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.
Now I would advise that you prepare to defend yourself and your views.
Sincerely,
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
The right of a people to defend themselves against attack, however, is considered "moral" by most people.
Regards,
Tim
Tim, you are correct. That defense was not only moral, but honorable. Thus, the Southerners' defense of themselves was beyond reproach.
But the Union, in any event, won't be dissolved. We don't want to dissolve it, and if you attempt it, we won't let you. With the purse and sword, the army and navy and treasury in our hands and at our command, you couldn't do it....``All this talk about the dissolution of the Union is humbug---nothing but folly. We ``WON'T'' dissolve the Union, and you ``SHAN'T''.'' -- A. Lincoln
That to the Union of the States this nation owes its unprecedented increase in population, its surprising development of material resources, its rapid augmentation of wealth, its happiness at home and its honor abroad; and we hold in abhorrence all schemes for Disunion, come from whatever source they may; And we congratulate the country that no Republican member of Congress has uttered or countenanced the threats of Disunion so often made by Democratic members, without rebuke and with applause from their political associates; and we denounce those threats of Disunion, in case of a popular overthrow of their ascendency, as denying the vital principles of a free government, and as an avowal of contemplated treason, which it is the imperative duty of an indignant People sternly to rebuke and forever silence. -- Republican Party Platform 1860
The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion -- no using of force against or among the people anywhere. -- A. Lincoln
“Lincoln denounced the doctrine of the right of secession from the Union as unconstitutional, and declared his firm purpose to hold, occupy, and possess the places and property in the South belonging to the Fed. Government. This announcement was received in the South as equivalent to a declaration of war.” Memoirs of Robert E. Lee p. 89
Mr. Lincoln's Inaugural Address is before our readers -- couched in the cool, unimpassioned, deliberate language of the fanatic, with the purpose of pursuing the promptings of fanaticism even to the dismemberment of the Government with the horrors of civil war. Virginia has long looked for and promised peace offering before her -- and she has more, she has the denial of all hope of peace. Civil war must now come. Sectional war, declared by Mr. Lincoln, awaits only this signal gun from the insulted Southern Confederacy, to light its horrid fires all along the borders of Virginia. --The Richmond Enquirer
Republican Vindicator, March 15, 1861
Lincoln's War Policy The Washington correspondent of the Richmond Examiner says:
In Southern circles here little doubt is entertained as to the policy and purpose of the Inaugural address. It is believed Mr. Lincoln will proceed, without delay, to adopt hostile measures against the South. A collision in less than a week is quite possible. This may grow out of an attempt to collect revenue at the South, to reinforce Forts Sumter [sic] and Pickens, or to retake other places. The words, "hold, occupy and possess," in reference to the forts and other coast points in the South, coupled with the special reservations made as to interior places where residents cannot be induced to hold offices, are full of meaning. They teach us to be prepared for war at a moment's notice, and those recreant Virginians whose base hearts throb with sympathy for the North may at once prepare their cartridges for a fight with their own neighbors.
New York Tribune, March 9, 1861
From Virginia: Effect of the Inaugural
(page 6, column 4) The inaugural of Mr. Lincoln is received here with much disfavor. When the first few telegraphic installments of it appeared on the bulletin boards and shortly after upon narrow slips of paper, headed "Extra," the most intense curiosity was manifested by all classes to learn what had fallen from the lips of the man who was about to assume the Presidential chair--to read and know the authoritative announcement of the policy of the incoming Administration, so obnoxious to the South. I have heard but one construction of Mr. Lincoln's declaration of his intention to "hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government, and to collect the duty and imposts." It is regarded, if not as a declaration of war, as at least the expression of a determination to coerce the seceding States into compliance with the demands of the Federal Government.
Tallahassee, February 2, 1861.
GENTLEMEN OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
…Whilst President Buchanan has officially declared that he has no power to employ the military and naval forces under his control in hostility against any of the State which have dissolved their connection with the late Federal Union, yet it is apparent that he supports officers of the Army under his control in the hostile occupation of portions of the territory of this State and our sister State of South Carolina, permits his general and members of his Cabinet to set on foot military expeditions against us, re-enforce forts, order men-of-war to hover on our coast in hostile array, and has advised Congress to pass laws for the purpose of collecting revenue from imposts into our State by means of armed vessels….
