Iirc, Cleburne has been honored on Free Republic threads.
It's only too bad for the Confederacy that men like Cleburne and Forrest were never promoted to higher leadership.
Posted on 01/05/2018 12:07:18 PM PST by DoodleDawg
Two South Carolina lawmakers want to erect a monument on the State House grounds to African-Americans who served the state as Confederate soldiers. But records show the state never accepted nor recognized armed African-American soldiers during the Civil War.
“In all my years of research, I can say I have seen no documentation of black South Carolina soldiers fighting for the Confederacy,” said Walter Edgar, who for 32 years was director of the University of South Carolina’s Institute for Southern Studies and is author of “South Carolina: A History.”
“In fact, when secession came, the state turned down free (blacks) who wanted to volunteer because they didn’t want armed persons of color,” he said.
Pension records gleaned from the S.C. Department of History and Archives show no black Confederate soldiers received payment for combat service. And of the more than 300 blacks who did receive pensions after they were allowed in 1923, all served as body servants or cooks, the records show.
Confederate law prohibited blacks from bearing arms in the war, records show, until that edict was repealed in 1865 at the very end of the conflict.
That repeal resulted in a handful of African-American units in states such as Virginia and Texas. But there were none in South Carolina, which prohibited African-Americans from carrying guns in the state’s service throughout the war for fear of insurrection, according to the archives.
(Excerpt) Read more at thestate.com ...
Iirc, Cleburne has been honored on Free Republic threads.
It's only too bad for the Confederacy that men like Cleburne and Forrest were never promoted to higher leadership.
So, in one breath DL pleads for a slap of reality, and in the very next he assaults us with the biggest war on reality since... since... Karl Marx.
That’s a lie..
“My policy sought ONLY to hold the public places and property not already wrested from the Government and to collect the REVENUE.” (Paragraph 5)
Reunion of the 3rd Tennessee Cavalry. Look all the way to the right. I suppose it’s a mirage...
So is this guy, I suppose..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_W._Winbush
Wilson and the Roosevelts only expanded on what Lincoln started.
Not a sales tax, a tariff. The 1861 Morrill Tariff act applied to imports to the entire United States, not just Southern States.
Which would have put an undue burden on the South as an agrarian society.
We can argue semantics about the Morrill Tariff until the end of time, but we know three facts that are not in dispute.
1. Secession was a right of the individual states. Were it not, the US Constitution would have not have been ratified. If not the case, why did outgoing President Buchanan take no action after the first Southern states seceded before Lincoln’s inauguration?
2. Confederate Leadership was not tried for treason after the war, see Chase’s quote for the reasons why. Would anyone argue that the leaders of the Revolution would have been treated in the same manner?
3. Had the war truly been about slavery, why no Emancipation Proclamation until 1863?
In the end, had the Southern Confederacy ponied up the money that Washington was expecting from Morrill, there wouldn’t have been a war.
LoL - I’m not the one dragging his puss around pissin and moanin hoss.
I have gone back and read all of the versions of both the New York State Constitution from 1777 on and the Rhode Island Constitution of 1842. I have be unable to find the chapter and sections authorizing Secession. I may have missed them. Please give me the applicable Article and sections for these constitutions, would like to read them.
More propaganda fantasy from DiogenesLamp.
In fact the Civil War was no more "about money" than any other war in history.
Sure, you (and Karl Marx) could say that all wars are "about money" because winners usually take what the losers had.
But no modern war is ever solely "about money" because normal people won't go to war over just money.
There are always other, "higher", reasons.
Sometimes those "higher" reasons are religious, i.e., 30 Years War, modern jihad, sometimes ideological such as National Socialism versus International Socialism on the Eastern Front of WWII, sometimes ethnic rivalries, "lebensraum", etc.
But almost never are the reasons for large-scale war purely economic numbers.
In the case of Civil War, Confederates did not go to war just to take money away from "Northeaster power barons", nor did those "Northeaster power barons" respond just to keep their income streams flowing.
Instead, Confederates wanted war to assert their independence, defend their sovereignty and protect their "peculiar institution".
Sure, all of that was worth money (i.e., $4 billion in slaves equivalent today to several trillion dollars), but ideals like "national honor" and "our way of life" meant more to individuals and their leaders than any spreadsheet numbers.
Likewise, the Union accepted war to defend itself existentially against very aggressive Confederate territorial claims over Union Border States, Western Territories and Unionist regions of Confederate states such as Western Virginia and Eastern Tennessee.
Republicans like Lincoln also came to see in civil war the chance to first free slaves as "contraband of war" and then make the constitutional amendments which were otherwise impossible.
As to the claim that Northerners didn't care about slavery, when the opportunity came, Americans took it:
(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!"
Nobody can claim that Lincoln himself was unmoved by such words.
If by that you mean the 13th, 14th & 15th amendments, then obviously, guilty as charged.
But if you refer to Lincoln's secret instructions to FDR, LBJ and BHO on how to destroy the United States from within, then you & DiogenesLamp are just fantasizing to suit your own perverse desires, nothing to do with historical reality.
New York Ratification document, 26 July 1788:
“That the Powers of Government may be resumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same.”
