No one in the 19th century called secession treason.
Posted on 12/29/2023 7:52:34 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The Nikki Haley slavery tempest in a teapot continues to roil some circles.
For those who have a life and have been spending it with family and friends this Christmas, some background: The candidate for the Republican presidential nomination is in political hot water for her answer to a questioner at a New Hampshire campaign event in which she failed to list “slavery” among the causes of the American Civil War.
She’s subsequently admitted slavery was among those causes, while adding that she thought the question was posed by a Democrat plant in the audience.
The New York Times continues to stoke the story, claiming her answer could “dent her crossover appeal to independents and moderate Democrats.”
Three thoughts:
First, NEWS FLASH: For many of us challenged by the cost of living, the rise in crime, the influx of illegal aliens, and the woke agenda being pushed on cultural-social issues, the enumeration and hierarchy of causes for why something happened 163 years ago is something we do not care about. I’ll even venture to say that unless those “independents” caucus with the Democrats in legislative bodies, they also probably are not burning with concern about the ranked causes of the Civil War.
Second, the Democrat reaction to “of course it was about slavery” is rather rich. Given the historical illiteracy that dominates our schools (we have no time to teach history after spending time on gender, sex, and critical race theory lessons), let’s recall a few facts.
It was South Carolina Democrats, not a South Carolina Republican, who initiated the treason of secession.
It was mostly Democrats who, in the last days of the Democrat Buchanan administration, tried to amend the U.S. Constitution to preserve the Missouri Compromise and, thus, preserve slavery.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Charleston Harbor batteries and ships fired on an unarmed Federal ship bringing supplies and reinforcements months before April 12, 1861, the ship departing undamaged. Lincoln asked the Governor of South Carolina and General Beauregard not to fire on Federal ships or Fort Sumter. It isn’t clear who in the chain of command gave the Charleston Batteries the order to fire on Fort Sumter, but it almost certainly was not Jefferson Davis. A peaceful resolution was possible until that moment.
That does NOT mean Lincoln was not opposed to slavery, simply that he did not intend to end slavery at the cost of the Union. Lincoln articulated clearly and repeatedly that he thought slavery was wrong, and evil, and that the assertion in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal applied to Africans as well as whites.
“Charleston Harbor batteries and ships fired on an unarmed Federal ship . . .”
Grant in his Personal Memoirs, Chapter 4, explains how the Mexican War - and others - start.
“The presence of United State troops on the edge of the disputed territory furthest from the Mexican settlements, was not sufficient to provoke hostilities. We were sent to provoke a fight, but it was essential that Mexico should commence it. It was very doubtful whether Congress would declare war; but if Mexico should attack our troops, the Executive could announce, ‘Whereas, war exists by the acts of, etc.,’ and prosecute the contest with vigor. Once initiated there were but few public men who would have the courage to oppose it . . . Mexico showing no willingness to come to the Nueces to drive the invaders from her soil, it became necessary for the ‘invaders’ to approach to within a convenient distance to be struck.”
Like Grant, Lincoln knew how to start a war. After the Gulf of Tonkin Incident . . . I mean the Fort Sumter Incident . . . war came.
I posted the following years ago. Seems appropriate now:
I ran across the following concerning Fort Sumter in The Daily Picayune of New Orleans, published on April 13, 1861. It is long, so please forgive any typos:
Montgomery, April 12 – The following is the correspondence between the War Department of the Confederate States, by order of President Davis, and Gen. Beauregard, in command of Charleston Harbor, immediately proceeding the commencement of hostilities.
This correspondence grew out of the formal notification of the Government at Washington, as disclosed in Gen. Beauregard’s first dispatch to the Secretary of War, that it had resolved upon the provisioning and reinforcement of Fort Sumter.
First Dispatch from Gen. Beauregard
The following is the first dispatch from Gen. Beauregard to the Secretary of War, alluded to above:
Charleston, April 8, 1861
Authorized messengers from President Lincoln at Washington have just informed Gov. Pickens and myself, that provisions will be sent into Fort Pickens, peaceably if possible, but by force if necessary.
