slavery is at the bottom of everything they were worried about

[samgrant]

Rose,

While I generally find your posts as quite entertaining and somewhat informative regarding the issues of that day, I must object to some of the characterizations you employ, such as "Lincoln was being a tyrant."

We are just trying to discuss issues here, I think and it would seem out of character for any of us gentlemen/gentlewomen to use such invective language.

However, be yourself, Rose, you are among the best, we lost many of our best Rebel sympathizers and Lost Causers a few months ago due to an odd controversy which had nothing at all to do with the War of the Rebellion.

As to your Sumter conclusions, which have been debated ad nauseam, having read several accounts of this incident/situation, I find the most satisfying conclusion expressed by Richard A. Current in his Lincoln and The First Shot, wherein he writes:

"In short, it appears that Lincoln, when he decided to send the Sumter expedition, considered hostiles to be probable. It also appears, however, that he believed an unopposed and peaceable provisioning to be at least barely possible. .... On the one hand, Lincoln did not count confidently upon peace, though he thought there was a bare chance of it's being preserved for the time being. On the other hand, he did not deliberately provoke war. He thought hostilities would be the likely result, and he was determined that, if they should be, they must clearly be initiated by the Confederates." "To say that Lincoln meant that the first shot would be fired by the other side if a first shot was fired, ... , is not to say that he maneuvered to have the first shot fired."

[unionblue]

Wild Rose,

I am afraid that secessionists many times stated that freedom was dependent upon slavery.

John C. Calhoun, Senator from South Carolina: "The defense of human liberty against the aggressions of despotic power have been always the most efficient in States where domestic slavery was to prevail."

Henry Wise, Congressman and future governor from Virginia: "The principle of slavery is a leveling principle; it is friendly to equality. Break down slavery and you would with the same blow break down the great democratic principle of equality among men."

Robert M. T. Hunter of Virginia: "There is not a respectable system of civilization known to history whose foundations were not laid in the institution of domestic slavery."

Thomas F. Dew, Professor at the College of William & Mary: "It has been contended that slavery is unfavorable to a republican spirit; but the whole history of the world proves that this is far from being the case. In the ancient republics of Greece and Rome, where the spirit of liberty glowed with the most intensity, the slaves were more numerous than the freemen. Aristotle and the great men of antiquity believed slavery necessary to keep alive the spirit of freedom. In Sparta the freemen were even forbidden to perform the offices of slaves, lest [they] might lose the spirit of independence. In modern times, too, liberty has always been more ardently desired by slaveholding communities.....Color alone here is the badge of distinction, the true mark of aristocracy, and all who are white are equal in spite of the variety of occupation....And it is this spirit of equality which is bothe the generator and preserver of the genuine spirit of liberty."

From the Richmond Enquirer, 1856: "Democratic liberty exists solely because we have slaves...freedom is not possible without slavery."

There are more and I will attempt to find them for you.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[Wild_Rose]

Originally Posted by trice

Just for clarification, what do you think of the cases of:

Roger Pryor, a serving US Congressman from Virginia, who was in Charleston harranguing crowds to "strike a blow!" against the US (in order to stampede Virginia into secession) and served as an aide to General Beauregard in the attack upon Ft. Sumter, including being rowed out to the fort to inquire if she had surrendered yet, and also was in the battery that fired the opening shot (declining the "honor" in one of those fine logical distinctions).

Edmund Ruffin, Virginian and US citizen, who supposedly did fire the first shot.

Senator Wigfall of Texas, who had never resigned his position (like so many others resigned) and so was still a serving member of the Senate when he was in Charleston as an aide to General Beauregard. He, separately, was rowed out to Ft. Sumter to inquire about surrender, entering the fort for a discussion with Anderson before returning to shore.

It would appear to me the case for treason against all three is strong.

Ruffin and Pryor, of course, are US citizens by any measure, subject to all the duties and responsibilities of such. Pryor has the additional responsibility of his oath of office. Their actions seem clear cases of Treason under the Constitution.

Wigfall you might choose to believe was not a US citizen after Texas seceded. If so, he certainly acted improperly in not resigning his office when Texas seceded, as men like Davis did. Instead he chose to remain in the Senate to gather information for the seceding states (and to try to recruit men for the Confederacy in Maryland to forward to Charleston). In doing so, he voluntarily left himself bound by his personal oath of office, with all the responsibilities and duty involved. That makes him a Traitor or a spy, I suppose.

What do you think?