Very respectfully, M. S. PERRY.
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT,
...But if you had known the acts of the authorities, of South Carolina, should that have prevented your keeping your faith? What was the condition of things? For the last sixty days you have had in Charleston Harbor not force enough to hold the forts against an equal enemy. Two of them were empty, one of those two the most important in the harbor; it could have been taken at any time. You ought to know better than any man that it would have been taken but for the efforts of those who put their trust in your honor. Believing that they were threatened by Fort Sumter especially, the people were with difficulty restrained from securing, without blood, the possession of this important fortress. After many and reiterated assurances given on your behalf, which we cannot believe unauthorized, they determined to forbear, and in good faith sent on their commissioners to negotiate with you. They meant you no harm; wished you no ill. They thought of you kindly, believed you true, and were willing, as far as was consistent with duty, to spare you unnecessary and hostile collision.
Scarcely had their commissioners left, than Major Anderson waged war. No other words will describe his action. It was not a peaceful change from one fort to another; it was a hostile act in the highest sense-one only justified in the presence of a superior enemy, and in imminent peril. He abandoned his position, spiked his guns, burned his gun carriages, made preparations for the destruction of his post, and withdrew, under cover of the night, to a safer position. This was war.
No man could have believed (without your assurance) that any officer could have taken such a step, "not only without orders, but this act, with all its attending circumstances was as much war as firing a volley; and war being thus begun, until those commencing it explained their action and disavowed their intention, there was no room for delay; and even at this moment, while we are writing, it is more than probable, from the tenor of your letter, that re-enforcements are hurrying on to the conflict so that when the first gun shall be fired there will have been on your part, one continuous consistent series of actions commencing in a demonstration essentially warlike, supported by regular re-enforcement and terminating in defeat or victory.
And all this without the slightest provocation; for, among the many things which you have said, there is one thing you cannot say-you have waited anxiously for news from the seat of war, in hopes that delay would furnish some excuse for this precipitation. But this "tangible evidence of a design to proceed to a hostile act on the part of the authorities of South Carolina" (which is the only justification of Major Anderson) you are forced to admit "has not yet been alleged." But you have decided. You have resolved to hold by force what you have obtained through our misplaced confidence, and by refusing to disavow the action of Major Anderson, have converted his violation of orders into a legitimate act of your executive authority. Be the issue what it may, of this we are assured, that if Fort Moultrie has been recorded in history as a memorial of Carolina gallantry, Fort Sumter, will live upon the succeeding page as an imperishable testimony of Carolina faith.
By your course you have probably rendered civil war inevitable. Be it so. If you choose to force this issue upon us, the State of South Carolina will accept it, and relying upon Him who is the God of Justice as well as the God of Hosts, will endeavor to perform the great duty which lies before her, hopefully, bravely, and thoroughly.... Letter of SC Commissioners to Pres. Buchanan, Jan. 1, 1861
Major Anderson, in a letter to Colonel Thomas, Adjutant-General, United States Army, "I had the honor to receive, by yesterday's mail, the letter of the Honorable Secretary of War, dated April 4th, and confess that what he there states surprises me greatly - following, as it does, and contradicting so positively, the assurance Mr. Crawford telegraphed he was "authorized" to make. I trust that this matter will be at once put in a correct light, as a movement made now, when the South has been erroneously informed that none such would be attempted, would produce most disastrous results throughout the country......I ought to have been informed that this expedition [to resupply the fort] was to come. Colonel Lamon's remark convinced me that the idea, merely hinted at to me by Captain Fox, would not be carried out.
We shall strive to do our duty, though I frankly say that my heart is not in this war, which I see is to be thus commenced." (April 8, 1861 -- prior to Sumter)
Tim, you are correct. That defense was not only moral, but honorable. Thus, the Southerners' defense of themselves was beyond reproach.
Since it was the Confederacy that attacked the Union, obviously you agree with me that the Confederacy started the war and their action was wrong. There was no "defense of themselves" involved for the South.
