Posted on 07/22/2002 12:30:48 PM PDT by Aurelius
I occasionally get some rather rude e-mail from those with a deep-rooted Yankee mentality in regard to my little web site. Usually the writer informs me, rather contemptuously that my web site is all wet, that it stinks, that the War of Northern Aggression was really fought to preserve slavery, that I am totally in error about Abraham Lincoln, who, in the writer's opinion, is really god, and on it goes. 'Those people' never offer historical argument to back up what they say [they can't] but they are quite accomplished at ridiculing others when they, themselves, don't have a clue about the historical accuracy of anything. No doubt many of them are cultural marxists and don't even realize it. But, then, no one has ever accused those with a Yankee mentality of being over-endowed with discernment. Let me say here, that when I refer to the Yankee mindset, I am not offering a blanket condemnation of all Northern folks, else I would also condemn myself. I know lots of good Northerners who would cringe at being thought of as Yankees, and I know some Southerners who, unfortunately, fit perfectly into the Yankee mold. What I am talking about has no connection whatever with where you were born.
I got a rather nice e-mail recently from a Southern-born Yankee type who crudely informed me that "Lincoln was right and J W. Booth, and R. E. Lee and Jeff Davis and the rest of the gang were murderers who all deserved to be hanged." You can really tell that this character did his homework - what historical insight! He then went on to inform me that he was a white man born in the South but was, "thankfully educated in California." Folks, I submit, that anyone today who is thankful for having been 'educated' in California the way this man seems to have been 'educated' is just not the brightest light in the harbor. He then informed me, in his infinite wisdom that I should 'get a life' beyond my web site and 'grow a brain.' He closed his tirade with the statement that Lincoln was the last of the good Republicans, and his parting salutation was 'Long live Bill Clinton.' Usually I don't bother replying to such sanctimonious drivel, but, in this man's case I made an exception. I e-mailed him back and told him that if people such as he didn't like my web site then I must be doing something right. I suppose I should have ended my reply to him with 'Have a nice day' but, for some unknown reason, I didn't bother to.
This individual is a perfect example of the Yankee mindset - smug, self-satisfied, egotistical, and totally ensconced within a sense of their own perfect rightness in all things and on all issues. Anyone daring to disagree with them has to be berated because 'those people' have got it all figured out - after all, their 'teachers' and 'college professors' dutifully informed them that the war was all about slavery and that Lincoln freed all the slaves, and the 'history' professor wouldn't lie - would he? Lincoln must be more astute than Jesus Christ because, after all, Lincoln came along more recently on the evolutionary scale didn't he?
I have had people that checked out my web site and disagreed with something they saw on it. Often they have contacted me and have been courteous enough to voice their opinions in a civil manner. Others have offered constructive criticism, which was all right, because I took it in the spirit in which it was given. I had a black man once that read one of my articles and took exception to it, stating that he was a Christian. I contacted him back, informing him that I was also a Christian and with Christian charity, I sought to correct the misconception that he had. Once he understood where I was coming from we were able to carry on a dialogue with no bad feeling on either side. Some folks will check out the site and come back with genuine questions about something. That's fine. I answer what I can historically [unlike the Yankees, I don't claim to have all the answers about everything] and I often try to pass these folks on to someone else that knows more than I do.
But there is a certain class of Yankees - often well 'educated' that are just so superior to the rest of us 'great unwashed' that they don't even feel the need to attempt courtesy. They howl about us 'rednecks' and what we write and tell us to 'get a life' yet the sum total of their 'life' seems to be wrapped up in demeaning those who dare to disagree with their vaunted opinions.
A while back, Professor Clyde Wilson wrote an excellent article in Southern Partisan magazine called The Yankee Problem in America. In it Professor Wilson took on such Yankee paragons or 'virtue' as Ted Kennedy, the man who never learned to drive over a bridge straight, and St. Hillary Clinton of 'Cattle Futures' fame. Wilson described such people as smug, self-righteous, above the rules the rest of us live by, and completely convinced that they are right in all things - right enough that they deserve the privilege of telling the rest of us how to live - all for 'our own good' of course [and just maybe for their profit.]
