Posted on 11/23/2002 7:30:17 AM PST by stainlessbanner
Can you provide an example where Mencken made a serious statement to that effect?
Your analogy is again false. Pearl Harbor was not in the middle of Japanese territory, nor was it attacked to remove enemy forces from that territory. It was attacked for little other reason that to cripple the American fleet.
Sumter on the other hand was only attacked to force the evacuation of the fort. When the yankees were finally willing to evacuate, Beauregard went out of his way to facilitate their peaceful withdrawal from the fort and secure passage up north. The two situations are simply not comparable.
Had the Lane not fired the shot, been sunk in the storm, or never left New York the war would have started on the 12th because the Davis government had already issued orders.
But history did not happen that way and the Harriet Lane fired the first shot. If nothing else, that action confirms the very root of the problem with the yankee presence there - to impede free access into confederate ports. That being their motive and reason, the people of Charleston cannot be blamed for acting to remove them.
"Last night I received your letter giving an account of your interview with Gen. Scott, and for which I thank you. Please present my respects to the General, and tell him, confidentially, I shall be obliged to him to be as well prepared as he can to either hold, or retake, the forts [Sumter and Moultrie], as the case may require, at, and after the inaugeration." - Lincoln, confidential letter to E. B. Washburne, Dec. 21, 1860
Sec. 1501. - Definitions (3) The term ''Civil War veteran'' includes a person who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War, and the term ''active military or naval service'' includes active service in those forces.
This was an entirely prudent position for President-elect Lincoln to take.
Walt
Now what? The 1860 campaign ended on November 6, with Lincoln's election.
Sorry for the previous post; I confused this with your other ridiculous unfounded rant.
Walt
So having shelled the fort into surrender did you expect it to all die down?
That being their motive and reason, the people of Charleston cannot be blamed for acting to remove them.
Given the method chosen for removing them then how can you be surprised that it started the war?
From the unionist point of view, there was no difference between what sparked the war and county or city officials attacking the state militia. Even from an enlightened pro-Southern point of view, Davis's actions were foolhardy and counterproductive.
In school, I used to have more sympathy with the Confederacy than with the Union. I also found the "Lincoln cult" objectionable, and adolescents have a weakness for anything labelled "rebel." But in time, I've increasingly come to see the secessionist firebrands and Confederate political leaders as arrogant, foolish and criminally irresponsible. Their attitude and that of many of their defenders is indefensible -- "Yesterday we were part of the US with US courthouses, customs houses, post offices and forts. We swore allegiance to the United States, made our contribution to the country and drew benefits from our citizenship and allegiance. Today we are independent and sovereign and the few remaining federal troops or officials on our soil are trespassers, interlopers or invaders. We must drive them off if they don't leave. A handful of troops are dangerous invaders. Seventy or eighty years of common allegiance count for nothing. Tomorrow, we will have our own federation with its own flag, government and aspirations to power. And we will be subject to the demands of that new government as we were to the old federal or state government. If not tomorrow, then the day after, our former countrymen will be our enemies." I can understand why people might have felt this way in 1860, but it's not defensible today. Real oppression might justify such rapid and radical contortions, but there was no real federal oppression of the slave states in 1860. There was no greater oppression of slave states by free states than of free states by slave states.
Confederate behavior and the theory of absolute sovereignty behind it is a recipe for a banana republic. It's not a way of getting government and politics out of people's lives. Such frequent and unprepared changes of allegiance and claims of absolute sovereignty push politics into the forefront of human lives. Keeping to Constitutional procedures to effect changes, even to the point of dissolving the union, would have been a far better course than reckless, unilateral action.
If Southern elites had the patience to pursue a political, legal, constitutional process of dissolution, deaccession or devolution, it's possible and likely they would have eventually gotten their own way, if only by making pests of themselves. When the secession crisis began, most Northerners were probably inclined to let them go. But by pushing a radical agenda of absolute sovereignty and non-negotiable demands, by vilifying their fellow or former countrymen, they provoked a powerful reaction that doomed their rebellion.
Neo-confederate writers are a lot like these tax experts who explain on shaky evidence why we don't have to pay taxes. Unfortunately those who believe them don't run the risk of losing money on such dubious claims, so there's little chance of law suits to straighten things out.
First you say it was a public campaign promise by Lincoln, and then you say it was really a private letter written on Dec. 21, six days before Anderson even moved his 65 men into Ft. Sumter (without orders and with no knowledge of his plans in either Washington or Springfield) and 7 days before the S.C. morons siezed any federal property whatsoever.
Again you show what a brilliant man Lincoln was in that he could give orders to respond to events that had not even happened yet. < / sarcasm >
Why don't you give us the source for that letter?
Ah, but it does. The confederates sailed out to the fort in the middle of the bombardment to negotiate the hoisting of that flag of truce and to pledge a safe and peaceful withdrawal for Anderson's men. They could have simply said "get out" but instead they arranged for passage to the harbor entrance where Northern warships were waiting. but that force had been initiated to achieve that result.
