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.
'Common practice' does not make it legal, or right.
It is common practice for a thief to shove a gun in your ribs and demand your money. Still doesn't make it legal, or right.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
Good point. I couldn't agree more.
Regards,
Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
A question. Is there any act taken by the South, prior to the firing on Ft. Sumter, that you would consider an act of war?
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
I was aware of many of those actions, but it remained to be seen what specifically you were talking about. I don’t know why you are interested in all actions up until Mr. Lincoln called for troops since the U.S. was making ready for the possibility of war prior to him taking office. Many of those things you list need no defense since the Southern states had very good reason to believe they were defending themselves, which was their right and duty to Southern citizens.
This would be completely wrong.
The United States took no noticeable actions to "prepare for war" until after Ft. Sumter was attacked. No troops were called for, no funds were raised for it, no extra weapons procured. If you think that is incorrect, please list the actions you are referring to. You cannot simply make up fantasies and toss off one-liners about them.
OTOH, the Confederate states seized arsenals, ships, weapons and equipment. They raised troops and used them actively -- both Militia in the states and Volunteers called at the Confederate level. They seized and besieged US posts. They used armed force against Federal employees. The Confederate government had already called up a long-term force twice the size of the US Army by early April of 1861. In the end, they assaulted Ft. Sumter, firing over 3000 rounds of heavy artillery into it.
Again you show us your refusal to acknowledge facts when they do not mesh with what you want to believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
I won’t address any post Secession issues here because once secession occurred I don‘t believe any defense of the motives are necessary. Prior to secession (as well as post-secession) the forts were seized in order to prevent them from being used against the states.
It must be very convenient to decide you will not "address" anything that conflicts with what you want to believe. Facts remain, Rose, even when you wish to ignore them.
Many of the posts we are speaking of were garrisoned by 1 or 2 men. They were there only to care for the supplies and equipment, to maintain the post. In Charleston, the entire US force (including the brass band and the officers) came to about 85 men; in the entire US East of the Mississippi it was about 2000 men. There was no imminent danger to justify the seizures by the states.
However, if you wish to start a rebellion you need money and weapons. By seizing US facilities, the seceding states simply took what they wanted, using armed force to do so. For individuals, This is theft, Rose; this is armed robbery. But if you wish to see the states as "independent nations", these acts would be considered acts of war in international law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
All seizures were in defense of the states. They had reason to believe the U.S. would use these strategic locations from which to wage war on the state. In some instances as with Holt’s acts, the U.S. had began preparing to war on the Southern states. All Southern acts were done strictly in self-defense with no idea to wage any war or cause bloodshed.
This is the same logic Lincoln outlined in his Cooper Union speech a year earlier: blaming the victim for the criminal's act.
Letters explaining why you broke the law -- such as you just quoted -- make no difference. They merely acknowledge that the state acted wrongly and say why they did so. The act is still wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
Regarding the seizure of the U.S. Mint at New Orleans I haven’t, so far, found much information. I know the CSA sent a delegation to negotiate and pay their fair share of the national debt, but were refused to be seen by Mr. Lincoln.
Look, Rose, you are trying to find excuses here for bad behavior. The state of Louisiana decided to seize by force property that belonged to others. They then did so. They spent the money they seized at the Customs House before Lincoln ever entered office. They used most of the gold and silver in the mint to coin counterfeit US money before turning the Mint over to the Confederacy on April 1.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
Regarding Twiggs and Texas, this happened after secession and needs no justification since it was common practice among both the CSA and the US militaries to confiscate property in areas where they took over occupation.
No. This is completely wrong. All of this happened before secession in Texas -- and in fact the Convention and Committee of Public Safety issuing the orders were illegal under Texas law in February of 1861. Please stop spending all your effort trying to claim that nothing the South ever did was ever wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
Neither did I address the long list of abandoned forts in Texas.
Again, it must be very convenient to decide you will not "address" anything that conflicts with what you want to believe.
The United States took no noticeable actions to "prepare for war" until after Ft. Sumter was attacked. No troops were called for, no funds were raised for it, no extra weapons procured. If you think that is incorrect, please list the actions you are referring to. You cannot simply make up fantasies and toss off one-liners about them.
