Secession - Page 13

thea_447 · #**121** 08-16-2004, 11:42 AM

Oh, and I left out one paragraph. (It's Monday, what can I say?)

As another poster has pointed out, I have mentioned Neil intentionally leaving a few things out. (Even though in the past, I have actually given ammunition to Neil, knowing full well he could use it to cut my throat, I was assuming that if he had knowledge that would be to the South's advantage, he wouldn't go around waving a banner with such news plastered on it for all us Southerners to grasp!) I also know that my friend Neil will take no offense at something so innocuous. He KNOWS me! But, on the off-chance that his dander is up over a slip of the lip, my apologies to you, Neil. (And I also know, that he will hold that little slip in his heart and find a way to poke me some day soon!)

Thea

jenna · #**122** 08-16-2004, 01:07 PM

Thea,

I do consider this a very friendly conversation, and I chuckled emmensly at the thought of everyone going for their books, for I can count myself in on that one! LOL! Everyone likes to prove a point, and thus that is what we do with civilized conversations. I have been on other lists before where one person is always right and you are always wrong no matter what proof you have on the contrary.

No, the Fugitive Slave act was not being taken care of during the war. I agree, no one is going to stop a battle to send a slave back for the $10 or $5 bounty that was put out there. But at the time of secession they did do this quite regularly. It was so much so that no matter if a slave had papers that said he/she were free, the corrupt bounty hunters just took them back to a reliable source for their payment and went on their merry way. That is what the call of a simple dollar will do.

As for Bucchanan, he really didn't want to deal with the issue. So of course he would sit back and let Southern states due what they wanted. He ••••• footed around the issue. Let's face it, if you were in his shoes would you have wanted to deal with it as well? Even today, who would want to have to deal with all that? As for the Federal property being taken back, that at the time was considered an act of treason, which is what allot of Northner politicians viewed the secession as, and act of treason against the Union and the Constitution.

Which, personally all of this is who is interpreting it at the time. Even today we interpret the Constitution, laws and all that differently. It is all in who looks at it. The North viewed the South secesseding as an act of treason, and the South viewed it as their God given right under the Constitution. So who was right? Both sides were if you think about it, because it was who did the interpreting. Boy that sounds redundant doesn't it?

I can not argue the fact that Lincoln and the North in general were not sure what to do with the black population if they were freed. Yes, the idea of all those blacks coming up and taking Northern factory jobs was a bit freightening, and they didn't want it. But you could say the same for the Irish that came over. How many of them were put into the worst possible fighting areas? And the Native American Indians? They were looked upon even worse then the blacks, so where do they stand? It wasn't just one group of people the North was having issues with, but the blacks took the political stage. Lincoln did use the EP to his advantage and used it he did. More as a political ploy then anything.

As for his anagural speech, I have not read it, but I do understand his passion. As with our own president today, they say things that you can take one way or another, it's just how pumped up your own blood is at the time. Licoln was elected for a reason, to run the country, and to get it back together. We were deffinatly at a boiling point at that time and he was looked upon as a healer of sorts that could bring things together. Unfortunatly the South didn't see it that way. They saw Lincoln as a threat to their way of life. And I guess if I had been in their shoes with their lifestyle and way of thinking I would have felt threatened as well.

Now Ft. Summter was a botched effort as far as I am concerned. It fell to the South with little resistance because the commanding officer was old, and ill prepared. Even though the fort was fired upon, if memory serves me correctly (since I am at work and have little to no referrence materials at hand) it didn't take much more then a few shells fired from the port to make the old man surrrender the fort. But yet this one act was enough to get everyone fired up, and it was enough to have Lincoln call for volunteers.

Yes, your attitude has been taken as very curtious, and not as any other way. Like I said, I enjoy talking about this with others who have an open mind and attitude. It is when you talk to people that cant' see both sides of the coin that it gets testy.

I look forward to talking to you more. I would love to talk with you about the women and their lives at that time. I have been studying the fashions and the styles of the time and find the more I research the less I feel I know.

Respectfully yours,
Jenna

p.s. I have asked once before. Have even emailed Mike, but to no avail. How does the spell check on this thing work??!! I am terrible at spelling, and will just keep posting badly spelled letters till I know how! LOL! I tell you, if "a" had more then one letter I would be the first to spell it wrong.

#**123** 08-16-2004, 03:00 PM

Jenna,
The spell check here does not correct spelling that I am aware of. Merely hi-lights words that may be spelled incorrectly. One of the easiest ways is to write what you can on your pc systems that have spell check then cut-paste into CWT. Or just not worry about it. Speaking only for me, I do not think less of anyone for their spelling or grammar. I am only concerned with what your points are. If I was to take exception to anyone’s spelling I would be a serious hypocrite. Mine often looks like I learned to spell from Huked on Fonix. I always considered correct spelling and proper grammar to be something that happened to other people.

