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.
Hawglips- That was pretty good. The condescending attitude that I sometimes observe here is amusing. The Rebs fired on Ft. Sumter! No one mentions Lincoln's reinforcing fleet arriving. They fail to mention the millions of dollars that the U.S. sued England for due to the fact that C.S. ships were manufactured in England. Or that England sent troops to Canada after the U.S. took C.S. Diplomats off an English ship on the high seas. Or the facts that in 1860 more than 50 % of the U.S. budget came from Southern tariffs. That in 1860 75% of the railroads were in the North, thanks to the tariffs. That Lincoln abolished slavery only in the territory that he did NOT control to bolster support for the unpopular war that he was involved in. Reading Uncle Tom's Cabin entitles one to a doctorate on the subject of slavery, Lincoln's belated reason for his war of agression.
The Rebs fired on Ft. Sumter! No one mentions Lincoln's reinforcing fleet arriving.
A nonselective reading will show that the fleet was to resupply the fort. Reinforcements were included if Charleston did not interfiere.
Quote:
They fail to mention the millions of dollars that the U.S. sued England for due to the fact that C.S. ships were manufactured in England. Or that England sent troops to Canada after the U.S. took C.S. Diplomats off an English ship on the high seas.
Point?
Quote:
Or the facts that in 1860 more than 50 % of the U.S. budget came from Southern tariffs.
Source?
Quote:
That in 1860 75% of the railroads were in the North, thanks to the tariffs.
And thanks to southern disinterest in railroads.
Quote:
That Lincoln abolished slavery only in the territory that he did NOT control to bolster support for the unpopular war that he was involved in.
You make it sound like a bad thing.
Quote:
Reading Uncle Tom's Cabin entitles one to a doctorate on the subject of slavery, Lincoln's belated reason for his war of agression.
Hyperbole. And perhaps a bit of sarcasm?
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
The Rebs fired on Ft. Sumter! No one mentions Lincoln's reinforcing fleet arriving.
Those who read real history will note that the flotilla's objective was resupply only if the landing of provisions was not resisted. The orders to Fox and Mercer confirm this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by olerebel
They fail to mention the millions of dollars that the U.S. sued England for due to the fact that C.S. ships were manufactured in England. Or that England sent troops to Canada after the U.S. took C.S. Diplomats off an English ship on the high seas.
So what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by olerebel
Or the facts that in 1860 more than 50 % of the U.S. budget came from Southern tariffs.
False claim. Actually, more than 90% of the tariff revenue was collected in Northern ports in 1860.
Quote:
Originally Posted by olerebel
That in 1860 75% of the railroads were in the North, thanks to the tariffs.
Wrong again. Railroad construction wasn't financed by the Government, although the government did provide land to the railroads free of charge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by olerebel
That Lincoln abolished slavery only in the territory that he did NOT control to bolster support for the unpopular war that he was involved in.
Another false claim. The EP was the last thing he would do if he was trying to gain popularity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by olerebel
Merry Christmas, All. (Yanks too)
Homer
Thanks. Same to you. Is the last name Simpson by any chance?
The Mysterious Schooner that was Fired Into - The Captain
Account of the Affair.
(From the Savannah News, April 5.)