Speaking of fantasies, are you claiming that no plans or efforts were being made to reinforce forts and posts in the Southern states for the purpose of forcing them to remain in the Union?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
OTOH, the Confederate states seized arsenals, ships, weapons and equipment. They raised troops and used them actively -- both Militia in the states and Volunteers called at the Confederate level. They seized and besieged US posts. They used armed force against Federal employees. The Confederate government had already called up a long-term force twice the size of the US Army by early April of 1861. In the end, they assaulted Ft. Sumter, firing over 3000 rounds of heavy artillery into it.
Yes, the Confederates did do all of that which we have discussed ad nauseam. As for Fort Sumter this, too, has been discussed in another thread to the point of exaustion. However, the Confederates only fired after repeated warnings to evacuate. Major Anderson committed an act of aggression in the eyes of the South Carolinians by placing himself into Ft. Sumter in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Again you show us your refusal to acknowledge facts when they do not mesh with what you want to believe.
Yes, I know you think it's an outrage that the Southern states pulled a few rugs out from under the feet of U.S. authorities that would use those forts, arms and posts against them. They were struggling for survival and you are worried about legalities. You have defended Mr. Lincoln's every action and no doubt side with him and Sherman on their "total war" against the non-combatant civilians of the South, yet the peaceful taking of forts (prior to Sumter) on Southern soil sends you into fits of self-righteousness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
It must be very convenient to decide you will not "address" anything that conflicts with what you want to believe. Facts remain, Rose, even when you wish to ignore them.
Tim, you posted more than 70 Southern actions for me to address. I did address as many as I thought practical and chose the ones that seemed the most important. Now, don't you think it's a bit unreasonable for you to accuse me of ignoring facts? If you will tell me what I ignored that you believe conflicts with "what I want to believe", I'll be happy to address that for you, provided that there is enough space on this board for me to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Many of the posts we are speaking of were garrisoned by 1 or 2 men. They were there only to care for the supplies and equipment, to maintain the post. In Charleston, the entire US force (including the brass band and the officers) came to about 85 men; in the entire US East of the Mississippi it was about 2000 men. There was no imminent danger to justify the seizures by the states.
Putting yourself in the Southern position, would you wait until after the U.S. put troops and arms in place before making any preparation to secure your state?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
However, if you wish to start a rebellion you need money and weapons. By seizing US facilities, the seceding states simply took what they wanted, using armed force to do so. For individuals, This is theft, Rose; this is armed robbery. But if you wish to see the states as "independent nations", these acts would be considered acts of war in international law.
I'm sure you know fully well that the South didn't want to start a "rebellion". No one wants war. They wanted peaceful separation from the U.S.. They had reason to anticipate resistance and seized that which could be used against them. The Governor of Alabama told the president that a careful inventory was being made of items found in the fort. It wasn't his intention to steal from the U.S.. It is in no way armed robbery. That is absurd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
This is the same logic Lincoln outlined in his Cooper Union speech a year earlier: blaming the victim for the criminal's act.
Mr. Lincoln's logic hasn't always impressed me. He sometimes tended to ignore a few key facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Letters explaining why you broke the law -- such as you just quoted -- make no difference. They merely acknowledge that the state acted wrongly and say why they did so. The act is still wrong.
That is your opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Look, Rose, you are trying to find excuses here for bad behavior. The state of Louisiana decided to seize by force property that belonged to others. They then did so. They spent the money they seized at the Customs House before Lincoln ever entered office. They used most of the gold and silver in the mint to coin counterfeit US money before turning the Mint over to the Confederacy on April 1.
"Bad behavior"...you call the preparation for defense of an invasion, "bad behavior"?