There is no place in the Yankee mindset for grace, courtesy, compassion, consideration of the feelings of others, or for any of those Scriptural virtues that have graced and improved our civilization in the past. The Yankee knows only complete self-righteousness and, in that self-righteousness he exhibits a certain perverse pleasure in seeking to trample on the feelings of those who dare to disagree with his elevated opinions. In most cases, the Yankee understanding of accurate history is about an inch deep, and therefore, he becomes little more than a 'useful idiot' that the cultural Marxist professor that 'educated' him can turn loose on the world for the total benefit of the New World Order.
http://jamesostrowski.com/secession.html
"In fact, the Constitutional Convention considered and rejected a provision that would have authorized the use of Union force against a recalcitrant state. On May 31, 1787, the Convention considered adding to the powers of Congress the right: "to call forth the force of the union against any member of the union, failing to fulfil its duty under the articles thereof."29 The clause was rejected after James Madison spoke against it:
"A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."
Your boys had to destroy the States in order to save the Union of - well - whatever those things were.
I'd rather they explain where they found anything in the Constitution indicating that it was permanent and unrevokable.
After all, the "perpetual" New England confederacy failed, the "perpetual" Articles of Confederation was dissolved by less than the required unanimous consent, yet nothing in the Constitution indicated permanence.
And slavery was practiced by Yankees and agreed to - the yankees ratified the Constitution and welcomed the chance to make millions from the trade. The South wanted to leave, just as the New England states had years before - there was no prohibition against it, and neither was there any requirement to request the consent of any other states.
The yankees ignored that. Keeping the south their slave was a lot more important to them than keeping their Constitutional agreement.
Yet in the eastern theater of the war, the indisputably more prominent of the two, the yankees were hit, against the odds, with defeat after defeat. Manassas 1 and 2, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville.
You also neglect entirely the far western theater, which was dominated by humiliating yankee defeats by smaller confederate numbers. The Red River and Sabine campaigns ended in disaster for the federals with stunning against the odds defeats at Mansfield and Sabine Pass. The Texas coastal campaign was similarly laughable with the main port at Galveston being retaken by the confederates in a stunning defeat of the yankees, again against the odds. After that and Sabine's failures, the yankees attempted to fight their way up the coast from the Rio Grande. They took Brownsville and used it to work their way north on the coast, just in time for the confederates to come back in behind them and kick them out of Brownsville. The laughable inability of the yankees to effectively do much of anything in the far west theater essentially resulted in the preservation of Texas as the confederacy's main viable cotton and trade source until well after Lee's surrender and the war's end everywhere else in the nation.
But that is not to say they didn't try. Lincoln was ready to devote numbers comparable to all but the large armies in the eastern theater toward the goal of capturing the far west. The invasion stopped at Sabine Pass was intended to consist of between 15 and 20 thousand men with the first 5 thousand of them having been beaten by 44 confederates in an earthen fort. The Red River Campaign was slated to consist of 17,000 under Banks plus another 10,000 sent by Sherman plus another 15,000 under Steele plus a fleet of ironclads and gunboat steamers under Porter. Had the Rio Grande effort gotten anywhere, most expected it would recieve the attention of another 15,000 federals.
Every one of these was by all reasonable considerations a sizable force, and all met with defeat coming nowhere near their objectives. This, combined with the fact that the campaigns couldn't establish themselves inland beyond river entry, we never hear about them.
The eastern theater provided a strong and lengthy confederate check on federal invasion to the point of exhaustion, when they were finally overrun. The western theater was a union push through to the end waged under the practice of total warfare including against civilians. Those are the two we often hear about. The story that is seldom told occured in the far western theater, and it was a complete disaster for the federals time and time again.
Fine with me.