YMOS
tommy

jenna · #**124** 08-16-2004, 06:49 PM

LOL!!!!! Thanks Tommy! You made me smile with that one!

#**125** 08-16-2004, 06:53 PM

Jenna,
You are most welcome. And I must extend my thanks to you as well for being so active on the boards.
YMOS
tommy

jenna · #**126** 08-16-2004, 07:00 PM

I have really enjoyed this message board. As I have said, you guys do stick to your creed, and this is an open and friendly arena to hear and air your opinions. I hope no one minds me jumping in? For I know some of you have known each other for some time, so I am a newby, but you have all welcomed me very well.

#**127** 08-16-2004, 07:47 PM

Well Jenna, we were all newbies once. Gotta start somewhere. Granted, I would not presume to speak for everyone here but I believe we honestly try to be a welcoming and friendly environment. I have found that flamers and trolls do not last long around here as we generally refuse to take the bait so they get bored and leave to more confrontational boards. Not that any of us are afraid of confrontation. (We have had some Very heated discussions) We just ain't got time for those who are plainly just fools. You can spend twenty lifetimes studying the war and it's peripherals and just crack the surface. We mostly cannot be bothered to take the time to expend much thought to those whose only interest is creating or participating in fights just for the juvenile pleasure of fighting itself. We would much rather spend our time sharing info with those who are actually enjoying America’s history. For those, there is no such thing as a stupid question barring the ones they do not ask. And no info from them too inconsequential.

YMOS
tommy

jenna · #**128** 08-17-2004, 12:21 AM

Bravo Tommy, Bravo! I wish the re-enacting world did feel more that way. For the topic here of secession has been very interesting to come in on, and well, not knowing as much as what you all seem to know, I have felt right at home with it. I will admitt that the discussion that Bill and Neil are having is way out of my league, I do feel that I know enough to hold my own in a basic conversation. So thank you for that.

unionblue · #**129** 08-17-2004, 01:09 AM

Dear Jenna,

Welcome to the boards and please, feel right at home to jumping into any thread that tickles your fancy or attracts your interest. It is refreshing to hear from other members of this board and gives us old-timers a fresh outlook on subjects and issues raised here.

In turn, be prepared to defend your own observations and conclusions as most of us here are pretty fussy about how a person comes to those observations and conclusions, but that's the fun of it.

Thea, so many observations and so many wrong conclusions! I hardly know where to begin! And, no offense taken and I hope, none taken.

First, your observation that President Buchanan believed member States of the American Union had a right to secede, WRONG!

A portion From President Buchanan's Forth State of the Union Address, Washington City, Dec. 3, 1860.

"In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties. If this be so, the Confederacy is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States. In this manner our thirty-three States may resolve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and hostile republics, each one retiring from the Union without responsibility whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course.

The right of resistance on the part of the governed against the oppression of their governments can not be denied. It exists independently of all constitutions, and has bee exercised at all periods of the world's history. But the distinction must ever be observed that this is revolution against an established government, and not a voluntary secession from it by virtue of an inherent constitutional right. Secession is neither more nor less than revolution. It may or it may not be a justifiable revolution, but still it is revolution."

So let's get that one right, shall we? Buchanan DID NOT think the States had a right to secede.

As to your idea that MANY of the leaders of the South did not want slavery to continue and that there were Confederate leaders that believed slavery was wrong, I contest that statement also. I know I can produce statements from many leaders that had no intention of slavery dying out, but continuing for many a year. As for those Confederate leaders that believed slavery was wrong, so what? What did they do to discourage it's practice, it's spread, for it's eventual extinction? And the timing to rid the South of slavery is entirely suspect, not only until the South was in extreme military difficulty do you see Cleburne's attempt at ENROLLING slaves into the army and then look at the resistance he got! Look at the opposition in the Confederate Congress, even when Gen. Lee supported the idea! And even then, the Confederate Congress made issue with the fact that slaves had to be freed if they served for the 'cause.' There was a big push to let them serve in the army, win the war, and then go back to being slaves, even if they did risk all for the South!

As for Davis and other leaders of the government trying to get recognition from other nations, the phrase, 'too little, too late' comes to mind and then only because they felt they couldn't get it (recognition) any other way. (Check out the following web site on what issues stopped the Confederacy from being recognized by England and France. It's a great site with a lot of background on all the diplomatic activity by both the North and the South.)

http://www.civilwarhistory.com/010300/diplomats.html

Alas, Thea, most of the nation in 1861 felt the South HAD engaged in rebellion and even President Buchanan called it so. There was never going to be anything like peaceable secession and ALL knew it! Just read the Congressional Globe in the decade before the war. No way in God's creation did anyone who had two brain cells between them believed in 'peaceable secession' as evidenced by the Southern Secretary of War shipping arms to the South in order to prepare for 'violent rebellion!'

