Replies

With all due respect to MamaTexan, who makes an effort to be both factual in presentation and somewhat neutral in tone...

Thank you kindly.

I do note, however, your post begins without even a whiff of neutrality.

their false history, their bogus narratives, their misdirections of arguments, unfounded accusations, baseless claims and fanciful conclusions

-----

only if it meets certain conditions such as mutual consent

1) Madison's letter, as in others of that time, state not only that his opinion be kept confidential: I will ask the favour of you to return the letter after it has passed under your partial & confidential eye.
but also that it should not be trusted:A man whose years have but reached the canonical three-score-&-ten (and mine are much beyond the number) should distrust himself, whether distrusted by his friends or not,

***

necessity caused by "injury or oppression".

Virginia's Ratifying document states:
declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will:

Since it was the People that gave their consent, it would be logical to assume that THEY were the sole judges of whether or not they were being subjected to 'injury or oppression'.

-----

2)As I see no point in rehashing this previously covered subject, please see post #36

-----

3)In November 1860, no material conditions existed for a constitutional and lawful secession

LOL! Can you say Personal Liberty Laws?

You know...those NULLIFYING laws passed in Northern States in order to prevent the return of fugitive slaves DESPITE the Constitutional enumeration to the contrary?

While one must recognize the immorality of slavery, anyone wishing to be a true, impartial judge of history is forced to recognize the [then] LEGALITY of it. Ones opinion cannot make the legal illegal.

In the law of contracts, breach by one party free the other(s) from obligation

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.
Speeches of Mr. Webster, 1851

-----

4) This one is unsourced opinion, so I see no reason to remark upon it.

-----

5)Beginning the process in November 1860, Deep-South slave-holders' formal Declarations of Secession were followed (and often preceded) by many unlawful acts of insurrection, rebellion and war against the United States.

While the Declaration of Secession is acknowledged, please give sources for your other accusations.

BTW - I'd also like to point out the Declaration was lawfully delivered via personal service to Congress on December 24, 1860

-----

6)Outgoing "Dough-face" President Buchanan did not agree that Deep-South secessionists were constitutional

He also erroneously thought Congress has power to make war and to make peace, so he didn't appear to be Constitutionally literate. The point of posting his speech was what, exactly?

-----

7)culminating in the April 1861 firing on and seizure of Federal Fort Sumter.

After the filing of the Notice of Intent, or Declaration of Secession, the ownership of Ft Sumter reverted to the State.

"The federal government, then, appears to be the organ through which the united republics communicate with foreign nations, and with each other. Their submission to its operation is voluntary: its councils, its sovereignty is an emanation from theirs, not a flame by which they have been consumed, nor a vortex in which they are swallowed up. Each is still a perfect state, still sovereign, still independent, and still capable, should the occasion require, to resume the exercise of its functions, as such, in the most unlimited extent.
St. George Tucker View of the Constitution of the United States – 1803 [paragraph 337]

It was fired upon because it was unlawfully occupied.

IMHO, being used as an excuse by the federal government to crush the South, it was pitiful. Not only had it sat unfinished for 30 years, the only battle fatality was a donkey.

-----

8) the Confederacy formally declared war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.

Which is the way it's supposed to be. A Declaration is a legal procedure REQUIRED before action can be taken. It's a requirement stipulated in the federal Constitution. Do you, perhaps, have a link to the federal governments Constitutionally required Declaration of War as signed by Congress?

To my knowledge, there was no Declaration of War, merely Lincoln’s Proclamation, and a proclamation does not a Declaration make.

-----

9) Again, unsourced opinion.

-----

10)four states of the Upper South -- Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas -- voted to join the Confederacy and the war.

True. Other States joined after the fact.

-----

So the bottom line is: where the Deep-South first unconstitutionally declared secession, and then declared war on the United States, the Upper-South voted simultaneously to secede and thus join the already declared war. Finally, our "Neo-Cons" often compare their secessionists of 1860 to our Founders in 1776. The comparison is laughable, the contrasts are stark.

What is 'laughable' is you show up so late to the party, say nothing that hasn't been said, and crow like you've made some type of pertinent point.

Although your post did have some pretty cool pictures.

BJK from post #100: 9. "Prior to that Declaration of War, [May 6, 1861] no Confederate soldier had been killed by any Union force."

Mama Texan: "9) Again, unsourced opinion."

I'll take this one first, since it's a simpler matter.

A number of people on both sides suffered injury or death before the first real battle between opposing military forces, a battle in which the first Confederate soldier was killed directly by a Union force.

It was the Battle of Big Bethel, also called the Battle of Bethel Church or Great Bethel, on June 10, 1861, more than a month after the Confederacy declared war on the United States.

The Confederate soldier killed at Big Bethel was Pvt Henry Wyatt of Co A 11st North Carolina.

Here is a more detailed account of the events.

Yes, back on June 1, 1861, at the Battle of Fairfax Court House,

"Captain John Quincy Marr of the Virginia Warrenton Rifles militia company of Fauquier County, Virginia[1] the first Southern (Confederate) officer or soldier to die in combat with Union soldiers, was killed in this small battle."