Here are the top 30 cities in murder rates for 2000 (per capita out of every 100,000 residents) according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports published in 2001. Citites in Confederate states are in italics. Cities in Union states are plain. Cities in states that did not exist in 1861 are in bold
1 Gary, IN 59.4
2 Compton, CA 47.4
3 New Orleans, LA 43.3
4 Washington, DC 41.8
5 Detroit, MI 40.7
6 Baltimore, MD 40.3
7 Youngstown, OH 38.3
8 Richmond, VA 36.9
9 St. Louis, MO 36.3
10 Atlanta, GA 31.7
11 Birmingham, AL 31.1
12 Reading, PA 30.4
13 Richmond, CA 30.2
14 West Palm Beach, FL 28.3***
15 Camden, NJ 28.2
15 Shreveport, LA 28.2
17 Hammond, IN 27.8
18 Flint, MI 27.3
19 Kansas City, MO 25.2
20 Memphis, TN 23.2
21 Savannah, GA 22.8
22 Philadelphia, PA 22.0
23 Chicago, IL 21.9
24 Oakland, CA 21.4
25 Newark, NJ 21.3
26 Milwaukee, WI 20.9
27 Dallas, TX 20.6
28 Inglewood, CA 19.8
29 Norfolk, VA 18.9
30 Providence, RI 18.9
** West Palm Beach, FL - though West Palm Beach is geographically in a confederate state, its population is thoroughly yankee in origin
TOTALS FROM THE TOP 30:
Cities in Confederate states: 10
Cities in Union states: 20
Cities in states created after the war: 0
4 of the 20 Union state cities are in California, which was not in the vicinity of the major war theaters and is not technically a part of yankeeland. Take them away and that makes 16 union cities, 10 confederate cities, and 4 western cities in the top 30. Yankeeland still dominates with a clear majority of urban crime cesspools.
Try again, Walt. The best you've got are the 4 declarations of causes that were more or less unbinding legislative resolutions of the legislatures themselves. I know for certain that Texas' was never put before the people in its secession vote, unlike the Texas ordinance which was presented as part of the referendum on the ballot. I suspect the same is true of the other 3 states as well.
And while we're on the subject, why don't you take a look at what some of the other confederates said in their declarations of causes:
Declaration by the People of the Cherokee Nation of the Causes Which Have Impelled Them to Unite Their Fortunes With Those of the Confederate States of America. When circumstances beyond their control compel one people to sever the ties which have long existed between them and another state or confederacy, and to contract new alliances and establish new relations for the security of their rights and liberties, it is fit that they should publicly declare the reasons by which their action is justified.
The Cherokee people had its origin in the South; its institutions are similar to those of the Southern States, and their interests identical with theirs. Long since it accepted the protection of the United States of America, contracted with them treaties of alliance and friendship, and allowed themselves to be to a great extent governed by their laws.
In peace and war they have been faithful to their engagements with the United States. With much of hardship and injustice to complain of, they resorted to no other means than solicitation and argument to obtain redress. Loyal and obedient to the laws and the stipulations of their treaties, they served under the flag of the United States, shared the common dangers, and were entitled to a share in the common glory, to gain which their blood was freely shed on the battlefield.
When the dissensions between the Southern and Northern States culminated in a separation of State after State from the Union they watched the progress of events with anxiety and consternation. While their institutions and the contiguity of their territory to the States of Arkansas, Texas, and Missouri made the cause of the seceding States necessarily their own cause, their treaties had been made with the United States, and they felt the utmost reluctance even in appearance to violate their engagements or set at naught the obligations of good faith.
Conscious that they were a people few in numbers compared with either of the contending parties, and that their country might with no considerable force be easily overrun and devastated and desolation and ruin be the result if they took up arms for either side, their authorities determined that no other course was consistent with the dictates of prudence or could secure the safety of their people and immunity from the horrors of a war waged by an invading enemy than a strict neutrality, and in this decision they were sustained by a majority of the nation.
That policy was accordingly adopted and faithfully adhered to. Early in the month of June of the present year the authorities of the nation declined to enter into negotiations for an alliance with the Confederate States, and protested against the occupation of the Cherokee country by their troops, or any other violation of their neutrality. No act was allowed that could be construed by the United States to be a violation of the faith of treaties.