[signed} G. T. Beauregard
Secretary of War to Gen. Beauregard
Montgomery, April 10, 1861
Gen. G. T. Beauregard, in command Confederate forces, Charleston:
If you have no doubt of the authorized character of the agent who communicated to you the intention of the Government at Washington to supply Fort Sumter by force, you will at once demand its evacuation.
If this is refused, proceed in such manner as you may determine to reduce it. Please answer.
[signed] L. Pope Walker
Gen. Beauregard’s Second Dispatch
Charleston April 10, 1861
L. Pope Walker, Secretary of War:
The demand for the evacuation of Fort Sumter will be made at 12 o’clock to-morrow.
[signed] G. T. Beauregard
Secretary of War to Gen. Beauregard
Montgomery, April 10, 1861
Gen. Beauregard, Charleston:
Unless there are special reasons connected with your condition, it is considered proper that you should make the demand for the evacuation of Fort Sumter at an earlier hour.
[signed] L. Pope Walker
Gen. Beauregard’s Third Dispatch
Charleston, April 10, 1861
L. Pope Walker, Secretary of War The reasons for demanding the evacuation of Fort Sumter at 12 o’clock, are of a special nature.
[signed] G. T. Beauregard
Fourth Dispatch of Gen. Beauregard
Evacuation of Sumter Demanded
Charleston, April 11, 1861
L. Pope Walker, Secretary of War
The demand for the evacuation of Fort Sumter was made at 12 o’clock to day. Maj. Anderson will be allowed until 6 o’clock this evening to answer.
[signed]G. T. Beauregard
Secretary of War to Gen. Beauregard
Montgomery, April 11
Gen. Beauregard, Charleston:
Please telegraph at once the reply of Major Anderson.
[signed]L. Pope Walker
Reply of Major Anderson
Charleston, April 11
Gen. Beauregard
I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication, demanding the evacuation of this fort, and to say, in reply thereto, that it is a demand with which I regret that my sense of honor, and of my obligations to my Government prevent my compliance.
[Not reported in the newspaper were the following additional words: Thanking you for the fair, manly and courteous terms proposed, and for the high compliment paid me, I am, General, very respectfully, your obedient servant,]
[signed] Robert Anderson
Major Anderson adds verbally, “I will await the first shot, and if you do not batter us to pieces, we will be starved out in a few days.”
Please answer.
[signed]G. T. Beauregard
Secretary of War to Gen. Beauregard
Montgomery, April 11, 1863
Gen. Beauregard, Charleston:
Do not desire needlessly to bombard Fort Sumter.
If Major Anderson will state the time which, as indicated by him, he will evacuate, and agree in the meantime that he will not use his guns against us, unless ours should be employed against Fort Sumter, you are authorized thus to avoid the effusion of blood.
If this or its equivalent be refused, reduce the fort in the manner you, in your judgment, decide to be most practicable.
[signed]L. Pope Walker
Major Anderson’s Last Reply
Charleston, April 11
L. Pope Walker, Montgomery
Major Anderson will not consent to enter into the engagement you propose. I write you to-day.
[signed] G. T. Beauregard
Latest From Charleston
Opening of Fire on Fort Sumter
Charleston, April 12
L. Pope Walker, Montgomery
We opened fire on Fort Sumter at half-past four o’clock this morning.
[signed] G. T. Beauregard
Intercepted Dispatches
P.S. I have intercepted a dispatch, which discloses the fact that Mr. Fox, who had been allowed to visit Major Anderson, on the pledge that his purpose was pacific, employed his opportunity to devise a plan for supplying the fort by force.
This plan was adopted by the Government at Washington, and was in progress of execution when the demand was made on Major Anderson.
[signed] G. T. Beauregard
“Lincoln articulated clearly and repeatedly that he thought slavery was wrong, and evil, and that the assertion in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal applied to Africans as well as whites.”
That is an interesting comment. Lincoln’s comments at Gettysburg do imply he took up arms and levied war for the purpose of racial equality - something not found in the U.S. Constitution in 1863; or for that matter, in the DOI.