Regards,
Tim

Tim, I don't pretend to know if secession was the wise thing for the Southern states to persue, but I defend their right to do it. I believe it was absolutely an option that was legal and open to the states...any states. Therefore, I don't believe anyone was a traitor simply because they were a secessionist.

In the case of Wigfall, of course, the Union would consider him a traitor, because they didn't allow that secession was legal and he was spying for the Confederacy.

Ruffin...he left Virginia in order to join the Confederate army in South Carolina even though he was in his seventies. The Union would surely consider him a traitor, also.

Pryor, I don't know much about. I believe he was somewhat of a fire eater and would be considered a traitor by the Union.

All of these men were either traitors or a Southern patriots, depending on which side of the line you are standing on.

Regards,
Rose

[Wild_Rose]

Thank you, Neil, for that information on the Union troops in Texas. I'd never heard about that before now.

Regards,
Rose

[unionblue]

Wild Rose,

You are most welcome. Anytime I might be of assistance, please feel free to call upon me at anytime.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[Wild_Rose]

Originally Posted by samgrant

Rose,

While I generally find your posts as quite entertaining and somewhat informative regarding the issues of that day, I must object to some of the characterizations you employ, such as "Lincoln was being a tyrant."

We are just trying to discuss issues here, I think and it would seem out of character for any of us gentlemen/gentlewomen to use such invective language.

My apologies, Sam. You are right, even though I think of Lincoln as a tyrant, I shouldn't be so blunt as to say it. I'm afraid bluntness is one of my many flaws and I constantly battle against it. I'll try harder.

Originally Posted by samgrant

"In short, it appears that Lincoln, when he decided to send the Sumter expedition, considered hostiles to be probable. It also appears, however, that he believed an unopposed and peaceable provisioning to be at least barely possible. .... On the one hand, Lincoln did not count confidently upon peace, though he thought there was a bare chance of it's being preserved for the time being. On the other hand, he did not deliberately provoke war. He thought hostilities would be the likely result, and he was determined that, if they should be, they must clearly be initiated by the Confederates." "To say that Lincoln meant that the first shot would be fired by the other side if a first shot was fired, ... , is not to say that he maneuvered to have the first shot fired."

I can accept this version with one exception. I believe Lincoln knew that only a miracle could prevent shots being fired when he attempted to resupply the fort. Rather than recognizing the independence of the Southern states he chose the more difficult path.

Regards,
Rose

[unionblue]

samgrant and Wild Rose,

I just picked up the book, Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln, by James G. Randall, and read the following in the foreword to the revised edtion. written by Mr. Randall on June 20, 1950. Please read what he has to say about Lincoln and the firing on Ft. Sumter.

"He [Lincoln] did not believe that war was "inevitable." In his first inaugural he said he would act "with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles." The present writer is not impressed with the argument that such statments constituted a trick or maneuver, that Lincoln had cryptic and hidden purposes, that his motives were "provocative," and that his solemn declarations were a kind of deception. On this controversial subject one line of interpretation is given in the article by Charles W. Ramsdell, Lincoln and Fort Sumter, Jour. of So. Hist., III, 259-288 (1937). Ramsdell's argument is that Lincoln deliberately maneuvered to have the South "fire the first shot"--i.e., that Lincoln really intended to bring on war. The present author does not agree, as a matter of historical fact, with this representation of Lincoln's motives. (See Lincoln the Liberal Statesman, chap. iv; see also Kenneth M. Stampp, And the War Came: The North and the Secession Crisis [1950].)

In the treatment of this subject, reliable clues have been overlooked, while stock phrases which misrepresent Lincoln's purpose are tiresomely repeated. One should remember Lincoln's statement to Mrs. Gurney in September 1862: "If I had had my way, this war would never had been commenced." To brush this statement aside as insincere is a kind of dodge; accusations of insincerity should never be raised unless proved. To take bodies of evidence showing Lincoln's peaceful appeals and efforts and wave them aside by the too-easy assertion that the President did not mean what he was saying, or intend what he was doing, is simply to color the whole treatment by an author's interpretations and conjectures."

Just thought it was in line with what has been said.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[unionblue]

Russ,

Concerning your post #188, you're kidding, right?

Amar's opinion on secession has NO support in the consitutional text? He does not attempt to support his position using the Constitution?

I'm sorry, Russ, but when you say you have 'read the relevant portions of Amar's book,' I have serious doubts you read the same 'relevant portions' that I did!

