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Confederate law prohibited blacks from bearing arms in the war, records show, until that edict was repealed in 1865 at the very end of the conflict.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 ...
It is the very foundation upon which the entire edifice rests. The only way the constitution has legitimacy is if the Declaration is correct. If not, then our secession was illegal, and we should still be obeying English Law.
The Constitution is a consequence of the Declaration. Without our own independent government having some form of legitimacy, our Constitution doesn't have any legitimacy either.
The legitimacy of the US government from 1776 onwards, rests upon the premise that the laws of nature, and of nature's God give people the right to independence. No right to independence, no right to create a constitution.
So you never took Civics 101 I take it....
It has no legal standing in law. fact.
I don't usually argue about the Morrill Tariff act. I simply note that the Confederates were going to lay a 13% tariff across the board, rather than the complicated patchwork of tariffs that existed by Federal law.
Whatever was the various Federal tariffs of the Union, 13% is both much lower and much less complicated to deal with, and it would have caused the bulk of import/export traffic to shift to the South.
Another factor that people often ignore is the consequences of the "Navigation act of 1817." It ended up producing a near monopoly on shipping for companies located in the North East. This caused them to raise their prices until it was just barely underneath the fines and penalties for using foreign ships.
Independence for the South would have removed the necessity of complying with this act, and it would have caused a dramatic realignment of the shipping industry. It may have singlehandedly revived the Southern ship building industry.
It means the same thing when referring to Allegiance to King George III.
"Allegiance is founded in the Relation every Man standeth in to the Crown considered as the Head of that Society whereof He is born a Member; and on the peculiar Privileges He deriveth from that Relation, which are with great Propriety called his Birthright. This Birthright nothing but his own Demerit can deprive Him of; it is Indefeasible and perpetual. And consequently the Duty of Allegiance which ariseth out of it, and is inseperably Connected with it, is in Consideration of Law likewise Unalienable and Perpetual.
Firing back at someone who has fired at you is what any rational person would do. Lincoln issued orders to fire on them before they ever decided to fire on Ft Sumter.
Actually the constitution is talking about rebellion, not secession, there is a difference.
Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase..
“If you bring these leaders to trial, it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion.”
The Navigation act of 1817 required cargos between American port to be carried by American flagged ships. It did not in any way restrict a southern shipper from contracting a British merchant ship to take a load of cotton from Charleston to Europe.
“Independence for the South would have removed the necessity of complying with this act, and it would have caused a dramatic realignment of the shipping industry. It may have singlehandedly revived the Southern ship building industry.”
So that would have meant that a British cargo ship could now haul cargo from Mobile to Savannah. How does that improve the southern ship building industry. Lack of industrial capacity limited the ability of the south to build ships. Only one factory in all of the South had the capacity to build propulsion machinery for ships. The South did not produce iron or steel in sufficient quantities for build a lot of ships. They would have had to buy the machinery and hull materials from the North or import them from Europe. With very low tariffs, the ability of the South to develop its own shipbuilding industry were minimal. The machinery and iron would have been cheaper from the United States or from Europe.That situation would not have changed for years. Southerners with capital for investment were sinking their money in the profitable cotton industry not industrial manufacturing.
HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY, Washington, D. C., April 4, 1861.Lieutenant Colonel HENRY L. SCOTT, A. D. C., New York:
SIR: This letter will be landed to you by Captain G. V. Fox, ex-officer of the Navy, and a gentleman of high standing, as well as possessed of extraordinary nautical ability. He is charged by high authority here with the command of an expedition, under cover of certain ships of war, whose object is to re-enforce Fort Sumter.
To embark with Captain Fox you will cause a detachment of recruits, say about two hundred, to be immediately organized at Fort Columbus, with a competent number of officers, arms, ammunition, and subsistence. A large surplus of the latter-indeed, as great as the vessels of the expedition can take-with other necessaries, will be needed for the augmented garrison of Fort Sumter.
The subsistence and other supplies should be assorted like those which were provided by you and Captain Ward of the Navy for a former expedition. Consult Captain Fox and Major Eaton on the subject, and give all necessary orders in my name to fit out the expedition, except that the hiring of vessels will be left to others.
Some fuel must be shipped. Oil, artillery implements, fuses, cordage, slow-march, mechanical levers, and gins, &c., should also be put on board.
Consult, also, if necessary, confidentially, Colonel Tompkins and Major Thornton.
Respectfully, yours,
WINFIELD SCOTT.
.
.
NAVY DEPARTMENT, Washington, April 5, 1861.Captain SAMUEL MERCER,
Commanding U. S. S. Powhatan, New York:
SIR: The United States steamers Powhatan, Pocahontas, and Harriet Lane will compose a naval force, under your command, to be sent to the vicinity of Charleston, S. C., for the purpose of aiding in carrying out the objects of an expedition of which the War Department has charge.
