed it, and such is the only construction which it will bear -- "was designed to and if faithfully executed will prevent the delivering up of fugitive slaves." It is therefore plain, palpable, unadulterated nullification of the fugitive slave law. … how absurd is it, how impudent is it, in her to pass resolutions that the Constitution of the United States, and all laws in pursuance thereof, "are the supreme law of the land" … that "Michigan is now, as she has always been, entirely loyal to the Constitution.” ... We know of nothing better calculated to stimulate secession than this action, especially as it is the action of a State whose professions of loyalty to the Constitution are a lie. [The Detroit Free Press as quoted in the State Gazette of Austin, Texas, March 2, 1861]

Detroit, Monday, April 8. About three hundred fugitive slaves, principally from Illinois, have passed into Canada at this point since Saturday, and large numbers more are reportedly on the way. Many are entirely destitute, and much suffering is anticipated, notwithstanding the efforts made for their relief. [New York Times, April 9, 1861]

Inaugural Message of Governor Andrew of Massachusetts. The enrolled militia in the state exceeds 155,000 men, while the active militia numbers about 5,600. The Governor suggests that a larger number be placed on an active footing, so that the state may be ready to contribute her share of force in any exigency of public danger. … The personal liberty law he believed to be strictly constitutional, as the right of a person to reclaim an alleged fugitive must always be subordinate to the indefeasible right of every free man to liberty. … He denies the right of a state to secede …[Baltimore Sun, Jan. 7, 1861]

Message of the Governor of Pennsylvania. … He declares the doctrine of secession erroneous. The Constitution is something more than a mere compact. … He recommends that the consent of the State be given to the master, while sojourning in or passing through Pennsylvania, to retain the services of the slave. He suggests the reenactment of the Missouri Compromise and that the line be extended to California by amendment of the Constitution … He adds: " But before assuming the responsibilities that are foreshadowed, it is the solemn duty of Pennsylvania to re-move every just cause of complaint, so that she can stand before high Heaven without fear and without reproach, and than she will be ready to devote her lives and fortunes to the best form of government ever devised by the wisdom of man. …” [Harper’s Weekly, Jan. 12, 1861, pg 23, reporting the governor’s message of Jan. 2]

Fugitive Slaves in Pennsylvania. A bill has been reported in the Pennsylvania Legislature to repeal the sections of the penal code of that State which obstruct the enforcement of the fugitive slave law. The part punishing kidnapping, &c., is allowed to remain, but the part obstructing the recapture of fugitives, and punishing the magistrates or other officers who may aid (for they are not compelled to do so) in the execution of the fugitive slave law is repealed. … [Baltimore Sun, Jan. 9, 1861]

The Fugitive Slave Law in the Pennsylvania Legislature. Harrisburg, Pa., Jan. 10, midnight. –The republican resolutions relative to the Union were up to-day for consideration in the Senate. Senator Welsh, of York, offered a substitute declaring the provision in the constitution relative to fugitive slaves binding upon the people of all States, recommending the repeal of all statutes interfering with the fugitive slave law, asserting the equal rights of all the States in the Territories, and expressing the devotion of Pennsylvania to the Union and the constitution. This will be endorsed by the democratic Senators. [Baltimore Sun, Jan. 11, 1861]

Pennsylvania Legislature Refuses to Repeal the Anti-Fugitive Slave Law. Harrisburg, Pa., Jan 11. – Senator Welsh’s resolutions, proposing to repeal the obnoxious provisions of the act of 1847, and the penal code, were voted down to-day, all the republicans voting against them. [Baltimore Sun, Jan. 12, 1861]

Message of the Governor of New Jersey. Governor Olden, of New Jersey, in his annual message, opposes secession, but advocates concession and compromise, urges the repeal of all laws of the State, if such there be, which are unjust to the South, calls upon Congress to agree upon some plan of adjustment of the national troubles, and in case of failure, urges the New Jersey Legislature to invite all the States to meet in national convention to concert measures whereby the Union may be saved. [Baltimore Sun, Jan. 12, 1861]

The Case of the State of Kentucky Against the Governor of Ohio, for Refusing to Issue a Warrant for the Arrest of Lago. Washington, Jan. 11. – The case of the State of Kentucky against the Governor of Ohio, who refused to issue his warrant for the arrest of Lago, charged with having enticed a slave from Kentucky into Ohio, was set for to-day, in the Supreme Court, but the Attorney-General of Ohio having forwarded an affidavit of a professional engagement which prevented his attendance, the case was postponed until the 8th of February. Kentucky was ready by counsel. [Baltimore Sun, Jan. 12, 1861]

Washington, Jan. 12. Hon. Wm H. Seward, of New York, addressed the Senate to-day, on the President's message. He said Congress ought, if it can, redress any real grievances of the offended States, and then supply the President with all the means necessary to maintain the Union. He argued that the laws contravening the constitution, in regard to the escape of slaves, ought to be repealed. He was willing to vote for an amendment to the constitution, that Congress should never have the power to abolish or interfere with slavery within the States. [The Daily Mississippian, Jackson, Mississippi, Jan. 16, 1861]