Ironic, isn't it, that the Union had to pay, in a small part, for the Southern defense against Northern aggressions. You don't know that that money wouldn't have been given back to the U.S. if they had chosen to allow a peaceful separation. The Southern states claimed their willingness to pay their debts to the U.S..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rose
Regarding Twiggs and Texas, this happened after secession and needs no justification since it was common practice among both the CSA and the US militaries to confiscate property in areas where they took over occupation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
No. This is completely wrong. All of this happened before secession in Texas -- and in fact the Convention and Committee of Public Safety issuing the orders were illegal under Texas law in February of 1861. Please stop spending all your effort trying to claim that nothing the South ever did was ever wrong.
As soon as you stop spending all your efforts trying to claim that nothing the South ever did was right and if I am completely wrong, I got the information from you.
According to your timeline:
"February 1, 1861. -- Ordinance of secession adopted by Texas Convention."
"February 18, 1861. -- United States military posts in Department of Texas surrendered by General Twiggs, U.S. Army."
What am I missing here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Again, it must be very convenient to decide you will not "address" anything that conflicts with what you want to believe.
And again, if you will point out what I've neglected to address that conflicts with what I "want to believe", I'll be happy to attempt to address those issues. Since I'm not aware of anything I haven't addressed because I don't want to believe it, I can't begin to guess what you are talking about.
Regards,
Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
Speaking of fantasies, are you claiming that no plans or efforts were being made to reinforce forts and posts in the Southern states for the purpose of forcing them to remain in the Union?
From: History of the Great Rebellion, Thomas P. Kettell, 1866
"On the 15th of December, two days before the meeting of her secession convention, South Carolina drew her quota of United States arms for the year 1861, John B. Floyd, Secretary of War, accepting the requisition of her Governor and on the 29th of the same month Floyd resigned, after having delivered to all the seceding States their full quota of arms for the next year as well as for the current one, and ordered the greater part of the regular army to parts so distant as to render it impossible to bring them to the Atlantic coast in season to meet any emergency. So rapid was the development of the conspiracy within the two months that elapsed between the Presidential election and the new year."
Kettle also writes in other places in the book that Sec of War Floyd "dismantled Northern forts" and "stripped Northen arsenals of arms and munitions of war." Sec. Floyd, a Virginian, is often accused of treason against the Union for his work in stocking up southern arms in anticipation of secession and war.....not to be used against the confederacy, but rather by the confederacy.
After his resignation from Buchanan's administration, he eventually became a Brigadier General in the rebel Army.
Speaking of fantasies, are you claiming that no plans or efforts were being made to reinforce forts and posts in the Southern states for the purpose of forcing them to remain in the Union?
Rose, I have long since on this forum acknowledged everything that was done. If you look at the posts I made to you, you will see references to a few minor moves by existing Federal forces -- most of them resulting from the movement of forces out of Texas because of secessionist action. These are so minor as to be laughable as preparations for war, and they show no attempt to increase the military force of the US -- exactly the opposite of what the secessionists were doing. They show no intention of "invading" anything; only an attempt to hold onto already existing Federal property that was being threatened. Even where they do exist, they are consistently preceded by aggressive provocations by Confederate/seceding state forces.
But I did not ask you to pose rhetorical questions. I asked you to post a list of the acts you were speaking of. Please do so
After his resignation from Buchanan's administration, he eventually became a Brigadier General in the rebel Army.
And a spectacularly inept one, as well.
Rose: You have the material for a book to outsell the Gospel According to the Brothers Kennedy. You're gonna be rich!
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
From: History of the Great Rebellion, Thomas P. Kettell, 1866
"On the 15th of December, two days before the meeting of her secession convention, South Carolina drew her quota of United States arms for the year 1861, John B. Floyd, Secretary of War, accepting the requisition of her Governor and on the 29th of the same month Floyd resigned, after having delivered to all the seceding States their full quota of arms for the next year as well as for the current one, and ordered the greater part of the regular army to parts so distant as to render it impossible to bring them to the Atlantic coast in season to meet any emergency. So rapid was the development of the conspiracy within the two months that elapsed between the Presidential election and the new year."
Kettle also writes in other places in the book that Sec of War Floyd "dismantled Northern forts" and "stripped Northen arsenals of arms and munitions of war." Sec. Floyd, a Virginian, is often accused of treason against the Union for his work in stocking up southern arms in anticipation of secession and war.....not to be used against the confederacy, but rather by the confederacy.
