Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
By the way, I take exception to your statement that Shiloh was a draw. To my way of thinking, if an army does not engage but withdraws, it lost. And that includes Antietam, Gettysburg, Perryville, et al.
If you insist, I'll meet you in the South/West Theater.
I rather enjoyed the second site as it showed the actual documents for each step in the emancipation process, to include Jeff Davis's reply to Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation.
Enjoy,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
There was a bill before the US congress in 1862 which would have abolished slavery.
It was "defeated", even though the Southern States were not in the union.
The Annals of America,” Vol. 9, published by Encyclopedia Brittannica, Inc. : “Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation actually did not free a single slave, since the regions in which it authorized emancipation were under Confederate control, and in the border states where emancipation might have been effected, it was not authorized.“
Law & History books from the early 1800's Report that South Carolina talked of secession for many years before 1860. So called "Historians" constantly say that SC seceded over slavery and I have had these people who advertise their expertise on American History actually tell me that they have never heard that the South seceded over tariffs and taxes. I have a book that goes
into great detail as to just how close SC came to seceding in 1852 and even closer in 1856. In 1856 if anyone other than a Democrat had won the election they were gone. When it didn't happen in 1856 they knew without a doubt that it was going to happen by 1861. As we all know it happened at the end of 1860. There is absolutely not one single mention of the word slavery in any
of the recorded histories of the threat of secession. Only talk of the unfair taxation of the South. When the South did secede the first debates in the US were about putting ships off the coast of Charleston to stop ships and collect the tariffs prior to the ships entering Charleston Harbor. All, very well documented history.
Chuck Walker
There was a bill before the US congress in 1862 which would have abolished slavery.
It was "defeated", even though the Southern States were not in the union.
I'd still like to see a reference to the alleged bill. Bill number? Date it was voted on?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
The Annals of America,” Vol. 9, published by Encyclopedia Brittannica, Inc. : “Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation actually did not free a single slave, since the regions in which it authorized emancipation were under Confederate control, and in the border states where emancipation might have been effected, it was not authorized.“
This, of course, is wrong. The Union army controlled areas of the south that were not excepted from the Emancipation Proclamation. They controlled the coast of North Carolina from the Virginia border to a point south of New Bern. They controlled part of the South Carolina coast from south of Charleston to the Georgia border. They controlled a part of the Atlantic coast of Florida around Jacksonville. They controlled Baton Rouge, Louisiana. They controlled a large swath of Northern Arkansas, a strip of Northern Mississippi and Northern Alabama, and a large swath of Northern Virginia from Winchester moving southeast to the Chesapeake Bay. All the slaves in these areas, numbering at least 20,000, actually enjoyed their freedom as of 1 Jan 1863, thanks to the Emancipation Proclamation. See William C. Harris, "After the Emancipation Proclamation: Lincoln's Role in the Ending of Slavery," _North & South Magazine,_ Vol. 5, No. 1, Dec, 2001, pp. 42-53]
Additionally, after 1 Jan 1863, thanks to the Emancipation Proclamation, everywhere the Union Army marched, slaves enjoyed freedom. The Emancipation Proclamation freed every slave in the areas it affected. The Union Army enforced that freedom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
Law & History books from the early 1800's Report that South Carolina talked of secession for many years before 1860. So called "Historians" constantly say that SC seceded over slavery and I have had these people who advertise their expertise on American History actually tell me that they have never heard that the South seceded over tariffs and taxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
I have a book that goes
into great detail as to just how close SC came to seceding in 1852 and even closer in 1856.
Oh, there's a credible reference--NOT. "I have a book." No word on the book's name, its author, or anything about it to judge its credibility.
In 1856 if anyone other than a Democrat had won the election they were gone. When it didn't happen in 1856 they knew without a doubt that it was going to happen by 1861. As we all know it happened at the end of 1860. There is absolutely not one single mention of the word slavery in any
of the recorded histories of the threat of secession.[/quote]
On the contrary. The secession crisis of the 1850s was all about slavery. Why do you think the Compromise of 1850 dealt with slavery? The 1856 election threats were due to the Republican Party being an antislavery party, as anyone who's actually studied antebellum history will know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
Only talk of the unfair taxation of the South.
Wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
When the South did secede the first debates in the US were about putting ships off the coast of Charleston to stop ships and collect the tariffs prior to the ships entering Charleston Harbor. All, very well documented history.
Chuck Walker
B-
Mr. Walker wouldn't know accurate history if it fell on him.
You really can't post rubbish from The Southern Messenger here and expect it to fly as fact. You need to be above this.