For every phrase by any American leader that you point to that says secession was OK, I can find the same leader with statements that says secession was NOT OK and/or treason. And William Rawle, who is NOT considered a great constitutional scholar, and who was on the shelf at West Point and only taught VERY briefly states in his writings on the Constitution and secession, says secession was the WORST option a state could follow, cut-off from the nation, and that war would likely follow (Please scroll down from this thread to the one titled "William Rawles view on secession" under this same topic page (Civil War History Chat) and you will see the exact quote he gives on secession and also how long his book was taught at West Point). Not a huge, ringing endorsement in my book. What About President Jackson? What about President Taylor? BOTH said secession was NOTHING but rebellion and they would strike it down if need so.

Again, point me to any State in the North that actually seceded before the South in 1860. You can't, because it didn't happen, because most of them realized it would be considered treason and rebellion so they didn't.

As for the South sending commissioners to establish peace, again, so what? To negotiate over the price of Federal property? Deemed over to the Union and the nation? Why in the name of heaven should Lincoln meet with them? For what reason? To buy the nation's own property back, AGAIN? With rebels in rebellion? The South was willing to bay its fair share of the national debt? Then why did it declare it didn't have too? And the rebels HAD overthrown portions of the Federal government in portions of the country they had seized. They denied a legal election, they took by force of arms, in some cases BEFORE they had even declared 'secession', property of the United States and made US soldiers prisoners of war, not secession, peaceable or otherwise.

The war came about because a disgruntled minority, hell-bent on keeping it's special institution intact, with the hope of spreading it with the help of expanded Federal powers to ANY State, whether it wanted slavery or not, no matter what the majority wanted.

And as for your majority of the South wanting slavery and having a say about it, I have my doubts and my research there also. Want to compare notes on voting restrictions during the time? And how the votes came about for secession in some states? Makes for interesting reading.

I love Lincoln being cast as a demon in calling up 75,000 men AFTER Sumter was fired on. Especially since I now know the Confederate government called up 100,000 LONG before then. I like that he kept Congress at 'bay' as you describe it, but when he went before Congress to report what he had done for Congressional approval, he was derided for not calling up MORE troops!

And Thea, you forgot to mention how the South denied that supply ship from reaching Ft. Sumter. Didn't they fire on it? And this was before your other expedition where Lincoln 'plotted' to 'make' the South fire on the fort. Never mind the South, i.e., the Confederate government, had already decided to take the fort before that expedition even got started.

And Thea, I am rather confused at your statement concerning the Emancipation Proclamation. 'Lincoln didn't employ it at this time because he'd won a battle?' And read your history a bit more carefully. Blacks WERE NOT put in the worst fighting positions during the war. They were upset because at first, they were put ANYWHERE besides the fighting (work details, digging fortifications, building roads, etc.).

I wish you would read again Alexander Stephens speech to the Georgia legislature where he tells them the tariff is NOT a reason to go to war and that the North was paying our far more in tariffs than the South ever did. Come on, the future Vice-President of the CSA said that!

Again, it is as you say, we have repeated ourselves many times on many threads, but please check into Buchanan at least and see that I am 100% on this one.

Until that time,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on August 17, 2004)

(Message edited by Unionblue on August 17, 2004)

(Message edited by Unionblue on August 17, 2004)

unionblue · #**130** 08-17-2004, 05:21 AM

Tommy,

Your post above (Monday, August 16, 2004 - 05:22 am) makes mention of the fact that there were plenty of songs in the North that lamented the existence of slavery and yet you do not recall any popular songs in the South that glorified slavery, etc.

I draw you attention to the following web site:

http://www.lawsch.uga.edu/academics/...29_racism.html

There may have not been any or many songs promoting slavery as a positive good, but apparently there was a lot of everything else that supported the institution, in the form of sermons, books, pamphlets, papers, etc. to include biblical support for keeping the institution. I guess after singing good, Christian hymns, it was OK to preach it and teach it.

And if you think this issue is a dead duck today, I give you the following web site:

http://web.uccs.edu/nwager/New_Folder/

The above site reminds me that the Civil War is still being fought and can still be lost if we do not challenge such nonsense.

As for being a great admirer of a centralist government dominating over states rights, you got it backwards, IMHO. How long would slavery and lack of Civil Rights would be in effect if it had been left up to Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, etc., if there had been no Federal government support of the Civil Rights movement? I seem to remember one Gov. Goerge Wallace standing in the school house door stating, "Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever." When would the state have let go of it all? Makes you wonder sometimes.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on August 17, 2004)