That is right, isn't it? You weren't just trying to avoid the issue of who *actually* did what to whom, were you?
Mind you, if I had been a Southerner in 1861, I might well have fought for the Confederacy. I just wouldn't bother putting out all this rhetoric to hide the fact that I was in rebellion against my government.
“Lincoln denounced the doctrine of the right of secession from the Union as unconstitutional, and declared his firm purpose to hold, occupy, and possess the places and property in the South belonging to the Fed. Government. This announcement was received in the South as equivalent to a declaration of war.” Memoirs of Robert E. Lee p. 89
Hmm. Sorry to single out just one quote for a response, but this one is a bit misleading; it does not express the view of Robert E. Lee.
Since Lee never wrote his memoirs, I presume this is a reference to the 1886 book by A. L. Long and Marcus J. Wright. While valuable for Long's recollections (he had been a staff officer before his blindness), it should not be perceived as the work of Lee.
In any case, it is well known that Robert E. Lee himself did not believe that the right of secession existed, nor that the Founding Fathers, some of whom he had met personally, had ever intended it to exist. He said exactly that in a letter to his son in late 1860, when the crisis was upon the country. The letter can be found in a number of books.
Lee, I imagine, agreed with Lincoln on the principle involved. If Virginia had not seceded, he would have taken the command he was offered and moved to suppress the rebellion. But Virginia did secede, and Lee saw himself as a Virginian first, last, and always. He followed Virginia even when she believed she was *wrong*.
Interestingly enough, Nathan Bedford Forrest seems to have felt much the same. Although most of his property was in Mississippi in 1860, he considered himself a Tennessean. He did not go with Mississippi in 1861. He remained in Memphis and was considered somewhat of a Union man in the first part of 1861. Only after TN voted for secession in June did he swing to the Confederate side, it seems, joining up as a private.
Since it was the Confederacy that attacked the Union, obviously you agree with me that the Confederacy started the war and their action was wrong. There was no "defense of themselves" involved for the South.
The Confederacy did not strike the first blow. The Confederacy did not draw first blood. The Confederacy didn't reject talks to discuss grievances. The Confederacy asked only to be allowed to go their own way.
But the US would not allow them to exercise their inalienable right to self-determination.
Quote:
That is right, isn't it? You weren't just trying to avoid the issue of who *actually* did what to whom, were you?
Not at all. I prefer to view the entire picture rather than just one corner of it. Right Neil?
But, if I may so express it, I fear you were doing just what you asked me about....
Quote:
Mind you, if I had been a Southerner in 1861, I might well have fought for the Confederacy. I just wouldn't bother putting out all this rhetoric to hide the fact that I was in rebellion against my government.
Regards,
Tim
As Jefferson so eloquently pointed out, the tree of liberty requires fertilization every now and then.
"Rebellion" against a government that had turned its back upon the Constitution seems neither dishonorable nor treasonous to me.
Hmm. Sorry to single out just one quote for a response, but this one is a bit misleading; it does not express the view of Robert E. Lee.
Since Lee never wrote his memoirs, I presume this is a reference to the 1886 book by A. L. Long and Marcus J. Wright. While valuable for Long's recollections (he had been a staff officer before his blindness), it should not be perceived as the work of Lee.
In any case, it is well known that Robert E. Lee himself did not believe that the right of secession existed, nor that the Founding Fathers, some of whom he had met personally, had ever intended it to exist. He said exactly that in a letter to his son in late 1860, when the crisis was upon the country. The letter can be found in a number of books.
Lee, I imagine, agreed with Lincoln on the principle involved. If Virginia had not seceded, he would have taken the command he was offered and moved to suppress the rebellion. But Virginia did secede, and Lee saw himself as a Virginian first, last, and always. He followed Virginia even when she believed she was *wrong*.
Regards,
Tim
Tim, it appears you have fallen into the selectivity trap again.
The Lee I imagine hardly agreed with Lincoln on any principle concerning Lincoln's decision to force union by the point of bayonets.