The schooner R.H. SHANNON, Capt. Joseph Marts, from Boston,
with a cargo of ice, to Heyward & Gage, of this city, arrived
here at noon. Capt. Marts informs us that on Wednesday morning
about 11 o, the weather being rough and heavy, he mistook
Charleston harbor for that of Savannah, and did not discover
his error until after he had passed the bar, when he made
signal for a pilot, intending to go into the harbor and to come
out next morning, in the event the weather proved fair, and
proceed on his voyage to this port. Shortly after making his
signal by displaying the United States colors, in the hands of
one of his men at the mast head, and when his vessel had
arrived nearly abreast of Fort Moultrie, one or two guns were
fired, as he thinks, from that fort, across his bows. He
continued on his course, and ordered his colors to be run up to
the main peak, supposing that a signification of his
nationality was what was required. But in a few moment the
fire was opened from both sides of the channel - from Fort
Moultrie and from a battery on Morris'Island - the shot
passing fore and aft of the schooner, and whistling, as he
describes it, fearfully over head. Not knowing what to do or
what was required of him, he ordered his colors hauled down,
tacked ship and stood out to sea. The firing from the fort and
battery continued, most of the shot coming in dangerous
proximity, and one ball passing through his mainsail, only some
twelve inches above the head of a man who was standing on the
house at the time. The crew think that one shot struck the
schooner forward, but under water, and doing no perceptible
damage. Passing within speaking distance of a brig that was
going into the harbor, Capt. Marts hailed it and asked why he
was fired upon. The captain of the brig advised him to haul
his jibs down and come to anchor, which he accordingly did and
the firing ceased. About an hour after coming to anchor a
revenue cutter was seen bearing down towards the schooner, but
owing to the roughness of the weather she was compelled to put
back after approaching within half a mile of the Shannon. As
she wore round, on her return, the officer in command waved his
hat, which Capt. Marts took to be a signal that all was right
and to come in from his dangerous position. The crew of the
Shannon commenced heaving anchor when a boat was seen
approaching the schooner, as we supposed from the shore, but
which proved to be from Fort Sumter. Two officers from the
boat came on board the Shannon, and after ascertaining where
she was from and all the circumstances of her case, asked
Captain M. why he did not display his colors. The Captain
assured them that he had done so, but that the flag had not
been respected, as the firing continued while it was displayed
from his peak. The officers informed him that his vessel had
no doubt been suspected of coming there to reinforce Fort
Sumter, which was the cause of his being fired into, and
directed him to remain where he was until they could represent
his true character to the Confederate authorities, when he
would be permitted to enter the harbor unmolested. After the
boat, had left, and had got about half-way to the island, night
coming on, and the weather becoming more threatening, Capt. M.
weighed anchor and stood into the harbor for safer anchorage;
but looking through his glass and seeing what he thought to be
preparations for opening fire on him again, preferred the
perils of a stormy night on the coast to again running the
gauntlet of the South Carolina batteries, and accordingly put
to sea. Getting clear of the bar, the weather being rough, the
Shannon hove to until 4 oyesterday morning, when she
bore away for this port, where she arrived with no other damage
than a pretty good fright, and a shot hole in her mainsail.
Capt. Marts, who is an intelligent and clever skipper, says
although he brought us a cargo to keep us cool, we certainly
gave him a very warm reception on his first voyage South.
The captain informs us that there were one or two ships
outside of the bar when he went into the harbor, which, in the
hazy weather might from the land, have been taken for steamers.
__________________ Shane Christen
American Legion Post 352
SUVCW Camp Abernethy# 48
Lifetime NRA member
3rd MN VI
For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. Eccl 1:18
Reviewing these threads after a couple of years participation, I am struck by the amount of words written on subjects which are quite incidental to the war itself: the attack on Fort Sumter and the institution of slavery.
If the war was actually started by the firing on Sumter it follows that it was a conflict between two independent nations caused by one attacking the armed forces of the other. Such a war could be expected to conclude in a peace treaty. Was that what happened? No, because the war was fought by the U.S. government to suppress a rebellion. So was the firing on Sumter the key act of "rebellion"? Of course not. The key act of "rebellion", in the case of each state, was the passing of the act or ordinance of secession. The war happened because of these acts of secession and would have happened if Sumter had never been fired on. So Sumter really is an irrelevance.
And now for slavery. If the peculiar institution had been abolished throughout the United States long before 1861, and 11 states had seceded in that year, would the United States government have fought a war to drag them back into the Union? The answer has to be “yes”. Lincoln himself said often enough that he was fighting to preserve the Union rather than to free the slaves. It follows, therefore, that the issue dividing us on these boards is whether the departing states had the right to unilateral secession from the Union. That, and nothing else. Slavery is important only to the extent that it was, or was not, a motivating force behind secession. But the motives for secession and the right to secession, if such a right exists, are completely different things and should never be confused. Any yet they have been confused, constantly, for the last 140 years.
And one has to suspect that the confusion is quite deliberate. Dressing up a war against secession in the clothing of emancipation can hardly hurt the Union cause. And there has also been an awful lot of wilful self-deception. How many of the Federal soldiers who mutinied after the Emancipation Proclamation, or who mistreated the contrabands who came within their lines, sat around with brandy and cigars at G.A.R. meetings 30 years later, congratulating each other in maudlin style on their grand, humanitarian behaviour in freeing the slaves? How many of them probably even believed their own words?
__________________ "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
Slavery, as we have discussed many times, was rampant throughout the land. That institution didn't develop 'overnight', and it wasn't going to end on any faster terms. The twentieth century showed great signs of equality. We're still working on it.
And, I suspect, we'll be working on it for a long, long time. We can mostly agree that every man (lighten up, people! I'm speaking in the abstract.) is born equal. We still have to get over that little human hump: every stranger who doesn't look like me and didn't share my mother, is suspect.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