The Personal Liberty Bill of Rhode Island. Providence, R.I., Jan. 22, 1861. The Senate passed the act repealing the Personal Liberty Bill by a vote of 21 to 9. The House, after some discussion, postponed further consideration of the subject until Thursday. [New York Herald, Jan. 23, 1861]

Departure of Fugitive Slaves for Canada. Chicago, Monday, April 8. One hundred and six fugitive slaves left this city last night for Canada via the Michigan Southern Railroad. It is estimated that over one thousand fugitives have arrived in this city since last Fall, most of whom have left since the recent arrest of five by the United States Marshal. … [New York Times, April 9, 1861]

Lincoln’s two secretaries, Nicolay and Hay, in Volume 3 of their book Abraham Lincoln, A History noted that a careful 1860 study of the personal liberty laws by the National Intelligencer found that the personal liberty laws of Vermont, Massachusetts, Michigan and Wisconsin were clearly unconstitutional.

Many citizens in the northern states did not really perceive the danger of interfering with enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law until South Carolina withdrew from the Union, and the secession of the other states seemed imminent. ... Finally realizing the danger, a concerted effort was begun in December, 1860 by several northern governors to seek repeal or modification of their personal liberty laws. ... During the four months preceding the outbreak of the Civil War, Rhode Island and Maine repealed their personal liberty laws. The personal liberty laws of Massachusetts and Vermont were modified, and the legislature of Wisconsin passed a resolution which recommended the revision of her personal liberty laws. ... A majority of the northern states now exhibited every effort to prevent the personal liberty laws and opposition to enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law from being used as a pretext for secession. They were too late. [The Slave Catchers by Stanley Campbell]

[MamaTexan]

BTW_

The other party may be due a penalty or a share of the goods, and the legal nits have to be taken care of. A lot depends on the law of the State you’re in.

You assume all parties are equal in the Compact, but the Constitution isn't about equal parties, its about equal parties agreeing to create a third, lesser party with limited authority.

It's like your saying 2 people married and created a child, and the child gets to run the show! LOL!

-----

If you want to play the scenario game.....

Trying to prevent the South from leaving the compact after their Notice was duly given because of some idea the other parties are owed without that stipulation being in the Contract in the first place....

is like saying you invited a bunch of people to your house for dinner and then called the cops when they tried to leave before paying for the meal.

[HMS Surprise]

I’m sure you don’t read all the posts, so maybe you missed some. How about I clarify> ...hate the South for being traitors to their country. This is my last response to your nastiness. Find someone here more inclined to think that you have interesting ideas.

[MamaTexan]

Absolutely a most outstanding post, Sir! [Ma'am?]

Hope you don't mind if I copy it into my research. :-)

[rockrr]

The pertinent question, which is often conveniently ignored: Were there a “long train of abuses” that justified the South’s attempt to seperate (sic) itself from the North, or were the causes “light and transient,” and not enough for the North to “allow” the South to be a new neighbor?

It is unfortunate that you insist upon conflating and conjoining separate issues. It makes what you say less credible. Since you appear new to FreeRepublic's WBTS threads I'm sure you'll be afforded a pass on whether discussions about motives, agendas and root causes of the Civil War have taken place. You should be relieved to know that they have been well represented here.

That said, your facile attempt to (one one hand) legitimize the south's reasons for quitting with an characterization of the north's acceptance of the resulting change of circumstance is nothing short of laughable. "We can't stand them as relatives but wouldn't object to them as neighbors". Really?!

First of all, there were no “long train of abuses”. There was only the election of Lincoln - a guy that Lost Causers consider both an abolitionist and a stone racist (nice cognitive dissonance there!). No, there was only The Particular Institution in all its sordid 'glory'.

We were already neighbors, partners, and family...unless you are referring to an unspoken attitude - that of adversaries. In that respect you could be correct. While most went about their business there were certainly elements who fomented discord and aggravated the sense of sectionalism between north and south.

Anti-revolutionaries here like to pretend

What and who are "Anti-revolutionaries"?

Nonsense, Lincoln could have, he COULD HAVE, publically (sic) acknowledged the transgressions of both sides, and made an earnest attempt to sue for peace.

So, if you are attacked and your property stolen by an avowed opponent your response is to surrender? Good to know.

[rockrr]

Then it should be no problem to point out the offending posts where anyone said that they “hated the south”.

[rockrr]

The trouble with analogies is that, while they’re often quite colorful, they’re seldom very accurate...

[KrisKrinkle]

“Since your only contribution to the discussion has been to tell me how wrong I am.....”

I infer that you don’t think it’s a contribution to try to point out weaknesses in your position, thus giving you an opportunity to strengthen it.

“Each State...is considered as a sovereign body independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.”

Arguably, by their voluntary (more or less) acts they bound themselves in Union, not by ratifying the Constitution of course. Arguably, by their voluntary acts they prohibited themselves from violating that to which they bound themselves.