When I read Lee's words that:
"...the South, in my opinion has been aggrieved by the acts of the North..."
and, "...a Union that can only be maintained by swords and bayonets, and in which strife and civil war are to take the place of brotherly love and kindness has no charm for me....";
and, "...I take great pride in my country, her prosperity and her institutions, and would defend any State if her rights were invaded...."
and, "Feeling the agression of the North, resenting their denial of the equal rights of our citizens to the common territory of the commonwealth, etc,..."
and "...I feel the aggression and am willing to take every proper step for redress. It is the principle that I contend for, not for individual or private benefit....";
and, "[The Southern States] have seen with profound indignation their sister-State deprived of every right and reduced to the condition of a conquered province.
Under the pretense of supporting the Constitution, but in violation of its most valuable provisions, your citizens have been arrested and imprisoned upon no charge and contrary to all forms of law; the faithful and manly protest against this outrage made by the venerable and illustrious Marylander to whom in better days no citizen appealed for right in vain was treated with scorn and contempt; the government of your chief city has been usurped by armed strangers; your legislature has been dissolved by the unlawful arrest of its members; freedom of the press and of speech has been suppressed; words have been declared offences by an arbitrary decree of the Federal executive, and citizens ordered to be tried by a military commission for what they may dare to speak.
Believing that the people of Maryland possessed a spirit too lofty to submit to such a government, the people of the South have long wished to aid you in throwing off this foreign yoke, to enable you again to enjoy the inalienable rights of freemen and restore independence and sovereignty to your State....";
and, "The South has contended only for the supremacy of the constitution, and the just administration of the laws made in pursuance to it...."
and, "All that the South has ever desired was that the Union, as established by our forefathers, should be preserved, and that the government as originally organised should be administered in purity and truth...."
...then, it appears very clearly to me that the quote does indeed express his view, and that Lee did indeed believe in secession; and was willing to back that belief up with his sword in defense of that right.
The Confederacy did not strike the first blow. The Confederacy did not draw first blood. The Confederacy didn't reject talks to discuss grievances. The Confederacy asked only to be allowed to go their own way.
With respect, hal, can you be more specific? What was the first blow? Where was first blood drawn, and by whom? Under what circumstances did the confederacy propose talks to discuss grievances? (Were you referring to the Senate talks in '60? Or the offers to compensate the country for already stolen property? If the Confederacy wanted only to be allowed to go its own way, it had an odd way of showing that it wanted its departure to be peaceful.
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
With respect, hal, can you be more specific? What was the first blow? Where was first blood drawn, and by whom? Under what circumstances did the confederacy propose talks to discuss grievances? (Were you referring to the Senate talks in '60? Or the offers to compensate the country for already stolen property? If the Confederacy wanted only to be allowed to go its own way, it had an odd way of showing that it wanted its departure to be peaceful.
Ole
According to Maj. Anderson, the first blow was the Fox Expedition. However, I tend to gravitate towards the good Major's blunderous move from Moultrie to Sumter being the first.
The first blood was drawn out of Baltimoreans by US troops.
The Southerners offered up the olive branch on multiple occasions.
I am not sure how much more peaceful the departure could have been. It was the drawn swords by those that wouldn't let them depart that was lacking in that regard.
According to Maj. Anderson, the first blow was the Fox Expedition. However, I tend to gravitate towards the good Major's blunderous move from Moultrie to Sumter being the first.
I wouldn't classify either event as a "blow," so I suppose we'll have to disagree on the definition. The Fox Expedition was to have resupplied Sumter, that the flotilla was ready to meet resistance was clearly explained to Governor Pickens. And although the Major's move might now be considered deceptive and blunderous, to him, at the time, it was a way to protect his command from the obvious military buildup in Charleston and its environs.
Quote:
The first blood was drawn out of Baltimoreans by US troops.
If you're considering the literal shedding of blood, Confederate and Union gunners around and in Sumter might predate Baltimore. And the Federal troops transiting from station to station in Baltimore were attacked. That doesn't constitute first blood drawn by Federal troops.
Quote:
The Southerners offered up the olive branch on multiple occasions.I am not sure how much more peaceful the departure could have been. It was the drawn swords by those that wouldn't let them depart that was lacking in that regard.
The chances of leaving peacefully would have been much better had the Confederacy sued for their separation before commencing hostilities.
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