But actual circumstances of Captain Marr's death are unknown, and include the possibility of fratricide:

"Whether he had moved up to challenge the Union riders or to scout out a better position for his company as some accounts suggest, Marr was not in the immediate presence or line of sight of any of his men on the very dark night when he fell in the dense field..[16]
Soon, no one knew where he was or what may have happened to him.[16]
His body was found in the clover field later in the morning.[17]"

Here's the bottom line: there are no reports of any Southern soldiers being killed directly by a Union force before the Confederacy's Declaration of War on May 6, 1861.

So, unlike for example, in the American Revolution of 1776, there was no actual war going on before the Confederacy started it, especially at Fort Sumter, then formally declared war, on May 6, 1861.

And by the way, I should say: this was absolutely no accident, since President Lincoln had announced in his Inagural Address on March 16, 1861, that:

"In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, Is the momentous issue of civil war.
The government will not assail you.
You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors.
You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend" it.
I am loth to close.
We are not enemies, but friends.
We must not be enemies.
Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection.
The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field and patriot grave to every living heart and hearth-stone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."

I'll answer your other items in sequence, when I can get back to it.

MamaTexan: "I do note, however, your post begins without even a whiff of neutrality."

I'm not in the least neutral, but do try to avoid insulting anyone personally. ;-)

MamaTexan, referring to item 1, Madison's rejection of secession "at pleasure":

"1) Madison's letter, as in others of that time, state not only that his opinion be kept confidential: 'I will ask the favour of you to return the letter after it has passed under your partial & confidential eye'.

"but also that it should not be trusted: 'A man whose years have but reached the canonical three-score-&-ten (and mine are much beyond the number) should distrust himself, whether distrusted by his friends or not', "

You've taken Madison's words out of context.
The full context clearly shows he does not mean what you impute:

"Having suffered my pen to take this ramble over a subject engaging so much of your attention, I will not withhold the notes made by it from your persual.
But being aware that without more development & precision, they may in some instances be liable to misapprehension or misconstruction, I will ask the favour of you to return the letter after it has passed under your partial & confidential eye.
"I have made no secret of my surprize and sorrow at the proceedings in S. Carolina, which are understood to assert a right to annul the Acts of Congress within the State, & even to secede from the Union itself.
But I am unwilling to enter the political field with the "telum imbelle" which alone I could wield.
The task of combating such unhappy aberrations belongs to other hands.
A man whose years have but reached the canonical three-score-&-ten (and mine are much beyond the number) should distrust himself, whether distrusted by his friends or not, and should never forget that his arguments, whatever they may be will be answered by allusions to the date of his birth."

Clearly Madison is here referring to his waining abilities to engage the rough & tumble of public debates, not to the validity of his own views.
Madison is now just too old of a political warrior -- a "telum imbelle" -- to reenter the political battles.
Now is time for a new generation to lead the charge.

MamaTexan: "Since it was the People that gave their consent, it would be logical to assume that THEY were the sole judges of whether or not they were being subjected to 'injury or oppression'."

First of all, there was no "injury or oppression" in November 1860 -- zero, zip, nada -- when South Carolina began to secede, nor does South Carolina's Declaration of the Immediate Causes claim any "injury or oppression".

In fact, it lists only two specifics, neither of which qualify as, or are even claimed to be "injury or oppression."

First, South Carolina alleges that, not the Federal Government, but some state governments have passed laws which interfere with the Constitution's fugitive slave provision.
But this didn't suddenly happen in November 1860, the same conditions existed for many years, during which South Carolina made no attempts to secede or deal lawfully with the problem.
Indeed, no evidence is provided that even one South Carolina slave ever escaped and was not returned as required by Federal law.
And even if a single case could be cited, surely this was a matter for the Southern-and-Dough-face-dominated United States Supreme Court to rule on, and strike down those unconstitutional state laws!
In short, this specific complaint is bogus to the max, without any merit, it's a crock of nonsense and doesn't even pretend to meet the standard of "injury or oppression" by the Federal Government.
South Carolina's second specific is the real reason: the election of Abraham Lincoln's Republican party.
And why is that a problem?
But:
- A) none of this is "injury of oppression" which has happened -- all of it is just fears of what might happen at some time in the future, and
- B) all of it is a crock of nonsense -- since the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision already said that slaves remain slaves even in Free States, so "the South" cannot be excluded anywhere.
- C) Judicial districts were always territorial.
- D) No Republican ever promised a "war" against slavery in the South.
In short, this specific complaint is also bogus to the max, without any merit, it's a crock of nonsense and doesn't even pretend to meet the standard of "injury or oppression" by the Federal Government.

And the reason is simple and obvious: South Carolinians did not believe that any such standard as "injury or oppression" restricted their "right of secession."
Instead, South Carolinians believed they did have an unlimited "right to secede" for any reason, or for no reason -- in short, they could secede in Madison's words, "at pleasure".