The primary object of the expedition is to provision Fort Sumter, for which purpose the War Department will furnish the necessary transports. Should the authorities at Charleston permit the fort to be supplied, no further particular service will be required of the force under your command, and after being satisfied that supplies have been received at the fort, the Powhatan, Pocahontas, and Harriet Lane will return to New York, and the Pawnee to Washington.
Should the authorities at Charleston, however, refuse to permit or attempt to prevent the vessel or vessels having supplies on board from entering the harbor, or from peaceably proceeding to Fort Sumter, you will protect the transports or boats of the expedition in the object of their mission-disposing of your force in such manner as to open the way for their ingress and afford, so far as practicable, security to the men and boats, and repelling by force, if necessary, all obstructions towards provisioning the fort and re-enforcing it; for in case of resistance to the peaceable primary object of the expedition a re-enforcement of the garrison will also be attempted. These purposes will be under the supervision of the War Department, which has charge of the expedition. The expedition has been intrusted to Captain G. V. Fox, with whom you will put yourself in communication, and co-operate with him to accomplish and carry into effect its object.
You will leave New York with the Powhatan in time to be off Charleston Bar, ten miles distant from and due east of the light-house, on the morning of the 11th instant, there to await the arrival of the transport or transports with troops and stores. The Pawnee and Pocahontas will be ordered to join you there at the time mentioned, and also the Harriet Lane, which latter vessel has been placed under the control of this Department for this service.
On the termination of the expedition, whether it be peaceable or otherwise, the several vessels under your command will return to the respective ports, as above directed, unless some unforeseen circumstance should prevent.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
GIDEON WELLES,
Secretary of the Navy.
.
.
.
HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY, New York, April 6, 1861.Lieutenant CHARLES R. WOODS,
Ninth Infantry, Act. Supt. East. Dept., R. S., Fort Columbus, N. Y.:
SIR: The General-in-Chief desires that two hundred recruits from Fort Columbus be at once organized into two companies, and held in readiness for embarkation on Monday next, the 8th instant. A proper proportion of non-commissioned officers will be included in the detachment, which must be fully supplied with arms, ammunition, and subsistence.
First Lieutenant Edward McK. Hudson, Fourth Artillery, First Lieutenant R. O. Tyler, Third Artillery, and Second Lieutenant C. W. Thomas, First Infantry, are assigned to duty with the recruits.
I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
H. L. SCOTT,
Lieutenant-Colonel and A. D. C., Act. Adjt. General
.
.
.
HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY, New York, April 8, 1861.First Lieutenant EDWARD McK. HUDSON,
Fourth Artillery, Commanding U. S. troops on the steamer Baltic:
SIR: I am instructed by the General-in-Chief to say to you that the destination of the two hundred recruits embarked on the steamer Baltic is Fort Sumter, and that "Captain G. V. Fox, ex-officer of the Navy, and a gentleman-of high standing, as well as possessed of extraordinary nautical ability, has been charged by high authority in Washington with the command of the expedition, under cover of certain ships of war."
You will accordingly be governed by the instructions of Captain Fox.
I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
H. L. SCOTT,
Lieutenant-Colonel and A. D. C., Act. Adjt. General
.
.
.
WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, April 4, 1861.Captain G. V. FOX, Washington, D. C.:
SIR: It having been decided to succor Fort Sumter you have been selected for this important duty. Accordingly you will take charge of the transports in New York having the troops and supplies on board to the entrance of Charleston Harbor, and endeavor, in the first instance, to deliver the subsistence. If you are opposed in this you are directed to report the fact to the senior naval officer of the harbor, who will be instructed by the Secretary of the Navy to use his entire force to open a passage, when you will, if possible, effect an entrance and place both troops and supplies in Fort Sumter.
I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
SIMON CAMERON,
Secretary of War.
Again, produce a copy of the order Lincoln issued directing them to fire on Charleston.
I'm not referring to people in the singular, i'm referring to "the people" as the population.
What is endless is your need to ignore anything that dents your world view of who did what and why.
What does that even mean? Is force the sole authority for law? Again, are we not founded on this premise "consent of the governed"?
Is our system not based on the belief that "We the People" have a right to rule ourselves rather than be subjected to the Rule of some arbitrary authority that can kill us if we don't obey?
The only difference I see is "rebellion" is what you call a secession when you want to de-legitimize it. It is a sophistry game to pretend forcing people to abide by your rule is moral.
You think those officers issued those orders without Lincolns direction? Tell me what you are trying to get at here. It was by Lincoln's direction that all these ships and guns and men were set into motion and sent at the South.
Strange, I cannot find a single sentence in any of those documents that tells the force to attack Charleston. Could you please highlight the appropriate passages where they are directed to open fire when they arrive off the coast of Charleston.
no argument they were sent. Still do not see an order from Abraham Lincoln ordering those ships to fire on Charleston.
Thanks for the documents, have looked for them for a while
No problem. Lot of good stuff here.
https://ehistory.osu.edu/books/official-records/001/0240
This is one of the links that I had the foresight to save.
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.