He did use the Preamble of the Constitution. He did refer to Articles V, VI, & VII when discussing this section of the book and why they applied to this argument. He did show period sources and statements from the debate of the period, to include articles from the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers.

This was in no way a 'nice, academic exercise.' If anything he proves the framers were NOT idiots, but pretty smart customers ensuring that their meanings concerning Union could not be misconstrued.

Deny all you want, Russ, but please be honest and say you just don't want to believe, not because there is no evidence in the book. And the fact that you continue to deny the entire legal trail of the Supreme Court decesions that deny the idea the states have any right to withdraw from the Union or deny the Supremecy clause in the Consitution, doesn't make those cases less real or correct.

Until that time,
Unionblue

[trice]

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Tim, I don't pretend to know if secession was the wise thing for the Southern states to persue, but I defend their right to do it. I believe it was absolutely an option that was legal and open to the states...any states. Therefore, I don't believe anyone was a traitor simply because they were a secessionist.

All of which is meaningless to the specific examples I asked you about. These are men, all under obligation to the US, who participated in attacking her. Their belief in secession is not questioned or used as a charge against them. It is their actions that count.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

In the case of Wigfall, of course, the Union would consider him a traitor, because they didn't allow that secession was legal and he was spying for the Confederacy.

Again, his belief in secession is not an issue in what I brought up. His actions are.

He had the opportunity to relieve himself of his oath of office. He could have resigned in February of 1861 when Texas was seceding just as Jefferson Davis did when Mississippi seceded. Wigfall chose not to do so. He remained on in Washington to use his office to gather information. He recruited men in Maryland and sent them off to Charleston. He, still bound by his personal oath, participated in the attack on Ft. Sumter. Dishonorable to say the least. If you consider him a Texas/Confederate citizen, he is being deceitful in continuing in his office in the US. His actions mark him as either a spy or a traitor, not his personal beliefs.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Ruffin...he left Virginia in order to join the Confederate army in South Carolina even though he was in his seventies. The Union would surely consider him a traitor, also.

Mr. Ruffin is an American citizen participating in an attack by either insurrectionists (the Unionist view) or a foreign power (the secessionist view). Either one is clear Treason by the Constitution. As long as he remains an American citizen, he has no escape from what he did.

To avoid such a charge, he would have to renounce his American citizenship -- which would mean he would also have to renounce any association with Virginia. He never did. But in any case, beliefs do not make for Treason in the United States: actions do.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Pryor, I don't know much about. I believe he was somewhat of a fire eater and would be considered a traitor by the Union.

Pryor was a Virginian and a Fire-Eater, but that is meaningless to a charge of treason here. In April of 1861, Pryor was an American citizen, just like Ruffin. He was also a serving US Congressman, bound by his personal oath of office, just as Wigfall was bound by his oath as a Senator. This is the situation when he participated in the attack upon Ft. Sumter.

If he wanted to free himself from these restraints and obligations, his path is clear: resign his seat in the House of Representatives and renounce his American citizenship (which would have also severed his connection with Virginia). He did neither. This also is clear Treason by the definition in the Constitution. It has nothing at all to do with his beliefs; it has everything to do with his actions.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

All of these men were either traitors or a Southern patriots, depending on which side of the line you are standing on.

No, Rose. The definition of Treason in the Constitution of the United States is probably the narrowest in the world, deliberately made so by the Founding Fathers, and difficult to prove. In the entire history of the country very, very few people have been convicted of it.

Pryor and Ruffin were textbook cases of Treason on the facts of their actions. Wigfall, by his actions, is either a traitor or a spy; it merely depends upon whether he is considered a US citizen or not after Texas moves for secession and he refuses to resign.

None of them were ever tried for it, of course, since once the war was over the country did not find that a course of action it wanted to pursue. Pryor -- a great Fire-Eater orator -- became a New York lawyer after the war, a friend of Horace Greely, getting "Beast" Butler's son-in-law off on charges of corruption in Reconstruction Mississippi, and eventually sitting on the New York State Supreme Court.

Regards,
Tim

[trice]

Originally Posted by russ_aukerman

Tim -"I would say that virtually any action of the US is done by agreement among the states...."

But we're not talking about an "action of the US," we're talking about an action of a state - whether it be the subject of secession or fireworks. State powers are NOT exercised by agreement among the states. They'd not be 'state' powers if the right to exercise them depended on consent from other states or the fed. They are 'state' powers precisely because they belong to the states, to exercise or not as they see fit and without the consent of anyone.