But secession "at pleasure" was not according to the Founders' Original Intent, and therefore was unconstitutional.
And when combined with unlawful actions such as seizures of Federal properties, threats of violence against Federal personnel, and military assaults on Federal forces, these are so far from being constitutional and lawful they fall in the Constitution's categories of insurrection, rebellion and domestic violence.

MamaTexan referring to: "2) As I see no point in rehashing this previously covered subject, please see post #36"

The 1794 Whiskey Rebellion demonstrates our Founders' Original Intent in the Constitution regarding the subjects of insurrection, rebellion and "domestic violence."

That's a fact.

MamaTexan referring to item #3, 'no material conditions existed':
"LOL! Can you say Personal Liberty Laws?
You know...those NULLIFYING laws passed in Northern States in order to prevent the return of fugitive slaves DESPITE the Constitutional enumeration to the contrary?"

First of all, we really need to celebrate the overly rich irony here, that South Carolina which had previously threatened to nullify Federal laws it didn't like, is here complaining about some State laws it claims are unconstitutional.
How ludicrous is that?

But more to the point, this is an obvious legal matter for the US Supreme Court to settle, and yet South Carolina made no effort to address its concerns appropriately in court.

In short, this specific complaint is still bogus to the max, without any merit, it's a crock of nonsense and doesn't even pretend to meet the standard of "injury or oppression" by the Federal Government.

MamaTexan referring to: "4) This one is unsourced opinion, so I see no reason to remark upon it."

No, it's a simple fact: in 1860 President Buchanan, his Cabinet, the Supreme Court, and Congress were all effectively controlled by Southerners with their Dough-face Northern allies -- no opinion to it.

MamaTexan referring to item 5:
"While the Declaration of Secession is acknowledged, please give sources for your other accusations."

See my response in post #105 above.
Most of this data can also be found in Fredriksen's Civil War Almanac.

MamaTexan on item 6 referring to Dough-face President Buchanan:
"He also erroneously thought Congress has power to make war and to make peace, so he didn't appear to be Constitutionally literate.
The point of posting his speech was what, exactly?"

First, you seem to have a very strange idea here, which Sherman Logan has tried to correct you on (posts 108 & 111), but you don't yet seem to understand or admit.
So I'm not sure what exactly your problem is here...

But second, to your question: you must understand the Great Slave Power, also called the slaveocracy, which ruled the United States almost the entire time from it's founding until secession began in early 1861.
Yes, the Slave Power was always a minority in the nation, but it was the majority within the majority Democrat party and maintained its dominance through the agencies of willing Dough-face Northerners, of whom President James Buchanan was a typical example.

Buchanan was a friend of the South -- "a Northern man of Southern principles" in language of that day -- Buchanan believed in slavery, he supported and helped implement the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision, and also backed other Southern agenda items.

In short, Buchanan was the South's man in the White House, but even Buchanan could not support secession "at pleasure", and would not hand over Fort Sumter, despite South Carolina's repeated demands and threats.

That's why it matters.

MamaTexan referring to item 7: "After the filing of the Notice of Intent, or Declaration of Secession, the ownership of Ft Sumter reverted to the State."

That claim is without basis in any law whatsoever, has no merit or even logic to it, as the South Carolina representatives in Washington acknowledged, in offering to pay for properties they seized.

But even Dough-faced President Buchanan was under no legal obligation to sell Federal property to South Carolina, and he rightly refused to do so.

MamaTexan referring to item 7, Ft Sumter:
"It was fired upon because it was unlawfully occupied.
IMHO, being used as an excuse by the federal government to crush the South,"

First, nothing lawfully transferred ownership of any Federal property to any secessionist entity.
Second, the Confederacy was crushed because it formally declared war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.

MamaTexan referring to item 8, the Confederacy's Declaration of War:
"Do you, perhaps, have a link to the federal governments Constitutionally required Declaration of War as signed by Congress?
To my knowledge, there was no Declaration of War, merely Lincoln’s Proclamation, and a proclamation does not a Declaration make."

By my count, this site lists a total of 71 US military operations, wars or "quazi-wars" during the 85 years from 1776 through 1861, of which only two were formally declared by Congress: the War of 1812 and the Mexican-American War of 1846.
Most of the others did receive specific Congressional approval, and as far as I know, no Congress ever "undeclared" a war.

But formal declarations of war were rare in any case, and were never used to suppress insurrections, rebellion or "domestic violence."

In 1861 Congress did approve everything appropriate to approve that President Lincoln did.
But a declaration of war was not appropriate, and Congress didn't make one.

MamaTexan referring to '9. Prior to that Declaration of War, no Confederate soldier had been killed by any Union force.':
"9) Again, unsourced opinion."

See my response in post #110 above.

MamaTexan referring to item 10:
"True. Other States joined after the fact."

And the point is: those Upper-South states of Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas voted not only for secession, but also for the formally declared war against the United States.
So they knew ahead of time they were going to war and chose to join it.