Others have said that Lincoln - beginning with his House Divided speech - intended by hook or by crook to overthrow the pro-slavery provisions in the U.S. Constitution.
Maybe he did.
What comment, exactly at Gettysburg are you talking about? You Lost Cause fanatics are losing me. The Gettysburg Address, which I memorized when I was 11, never mentions slavery, except his reference to the Declaration of Independence’s assertion that all men are created equal. Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration, though he was a slave holder and did not free his slaves, even in his will. (Washington did.)
His house divided speech does not rule out a dissolution of the Union, but as President, he felt obliged to uphold the Union. The South fired the first shots of the Civil War, which was not inevitable until then. There was a chance of peaceful dissolution right up until that moment.
“The Gettysburg Address, which I memorized when I was 11, never mentions slavery, except his reference to the Declaration of Independence’s assertion that all men are created equal.”
That is one reference to slavery.
“A new birth of freedom” is the second mention of slavery (its abolition).
You Lost Causers find abolition everywhere. By 1863 the Emancipation Proclamation had already been issued. It was NOT a cause of the Civil War, it was a result. It did not abolish slavery in Delaware, Maryland, Missouri, or New Orleans. Early in the War Union officers were careful not to encourage slaves in territory under their control to believe that the entry of Union troops meant that they were free.
One General, whose name I forget, designated slaves to be “contraband of war”, and therefore the property of the Union Army. They were allowed to work for the soldiers, for nominal wages, doing laundry and similar camp follower tasks. All Union units had runaway slave camp followers. Southern units had unfreed slave camp followers.
Again, without the shots on Fort Sumter, there may never have been a Civil War. I consider the Civil War, like World War I, an unnecessary catastrophe. Slavery, imho, was moribund in the South. Peaceful abolition, either in an independent Southern Republic, or as part of the Union would have been vastly preferable.
I believe Lincoln was in the faction that expected slavery eventually to fall under its own weight, provided the South's political power was sufficiently undermined. This approach was dependent upon preventing the spread of slavery and Southern power into the territories.
I don't deny the importance of economics in this discussion. The power to legislatively diddle tariffs etc. would also have been a consideration in the South expanding its influence into territories and new states.
So, in light of the above, it seems reasonable to suggest expansion of slavery was a line the North would never cross. And expansion was viewed by the South as necessary for its survival. Hence war...
Here is an excerpt from the writing of McPherson.
But it was not the existence of slavery that polarized then ation to the breaking point, but the issue of the expansion of slave territory. Most oft he crises that threatened the bonds of union arose over this matter....
Excerpted from James M. McPherson, “What Caused the Civil War?,” North & South: The Official Magazine of the Civil War Society 4, no. 1 (January 2000): 12-22.
Not disagreeing, but the proximate cause of the Civil War was the firing on Fort Sumter. Until that moment there was still time. And many Southerners were abolitionists, and others saw slaves as competition in the labor market. Slaves were generally better off than many poor whites, because slaves were owned by the upper classes, who protected their investments. Hence the Jones County War.
Good points...IMO, No way the North was gonna walk away from Sumter...
There was a typo in my post 104. The article said: “Authorized messengers from President Lincoln at Washington have just informed Gov. Pickins and myself, that provisions will be sent into Fort Sumter, peaceably, if possible, but by force, if necessary.”
[signed] G. T Beauregard.
My error was that I had listed in my post 104 above that “provisions will be sent into Fort Pickens” instead of Fort Sumter.
I have been to both forts, and both are fascinating.
No one in the 19th century called secession treason.
Pure fiction.
The US Constitution is silent on state secession.
Maybe. That said the left is really going after her. She is a threat for sure. I believe she is more of a danger to Biden than Trump is.
Lincoln wanted to preserve slavery too at leaset in the beginning of the war. Lincoln was a racist, more so than the average KKKer of today.
I can’t wait for Trump to crush it in Iowa and shut the TDSers up ONCE AND FOR ALL.
“Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion and
must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.
Another opinion by Chief Justice Chase. This time in the case White v. Texas, 1868
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.