Nope. This is incorrect. The power of one state to take actions that affect other states is limited by the obligations to and rights of the affected states. Water rights cases illustrate this consistently. For example, if NY decided to divert the course of the Delaware so that it flowed into the Hudson for some reason (Lord knows why), PA-NJ-DE all have valid complaints to get them to cease-and-desist in their action. The complaint would be heard in Federal court, and NY would be compeled to listen.

Originally Posted by russ_aukerman

I would say that "In the end, the government is completely responsible to the People through the mechanisms of the states" AND the fed. The People have delegated some of their powers to the states and some to the fed, each to act within their own respective spheres.

Not sure what you are driving at here. The "government" I am talking about in the quote is the Federal government.

Originally Posted by russ_aukerman

"But, for example, we have 35 or 36 of the 50 states who derive their sovereignity from the sovereignity of the United States."

I understand your point, but the Constitution does not. The Constitution does not recognize two separate classes of states, original and admitted. It only says 'states,' and that means they all must be treated the same under the Constitution. I agree that these other 36 states were granted sovereignty by admission to the US. But there's nothing in the Constitution that says that once sovereignty is thus granted, the US can take it back. If you didn't want to grant sovereignty to those other 36, they should have never been admitted in the first place.

You have this backwards. The US never attempted to take away the sovereignity of the states in 1860-61. However, when the states "seceded", they passed laws specifically repealing the legislation by which they agreed to become states in the Union in most cases. Mississippi did so, for example.

Now if Mississippi secedes by repealing that piece of legislation, she has repealed the act by which she received her sovereignity in the first place. That act was merely an agreement by a territorial legislature to the terms of a deal with the sovereign US. Taken at face value, that puts Mississippi back into the status of a US territory.

If you'd want to see a better attempt, take a look at the difference between the Mississippi and Alabama ordinances. Alabama simply says she is withdrawing and that all power ever delegated to the US over the "Territory of Alabama" are withdrawn. (Nice wording; whoever wrote the Alabama ordinance was a better lawyer.)

Originally Posted by russ_aukerman

"No, they don't. That is why they established the Constitution in the first place...."

The states do like to override the majority, and they do it all the time. In fact, states don't even have to consult with other states before they pass laws; they just pass them even if the other 49 don't.

Nope. On matters that concern only their own jurisdictions and do not infringe upon the rights of others, the states may act as they see fit. When their acts infringe upon others, they are limited in their power. Among other things, this is one reason jurisdiction in all such matters was given to the Supreme Court of the United States by the Constitution.

Originally Posted by russ_aukerman

The purpose of creating the Constitution was to delegate to a central gov't the authority to act on behalf of the whole in those 'enumerated' circumstances - like war - when acting as a whole is deemed beneficial. Think of it as the gov'ts attempt to employ the economies of scale. In all other - non-enumerated - circumstances, the states may act for themselves.

Nope. Controversies between two or more states, or between a state and the United States, are specifically within the jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court. This is what the Constitution says. It is clearly intended as the mechanism for resolving such disputes, and secessionists try to avoid acknowledging that at all costs.

Originally Posted by russ_aukerman

"However if PA bans fireworks and NJ decides to stage a display over PA territory, causing a massive forest fire, NJ will be at fault and subject to penalty and discipline by the Federal system."

I think fireworks as relevent an example as secession or traffic laws or states regulating mad cow disease or water rights. They are all examples of states exercising their own sovereign powers. That some subjects may be more controversial than others is immaterial. When SC seceeded, it didn't take Va. or Ga. territory with it; it spoke only for SC. If NJ allows fireworks, it does so only for NJ, not Pa.

Russ, NJ is allowed to do what it likes as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others or violate Federal law. Secession affects the other states. This is why no one state can make such a decision and act upon it without agreement from the others.

Originally Posted by russ_aukerman

"What secessionists try to avoid like crazy is any admission that the interdependence of rights and obligations can limit any individual members' rights."

Such interdependence can limit the rights of individual members only if the 'right' at issue was delegated to the fed and enumerated in the Constitution. Otherwise, such interdependence may not limit the rights of individual members.

This is simply false. If two states both have the same rights, one state cannot take actions that infringe upon or damage the rights of another without penalty or redress. The states are responsible for what they do, and the harm they cause as well. If their act has negative impacts inside another state, they can be ordered to stop it.

Regards,
Tim