Cedarstripper
I think he refers to compenasted emancipation to the border states in 1862 that did not pass.
Only other one i know is the original 13th.
For further discussion and the history of the Original Thirteenth Amendment see "Demon of Discord, Ratification and Suppression of the Original Thirteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."
On December 3, 1860, the month after Lincoln was elected, President Buchanan asked Congress to propose an "explanatory amendment". It was to be another 13th Amendment, to eradicate and cover-up the deletion of the Original Thirteenth Title of Nobility and Honour Amendment. This proposed amendment, which would have forever legalized slavery, was signed by President Buchanan the day before Lincoln took office.167a
This amendment to the Constitution relating to slavery was sent to the states for ratification by the Second Session of the Thirty-sixth Congress on March 2, 1861, when it passed the Senate, having previously passed the House on February 28, 1861. It is interesting to note in this connection that this and the ratified Anti-Slavery amendment of 1865 are the only resolutions proposing amendments to the Constitution to have been signed by the President. The President's signature is considered unnecessary because of the constitutional provision that on the concurrence of two-thirds of both Houses of Congress the proposal shall be submitted to the States for ratification.
The resolve to amend signed by President Buchanan on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln's inauguration, read:
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three-fourths of said Legislatures, shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution, viz: "ARTICLE THIRTEEN, No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."
In other words, President Buchanan had signed a resolve that would have forever permitted slavery, and upheld states' rights. Only one State, Illinois, Lincoln's home state, had ratified this proposed amendment before the Civil War broke out in 1861. It appears at 12 Stat. 251, 36th Congress. Two more State legislatures ratified it, beginning with Ohio on May 13, 1861, followed by Maryland on January 10, 1862.
But the onslaught of the Civil War taught that the Nation may be in even greater peril from the States than they ever were from the Nation. And so, after more than seventy years of national life, the people, by the presently acknowledged 13th Amendment and the two following, laid upon the States restrictions which a few years before would have been impossible. The Constitution had gone forty-six years (1819 - 1865) without an Amendment. c41
In the tumult of 1865, the original Thirteenth Amendment was removed from our Constitution. In a Congressional Resolve to amend dated December 5, 1864, approved and signed by President Lincoln, February 1, 1865, another Amendment numbered XIII (which prohibited slavery in Sect. 1, and ended states' rights in Sect. 2) was proposed. When, on January 13, 1865, a two-thirds vote was taken in the House of Representatives for proposing the currently presented 13th Amendment "in honor of the immortal and sublime event" the House adjourned. It was then presented to the States for ratification. Two months later, April 9, 1865, the Civil War ended with General Lee's surrender. On April 14, President Lincoln was assassinated, dying on April 15th. On December 18, 1865, the "new" 13th Amendment loudly prohibiting and abolishing slavery (and quietly surrendering states rights to the federal government) was proclaimed adopted by Secretary of State Seward, replacing and effectively erasing the original Thirteenth Amendment that had prohibited acceptance of "titles of nobility" and "honors" and "emoluments", and dishonest politicians have been bought and bribed and have treasonously accepted graft from external sources ever since, with no thought of penalty.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
I think he refers to compenasted emancipation to the border states in 1862 that did not pass.
My point was that he didn't know what he referred to. The entire post was pasted from a page at the Southern Messenger, a repository for kitchen scraps and deo vindice stuff.
Two points:
The original proslavery 13th amendment was not removed from the Constitution. It never got near the Constitution.
The EP has several well known limitations, mostly the loyal slave states. The legal reasons for these limitations are discussed in Guelzo's "Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation." But make no mistake: it marked the end of American slavery, AS LONG AS the Union Army won. The few exceptions to the EP could not have survived as islands of bondage in the sea of a free United States. And in fact, they did not.
Two points:
The original proslavery 13th amendment was not removed from the Constitution. It never got near the Constitution.
But it was approved by a Northern dominated Congress right on the eve of the Civil War. A glaring inconsistency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmck
The EP has several well known limitations, mostly the loyal slave states.
You forgot Tennessee and parts of Louisiana and Virginia. Not only that...but I believe if persons in 'rebellious states' could prove their loyalty they could also keep their slaves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmck
The legal reasons for these limitations are discussed in Guelzo's "Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation." But make no mistake: it marked the end of American slavery, AS LONG AS the Union Army won.
The war ended and there was still slavery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmck
The few exceptions to the EP could not have survived as islands of bondage in the sea of a free United States. And in fact, they did not.
800,000 is a few?
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