After negotiations have failed and when the other side has already used it, force is not in itself a bad thing.
In school, I used to have more sympathy with the Confederacy than with the Union. I also found the "Lincoln cult" objectionable, and adolescents have a weakness for anything labelled "rebel."
Good for you. I had the opposite experience, having been taught that the south was an evil immoral empire and that The Lincoln came down from the morally pure north to free the slaves from their bondage. I was taught that the north was entirely abolitionist when in fact they were less than 10% of the population. I was even led to picture, at a very young age, an "underground railroad" consisting of a giant tunnel lined with train tracks going from Atlanta to New York City and worked by the "morally pure" abolitionist people of the north. In time I discovered this to be a noble myth perpetrated on the nation for political reasons.
We must drive them off if they don't leave.
What business did they have there in the first place? None, other than obstruction. The south went out of its way to facilitate the peaceful departure of those troops. The Lincoln resisted knowing full well it would lead to conflict.
A handful of troops are dangerous invaders.
When they are firing on ships attempting free access to a harbor that is not theirs, then yes. They are.
Seventy or eighty years of common allegiance count for nothing. Tomorrow, we will have our own federation with its own flag, government and aspirations to power. And we will be subject to the demands of that new government as we were to the old federal or state government. If not tomorrow, then the day after, our former countrymen will be our enemies."
Nonsense. The speeches of southern leaders such as Davis express a desire of peaceful separation and even mutual friendship with the north so long as they be left alone. They did not seek to make war and conquest on New York and Massachussetts. They wanted New York and Massachussetts to leave them alone.
Keeping to Constitutional procedures to effect changes, even to the point of dissolving the union, would have been a far better course than reckless, unilateral action.
Perhaps it would have, but you neglect one indisputable fact. The yankees would have none of it. They obstructed constitutional attempts to save the union for months and expressed nothing but uncompromised coercion as a means of solving the dispute. They showed contempt for the constitutional processes of the courts, a contempt later verified when The Lincoln completely ignored the Merryman decision on the grounds that he simply did not like it. They left the south with no other option than to act unilaterally, and that is what the south did.
If Southern elites had the patience to pursue a political, legal, constitutional process of dissolution, deaccession or devolution, it's possible and likely they would have eventually gotten their own way
Not in the least. The South sought constitutional approaches to the dispute throughout one of the most lively sessions of congress. There were even proposals to constitutionally split the nation into four. But the yankee radicals would have none of it in any form whatsoever. To the Sumner crowd it was either their way or no way, a fact conceded by even yankee stalwarts like Charles Francis Adams and William Seward. The south soon learned this to be the case with the yankees and acted in the only viable alternative - unilaterally.
Your version of history of the secession crisis is terribly skewed if not backwards. Yes, there were southern fireeaters who pushed hard to secession, but even they made their case out of expressions of frustration with the Sumner crowd. In late 1860 and early 1861 there were also some moderate republican and democrat northerners who wanted compromise and pushed for it heavily in Congress. They saw obstruction at every turn and found it near impossible to do anything. Amazingly when they voiced their concerns about that obstruction to congress they placed the blame not on the southerners but the northern radicals affiliated with Charles Sumner. Seward called Sumner a "damned fool" for his actions. Adams blasted his faction in a famous and widely printed speech before the chamber. His son Henry said that Sumner was so stubborn and set against compromise that God Almighty could not move him. And the roll call votes reflect it, with Sumner's faction voting in unison against every single proposal save one, the last minute Corwin amendment.
Not really. There were things I like about the man, there are things I dislike. Why do you feel you must defend the man at every turn? I prefer to let his actions and words speak for him.
I suggest you read the record of Lincoln's campaign speeches, particularly the Douglas debates since you are not familiar with them. His platform was to hold the Union together.
Lincoln does not need me to defend him. My comment was made as a sarcastic retort to claims that Lincoln issued orders from Springfield in response to events that had not yet taken place and which could not be anticipated by anyone. You juggle the timeline to support your argument. You are entitled to you own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts.
I have read and am familiar with the L-D debates. You are somewhat incorrect about you statement of what Lincoln's motives were. His "Platform" was Free Soil -- i.e. stop the expansion of slavery to the West. That platform precipitated events far beyond his control and forced his Presidency to focus on one overriding objective --- preserving the Union --- which was quite simply his sworn Constitutional duty. Lincoln confessed often that he had little control over events but that the events had controlled him. He was a very talented and intelligent politician, statesman and communicator, but he was neither a God nor a Satin. He was a good man and a compassionate man who did his best under horrendous conditions, and IMHO, he did the best that any man could have done in those tragic times.
I normally don't get religious or spiritual over history, but I often think that those years were God's punishment on this nation for the sin of slavery. Our sin was worse than others because unlike them, we knew, both North and South, that slavery was wrong and an abonimation before the Lord, yet we allowed it to continue.
I didn't think so.