But Providence rules the destinies of nations, and events, by inexorable necessity, overrule human resolutions. The number of the Confederate States has increased to eleven, and their Government is firmly established and consolidated. Maintaining in the field an army of 200,000 men, the war became for them but a succession of victories. Disclaiming any intention to invade the Northern States, they sought only to repel invaders from their own soil and to secure the right of governing themselves. They claimed only the privilege asserted by the Declaration of American Independence, and on which the right of the Northern States themselves to self-government is founded, of altering their form of government when it became no longer tolerable and establishing new forms for the security of their liberties.
Throughout the Confederate States we saw this great revolution effected without violence or the suspension of the laws or the closing of the courts. The military power was nowhere placed above the civil authorities. None were seized and imprisoned at the mandate of arbitrary power. All division among the people disappeared, and the determination became unanimous that there should never again be any union with the Northern States. Almost as one man all who were able to bear arms rushed to the defense of an invaded country, and nowhere has it been found necessary to compel men to serve or to enlist mercenaries by the offer of extraordinary bounties.
But in the Northern States the Cherokee people saw with alarm a violated Constitution, all civil liberty put in peril, and all the rules of civilized warfare and the dictates of common humanity and decency unhesitatingly disregarded. In States which still adhered to the Union a military despotism has displaced the civil power and the laws became silent amid arms. Free speech and almost free thought became a crime. The right to the writ of habeas corpus, guaranteed by the Constitution, disappeared at the nod of a Secretary of State or a general of the lowest grade. The mandate of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was set at naught by the military power, and this outrage on common right approved by a President sworn to support the Constitution. War on the largest scale was waged, and the immense bodies of troops called into the field in the absence of any law warranting it under the pretense of suppressing unlawful combination of men. The humanities of war, which even barbarians respect, were no longer thought worthy to be observed. Foreign mercenaries and the scum of cities and the inmates of prisons were enlisted and organized into regiments and brigades and sent into Southern States to aid in subjugating a people struggling for freedom, to burn, to plunder, and to commit the basest of outrages on women; while the heels of armed tyranny trod upon the necks of Maryland and Missouri, and men of the highest character and position were incarcerated upon suspicion and without process of law in jails, in forts, and in prison-ships, and even women were imprisoned by the arbitrary order of a President and Cabinet ministers; while the press ceased to be free, the publication of newspapers was suspended and their issues seized and destroyed; the officers and men taken prisoners in battle were allowed to remain in captivity by the refusal of their Government to consent to an exchange of prisoners; as they had left their dead on more than one field of battle that had witnessed their defeat to be buried and their wounded to be cared for by Southern hands.
Whatever causes the Cherokee people may have had in the past, to complain of some of the Southern States, they cannot but feel that their interests and their destiny are inseparably connected with those of the South. The war now raging is a war of Northern cupidity and fanaticism against the institution of African servitude; against the commercial freedom of the South, and against the political freedom of the States, and its objects are to annihilate the sovereignty of those States and utterly change the nature of the General Government.
The Cherokee people and their neighbors were warned before the war commenced that the first object of the party which now holds the powers of government of the United States would be to annul the institution of slavery in the whole Indian country, and make it what they term free territory and after a time a free State; and they have been also warned by the fate which has befallen those of their race in Kansas, Nebraska, and Oregon that at no distant day they too would be compelled to surrender their country at the demand of Northern rapacity, and be content with an extinct nationality, and with reserves of limited extent for individuals, of which their people would soon be despoiled by speculators, if not plundered unscrupulously by the State.
Urged by these considerations, the Cherokees, long divided in opinion, became unanimous, and like their brethren, the Creeks, Seminoles, Choctaws, and Chickasaws, determined, by the undivided voice of a General Convention of all the people, held at Tahlequah, on the 21st day of August, in the present year, to make common cause with the South and share its fortunes.