[rustbucket]

Hope you don't mind if I copy it into my research. :-)

Go right ahead.

rustbucket = old retired guy

[central_va]

a guy that Lost Causers consider both an abolitionist

No Free Republic "Lost Causer" has ever accused the Lanky Yankee of being an abolitionist. All of them are excellent historian in their own right and would not make that mistake. I need to see an example of that.

[KrisKrinkle]

“From your reply to MamaTexan:”

My intent there was to demonstrate that the words emphasized by MamaTexan undermine the concept of the contract. If one party to a contract can unilaterally breach it at will without fear of penalty I see no point to even having a contract and I don’t see that the terms of the contract, whatever they may be, matter. I doubt society as we know it can exist if we can’t have contracts or compacts or agreements to which the involved parties can be held, which likely involves some sort of possible penalty for breach.

As to the rest of your post, and it’s quite a read as posts on this forum go, in my post 59 in this thread I wrote: “Which side eventually had a legitimate grievance is up for debate.”

I don’t recall ever taking the position that the South had no legitimate grievances. If I ever came across that way it was unintentional. Sometimes these discussions drift and intent gets blurred.

My disagreement is with the position that a state or states have the unilateral right to secede from the Union at mere will and that the states remaining in the Union have no right to try and penalize the secession or hold them to the agreement to remain in Union.

It may be that actions by the Northern States were sufficient to breach the agreement forming the Union, justifying secession by the Southern States. Or it may not be. As I wrote: “Which side eventually had a legitimate grievance is up for debate.”

If actions by the Northern States were sufficient to breach the agreement forming the Union, thereby justifying secession by the Southern States, the Northern States were in the wrong to wage war.

If actions by the Northern States were not sufficient to breach the agreement forming the Union and secession by the Southern States was unjustified, the Northern States had some right to try and hold the seceding States to the agreement or penalize them.

In our organized society, if such a situation arose between you and I, we’d go to court to resolve it. Operating outside an organized society we might come to blows to settle any disagreement. They came to blows.

Note that I have come to think of the conflict as the War Between the States, not the Civil War, the War of Northern Aggression or the War of Southern Rebellion (although I might use those terms sometimes for the sake of simplicity.).

It was a dispute between the States.

I don’t agree that the Constitution and the Federal Government (except as an agent of the Northern States) matter that much as the States agreed to Union prior to the institution of either.

I don’t agree that Lincoln matters that much except as someone who was doing the will of the Northern States and succeeded in doing so. I don’t think he could have done what he did without the backing of the Northern States. I wonder whether or not there would have been an effort to impeach him if he had not tried to hold the Union together.

And lately, I wonder if secession and thus the War Between The States was instigated simply because the Democrats didn’t like the outcome of the 1860 Presidential election and had a hissy fit. As I recall, the South was pretty much run by the Democrats, and the Democrats in the North were against the war too. Democrats, trying to destroy the country since 1860?

[KrisKrinkle]

“It’s like your saying 2 people married and created a child, and the child gets to run the show! LOL!”

Well, considering some families I’ve seen and heard of...but that’s too far off topic.

“You assume all parties are equal in the Compact, but the Constitution isn’t about equal parties...”

Yes, I assume all parties are equal in the Compact but the Union predates the Constitution and the the Constitution was established by the Union, not the other way around. And the Federal Government, the lesser party, is only a party in so far as it is an agent of the States.

“...without that stipulation being in the Contract in the first place.”

Why do you say it wasn’t in the contract?

[ought-six]

If there is disagreement on positions, I generally welcome the debate. But your descent to the vile depths of inflammatory innuendo and falsehood smacks of the intolerance that finds a happy home in the camps of the lefties, not here. Your comment that I, like Lincoln, didn’t give a rat’s ass about blacks or slavery is a base and foul slander.

Whenever you speak, something is subtracted from the sum total of human knowledge.

[MamaTexan]

I infer that you don’t think it’s a contribution to try to point out weaknesses in your position, thus giving you an opportunity to strengthen it.

Trying to point out weakness in an established fact with nothing more than opinion is an 'opportunity' based on a fallacious argument.

A historically recognized legal work shows the States do have and always have had the ability to leave the Compact at will.

-----

Arguably, by their voluntary acts they prohibited themselves from violating that to which they bound themselves.

LOL! Such twisted logic to try to argue against such a simple concept.

“Each State...is considered as a sovereign body independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.”

If a State is bound by its own voluntary act, it can be unbound by it.

Otherwise, the association is no longer 'voluntary', but compulsory.

-----

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
The Federalist No. 45 January 1788
[James Madison]

[MamaTexan]

Why do you say it wasn’t in the contract?

Then do please show me the part of the Constitution that you believe stipulates payment required for leaving the Union.

And do remember that the first agreement between the States was called the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union...and the States seceded from it at will.

[RaceBannon]

You shouldn’t try verbal gymnastics against someone who knows how to read

lincoln said he did NOT prefer slavery, he preferred Union, and he would allow Slavery if it meant Union

he did NOT say he perferred SLAVERY

[RaceBannon]

As to the policy I “seem to be pursuing” as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt. I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

http://www.brotherswar.com/Civil_War_Quotes_4c.htm

EVERYTHING was about saving the Union of the States