"Get out?" How? They either had to intern the men or provide transport. There's no credit to using force and then respecting a flag of truce, though it was more than U.S. Black troops got when they tried to surrender to Confederates.
I was even led to picture, at a very young age, an "underground railroad" consisting of a giant tunnel lined with train tracks going from Atlanta to New York City and worked by the "morally pure" abolitionist people of the north.
Then you were quite naive. I hope you overcome your current delusions as well.
What business did they have there in the first place?
They were representatives of the elected government. What "business" to US troops have in Guantanamo? What "business" did the British have in Hong Kong? Respecting agreements and property rights and working peacefully would have won Southern leaders much more respect in the North and elsewhere.
The speeches of southern leaders such as Davis express a desire of peaceful separation and even mutual friendship with the north so long as they be left alone.
It was separation on their terms that they wanted. Their actions spoke louder than words. Confiscation of property, repudiation of debts, firing on federal installations: these were not the path of "peaceful separation and even mutual friendship."
They did not seek to make war and conquest on New York and Massachusetts.
No, but they wanted Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland and what they could grab. The actions of the smaller Gulf State Confederacy in sending commissioners to foment rebellion in the Upper South and Border States should not be ignored. "Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace."
The yankees would have none of it.
Just who are these "yankees"? You admit that Seward and others were for compromise. I would also point out the role of Southern representatives in defeating the Crittenden Compromise. Moreover, not all "compromise" plans would be recognized as true compromises by all those concerned. Davis's motion that any compromise would have to have support of a majority of both parties of the compromise committee doomed the Committee of 13 to failure.
Your version of history of the secession crisis is terribly skewed if not backwards. Yes, there were southern fireeaters who pushed hard to secession, but even they made their case out of expressions of frustration with the Sumner crowd.
Your version of history leaves out the passionate secessionist and Southern nationalist sentiment that fueled the rebellion. Your hero Wigfall, was he working towards compromise? Did Keitt or Rhett or Yancey seek compromise on anything but their own terms? Of course they'd blame the abolitionists. They blamed them for everything. They needed someone to blame. They were political actors fully vested with power and supporters and were responsible for their own actions.
Your assertion that most Northerners weren't abolitionists belies your view of the conflict. If Sumner and other abolitionists were such a minority, how did they come to hold so much power over the political process? Surely Northerners and Southerners devoted to Union and peace could have outvoted this faction. And those of us who have spend so much time abusing Lincoln for his lack of committment to abolitionism should surely have some praise for those who would not compromise with slavery.
Or make them use their own transports.
Then you were quite naive.
No, only a product of a propagandized version of history offered to 10 year olds along side government school agendas of environmentalism and diversitopian rantings.
I hope you overcome your current delusions as well.
Your comment would be better reserved for a mirror.
They were representatives of the elected government.
Not of any elected government in the southern states. They were not representatives of local government, state government, or the southern congressional and senate delegations, all of whom, along with the people, wanted them gone.
What "business" to US troops have in Guantanamo?
It was a territorial agreement that Cuba has offered. The comparison is not valid.
What "business" did the British have in Hong Kong?
Winning it as a territorial possession separate from China then agreeing with China on a lease of the remainder of the colony.
Respecting agreements and property rights and working peacefully would have won Southern leaders much more respect in the North and elsewhere.
It is hard to respect the presence of a military presence in the middle of a harbor when that presence is being used to block your own ships from entering that harbor.
It was separation on their terms that they wanted.
And their terms were southern control of the south. What's so horrible about that?
Their actions spoke louder than words.
No more so than The Lincoln's. Confiscation of property
Since when did the property of the United States as a whole prior to the war become the exclusive property of the North? Did not the South pay for it and even permit its use to the government as well? A fair and practical division would give each half the property within their boundaries. But The Lincoln wanted property in his own region plus that in the southern region.
In reference to the compromise measures in Congress in 1860, Republicans were willing to guarantee the continued existence of slavery where it existed, but not to allow the expansion of slavery. They had campaigned on this platform and had won. It reflected the sentiment of those who had elected them, and they were no more apt to surrender this than Southerners were willing to support an end to slavery where it was legal in 1860. Within these limits compromise was not impossible. Southern "compromise" demands which expanded slavery to the territories and required return of slaves from free territories were not likely to win support and may not have been seriously meant.
Today we can sympathize with those who worked for compromise. One can surely be critical of radical abolitionists or uncompromising free soilers, but it's hard for me to have very much sympathy for aggressive, blustering slaveowners seeking protection of their "rights" at the expense of other's freedoms.
The seizure of federal post offices, arsenals, naval bases and forts was an act of theft. In a peaceful separation, a "fair and practical division" of property could have been made. Faced with a unilateral declaration of secession and the prospect of armed rebellion, the federal government was within its rights in holding on to its property. The government was trustee of federal property until a constitutional separation could be effected.
Your comment would be better reserved for a mirror.
This just underlines the "nya-nya-nya" school yard character of these debates. If that's what they are, fine, but surely you can do better than that.
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.