In now carrying this resolution into effect and consummating a treaty of alliance and friendship with the Confederate States of America the Cherokee people declares that it has been faithful and loyal to is engagements with the United States until, by placing its safety and even its national existence in imminent peril, those States have released them from those engagements.
Menaced by a great danger, they exercise the inalienable right of self-defense, and declare themselves a free people, independent of the Northern States of America, and at war with them by their own act. Obeying the dictates of prudence and providing for the general safety and welfare, confident of the rectitude of their intentions and true to the obligations of duty and honor, they accept the issue thus forced upon them, unite their fortunes now and forever with those of the Confederate States, and take up arms for the common cause, and with entire confidence in the justice of that cause and with a firm reliance upon Divine Providence, will resolutely abide the consequences.
Tahlequah, C. N., October 28, 1861.
THOMAS PEGG,
President National Committee.
JOSHUA ROSS,
Clerk National Committee.
Concurred.
LACY MOUSE,
Speaker of Council.
THOMAS B. WOLFE,
Clerk Council.
Approved.
JNO. ROSS.
There you have it - Frequent references to the violation of individual rights and the abuses of the Lincoln administration. I count only two mentions of slavery, one of which is a complaint against the abolitionist's fanaticism and the other a single reference to turning Oklahoma into the next Kansas.
You are absolutely correct. As another fact of history Walt conveniently ignores, the Texas declaration of causes he and other yankees frequently cite is not what they make it out to be. Those who quote from it cite the document as if it were the official act of secession ala a Declaration of Independence.
History reveals that it was not anything of the sort. As best I can tell, it was nothing more than a legislative resolution with about as much legal weight as, well, a legislative resolution. It was passed on February 2, 1861 by the convention itself
The REAL Texas act of secession was passed as an act of law entitled the Texas Ordinance of Secession on February 1, 1861 and may be seen here: http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/treasures/images/earlystate/tnord.jpg
This document, the one with actual legal weight, said not a word about slavery beyond a single geographical reference to the slave-holding states. It cited three causes for secession: (1) that the reason Texas had entered the union to begin with, for the protection of the republic's people and property on a hostile frontier, had not been accomplished by the union, (2) that the northern states were the cause of it not being fulfilled and had therefore violated their part of the contract, and (3) that the powers in control of the federal government intended it be used as an exercise of government power rather than a protection against it, as was the intent of the Constitution. Voter approval was a requirement for the ordinance's enaction in addition to its passage.
After it passed on the 1st, the legally binding ordinance was put before the voters of Texas. The causes resolution of the 2nd was not part of the resolution and as far as I can tell went no further than its non-binding passage as a resolution on the 2nd. The ordinance went up for a vote on February 23rd and was certified to have passed 46,153 to 14,747. It took effect as law on March 2nd, as was stated in the referendum.
"I believe a large majority of our Southern people are opposed to secession, and if the secession leaders would permit our people to take ample time to consider secession and then hold fair elections the secession movement would be defeated by an overwhelming majority."
Such a vote did occur on February 23, 1861 in Texas. Houston himself ratified its adoption shortly thereafter, with the vote being 46,153 to 14,747.
Though Houston was himself a Unionist throughout the secession crisis, he came to support the Confederate side after it had already been established. When secession passed in Texas, Lincoln's government reportedly offered to send Houston federal troops to prevent secession from being carried out. Houston refused the offer. He was planning another run for governor of Texas in 1863 when he died. Some evidence suggests that Houston wanted for Texas itself to eventually secede from the confederacy and resume its role as an independent state. Houston's death precluded another run for Governor, so the idea died with him.
As you yourself note, the secession vote in Texas was February 23, 1861; Lincoln was inaugurated two weeks later.
Walt
"A copy of this speech was sent to The University of Texas Library by S. A. Hackworth. The Brenham Inquirer, April 3, 1861, mentions the speech, also the ominous threats made against Houston's life should he try to make a speech at Brenham; it also states that a "brave secession leader" addressed "the howling mob" stating that he would protect General Houston while he made any speech he might wish to make. But The Enquirer did not report the speech or any part of it; but did give the date as March 31, 1861.