Rhode Island ratification document, 29 May 1790.
“That the powers of government may be resumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness: That the rights of the States respectively to nominate and appoint all State Officers, and every other power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States or to the departments of government thereof, remain to the people of the several states, or their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same.”
Since the power of secession was not specifically granted to the newly created US government, it remained the express right of the individual state.
I’ll ask the question again. If slavery were the root cause of the war, why no Emancipation Proclamation until 1863? If slavery were the root cause of the war, why would Lincoln say “”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”
In his own words, it wasn’t about slavery.
See also..
“I hold it to be a paramount duty of us in the free states, due to the Union of the states, and perhaps to liberty itself (paradox though it may seem) to let the slavery of the other states alone; while, on the other hand, I hold it to be equally clear, that we should never knowingly lend ourselves directly or indirectly, to prevent that slavery from dying a natural death-—to find new places for it to live in, when it can no longer exist in the old.” A. Lincoln, 3 October 1845.
A New England cloth manufacturer buying British made spinning machinery paid the tariff just like the Southern planter importing French lace, or English riding boots.
As for Fact:1 Show me in the Constitution where secession is authorized. If it was so important, one would have thought that it would have actually been written into that document. In the 1869 Supreme Court Case Texas V. White, the Court ruled secession unconstitutional.
Buchanan did take some action. He sent the Star of the West Steamer with provisions to supply Fort Sumter in January 1861. She was fired on by South Carolina batteries and returned to New York.
2. Don’t Know. Actions of men like Davis could be construed as meeting the Constitutional definition of treason.
3. Never claimed that the war was about slavery. Secession of the first seven states was driven primarily by the Slavery issue. War started because the Confederacy fired on Fort Sumter.
The Morrill Tariff act became effective in March of 1861. By that time seven states had already seceded from the Union. Only 2 of those states mention tariffs as one of the causes for secession. All seven mention slavery as one of the causes for secession.
When they break the law or commit sedition against the United States? You bet!
Why were none of the Confederate leaders, including Jefferson Davis tried for treason after Lee’s surrender?
Mostly due to Lincoln's kind benevolence when he issued instructions to "let them up easy". Lincoln didn't want the war that he was given, had no desire to hold a grudge, and wanted the nation to heal. After his cowardly murder there were many who wanted revenge against the confeds but cooler heads prevailed.
The Taney Supreme Court might not have allowed a conviction for treason to stand but Taney died in 1864 and was succeeded by Chase. Your Chase quote is interesting but not particularly persuasive since this is the same Salmon P. Chase that rendered the ruling against the legality of secession in the Texas v. White case.
In any event, decisions to continue prosecution for treason were abandoned because in the view of Chief Justice Chase, (who would have presided over such a trial) the ratification of the 14th Amendment with the punitive measures contained in Clause 3 meant that Davis had been punished once for his actions in leading the rebellion. Trial, conviction, and additional punishment would have violated his 5th Amendment protections against double jeopardy.
All well and good. But that does not answer my question. The documents you cite are those states ratification of the United States Constitution. The question I asked was where in the State Constitutions of New York and Rhode Island do they reserve a right to secede. What are the sections and articles of those two state’s Constitution that specifically reserve a right to secede from the Union.
No, because of treason, you remember, don't you, the US Constitution?
Levying war, aid & comfort, that kind of thing.
TallahasseeConservative: "Why were none of the Confederate leaders, including Jefferson Davis tried for treason after Lee’s surrender?
Here’s why..
Salmon P. Chase:..."
First, remember this about Chase: at the time of this quote Chase was running for the nomination for President as a Democrat, so he was saying things which made his fellow Democrats feel all warm & fuzzy.
Second, secession is indeed not defined as treason in the Constitution, but waging war against the United States certainly is.
Third, you may remember some of Lincoln's final public words:
Others who did not want to try former Confederates for treason included Democrat President Andrew Johnson (from Eastern Tennessee) and Republican President Grant.
TallahasseeConservative: "If Washington, Jefferson and Adams were right, so were Lee, Davis and Jackson."
Nonsense, because there's no accurate comparison of the two situations, unless you give Confederates the role of Brits imposing their rule over Americans.
TallahasseeConservative: "I find it odd, that Conservatives would ever agree with the expansion of the Federal government..."
Conservatives did not agree -- 90% of the expansion of Federal government was done by your fellow Democrats including their colluuuuuuuusion with you Southern Democrats.
TallahasseeConservative: "if secession was not the legal domain of the states, why did states including New York and Rhode Island have secession powers written in to their state constitutions?"
As has been often pointed out on these threads, our Founders considered "secession" or disunion valid & legitimate under two, but only two, conditions.
But no Founder -- none, zero, nada Founder -- approved declarations of secession "at pleasure" meaning without major necessity or mutual consent.
And yet that is just what 1861 secessionists did.
The north went to war to defend the union and in the process freed the slaves. The south went to war to defend slavery and in the process lost everything.
The ultimate bait and switch. Start a war to “preserve the union” then mid way turn it into a war to free the black man while conscripting all the soldiers. Genius.
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.