In sending the copy to The University of Texas, Mr. S. A. Hackworth. wrote the following letter which may be of interest: Galveston, Texas [no date].I herewith enclose to you a correct report of the great speech made byGovernor Sam Houston at Brenham, Texas, in 1861, immediately after he had been deposed from the Governorship of the State, because he refused to take the Oath of Allegiance to the Confederate Government. General Houston,accompanied by his family, was on his way, by stage travel, from Austin to his home at Cedar Point, near the old battlefield of San Jacinto. He did not wish to speak, but his old soldier comrades, and other friends at Brenham insisted that he speak his sentiments. He firmly continued to refuse their invitation, until some of the hot-blooded secessionists declared that he should not speak. This aroused the old lion-hearted hero, and he then consented to speak. I remember the scene as vividly as if it had been only yesterday. The excitement was intense; excited groups of secessionists gathered upon the street corners, and declared that it would be treason against the Confederate Government to permit Governor Houston to speak against secession. The court house was densely packed, and as Governor Houston arose to speak, cries were heard: "Put him out; don't let him speak; kill him." At this moment, Mr. Hugh McIntyre, a wealthy planter of the community, and a leading secessionist, sprang upon the table and drew a large Colt revolver saying: "I and 100 other friends of Governor Houston have invited him to address us, and we will kill the first man who insults, or who may, in any way attempt to injure him. I myself think that Governor Houston ought to have accepted the situation, and ought to have taken the oath of allegiance to our Confederate Government, but he thought otherwise. He is honest and sincere, and he shed his blood for Texas independence. There is no other man alive who has more right to be heard by the people of Texas. Now, fellow-citizens, give him your close attention; and you ruffians, keep quiet, or I will kill you."
This is on Google.
Walt
CSA forces held Nashville for less than a year.
Incursions by so-called CSA forces into Kentucky, Maryland and Pennsylvania were all repulsed with bloody losses for the rebels.
U.S. forces were much more successful in rebel territory; look at the flag flying down at the post office. Which is it?
CSA military prowess has been grossly inflated by myth, and myth alone.
Walt
you snooze, you lose.
Such a vote did occur on February 23, 1861 in Texas. Houston himself ratified its adoption shortly thereafter, with the vote being 46,153 to 14,747.
He doesn't say Texas, he says southern. In most of the so-called seceded states, there was no popular vote.
It should be remembered that in South Carolina that voters elected neither the governor nor presidential electors until 1868.
It reminds me of what one Brit said during the Revolution -- "how is it we hear the greatest cries for freedom from the drivers of negroes?"
There was precious little freedom in South Carolina. I read on FR today that it is still illegal in SC to give or get a tattoo. What a joke of a place.
Walt
But by March 31st that referendum had already occured over a month earlier, which had endorsed secession in a landslide. While he was Governor, Houston himself issued a public proclamation announcing the referendum's passage. This makes it extremely odd that he would be calling for a referendum on secession a month later as if none had already happened. Therefore the date seems suspect.
If the date is wrong and that date comes from the alleged source of the speech, that source is similarly suspect and needs to be verified independently.
Of the records I could find in a brief search, here are some referendum results I could find:
Texas referendum to adopt the ordinance of secession: 46,153 for and 14,747 against on February 23, 1861
Virginia referendum to adopt the ordinance of secession: 132,201 and 37,451 against on May 23, 1861
Tennessee referendum to adopt the ordinance of secession: 104,471 for and 47,183 against on June 8, 1861
I've also heard that North Carolina voted narrowly against secession sometime around February then reversed itself after the Federal blockade in May, but I can't find any numbers or specific votes listed online. I'll have to do some more research on the others to see what votes were taken and when, but for now it may be said that at least three states took a vote for certain, according to some reports a fourth, and possibly others.
The Texas Secession Ordinance did not come into effect as law until March 2, 1861. Lincoln was inaugurated two days later.
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.