After his resignation from Buchanan's administration, he eventually became a Brigadier General in the rebel Army.
Cedarstripper
I don't know anything about the "dismantled Northern forts" part.
The "stripped Northen arsenals of arms and munitions of war" is debatable. In Late December of 1859 and January of 1860, Floyd ordered the contents of the arsenals redistributed. Approximately 115,000 muskets/rifles with associated equipment was moved from the Springfield Armory (the primary manufacturing facility and Arsenal in the nation) and two arsenals in New York and transferred to arsenals in the Deep South and North Carolina. Nothing illegal about it unless someone could prove Floyd had been engaged in a conspiracy of some sort. After Floyd resigned and fled South, an angry Congress gathered information his actions.
In December of 1860 there are two acts that are, to say the least, highly suspicious on Floyd's part. One is the sudden, unexplained transfer of heavy artillery to unfinished forts at Ships Island and Galveston (forts years away from needing guns).
The second is the sudden action in ramping up fort repair and construction in Charleston harbor. Out of nowhere, Floyd suddenly found large amounts of money to work on Fort Moultrie and Fort Sumter in December. Construction workers from Maryland (many sporting secession badges) were brought in to work on Sumter. The Charleston crowds and papers thought it humorous, asserting that the Federals were simply doing their work for them, and the governor found no reason to interfere. Only after Anderson abandoned Moultrie and moved to Sumter did the Southerners get upset by the improvement to the fort. Floyd himself, of course, seemed outraged by Anderson's move.
In 1861, as Floyd took off for the South, there was an uproar about it all -- particularly since Floyd was also being investigated for his part in the financial scandal in his department that broke in December of 1860 when he resigned.
John Buchanan Floyd was indicted for conspiracy and treason by the D. C. Grand Jury on January 27, 1861. Floyd became a Confederate general, served without distinction in Virginia, was sent to Tennessee, and was relieved in disgrace (3-11-1862) following the debacle at Ft. Donelson. Many think his fear of being hauled before the court to answer those charges influenced his decisions there. He reverted to being a Virginia militia general. When the war was over, Floyd was dead( Aug. 26, 1863). No trial was ever held.
According to your timeline:
"February 1, 1861. -- Ordinance of secession adopted by Texas Convention."
"February 18, 1861. -- United States military posts in Department of Texas surrendered by General Twiggs, U.S. Army."
What am I missing here?
Well, to begin with, you just deliberately changed what I had posted to you.
What I did post was "February 1, 1861. -- Ordinance of secession adopted by Texas Convention. (Note: this Convention was convened illegally under Texas law)"
Why did you deliberately choose to eliminate this: "(Note: this Convention was convened illegally under Texas law)"?
I posted it that way because it was illegal. Only the legislature could call such a convention. The legislature was not in session at the time. The secessionists wanted the governor to call a special session in order to convene the secession convention. The governor refused, preferring to wait for the regular session. They held an "election" anyway. Many of the delegates were elected by a voice vote in public meetings; Unionists were discouraged from attending, or chose to absent themselves because the procedure was illegal. Some 70% of the delegates chosen owned slaves; amazing in a state with a fairly sizable Unionist population; I have seen comments that not all the counties in Texas were represented at the secession convention. The U. of Texas site reports that there is evidence of suppression of Unionists in about 25% of the heavily secessionist counties in Jan-Feb 1861: the two months before the secession referendum was voted on.
Texas did vote on February 23, 1861, but the result was not counted until March 4. The secession convention has already "authorized" the seizure of US property and the use of armed force; Twiggs had already been forced into his agreement to withdraw. Texas had already been admitted into the Confederacy before they counted the vote.
Said Governor Houston: " To enumerate all its usurpations would be impossible, as a great portion of its proceedings were in secret. This much has been revealed: It has elected delegates to the provisional council of the Confederate States at Montgomery before Texas had withdrawn from the Union; and also, on the 2d day of March, annexed Texas to the Confederate States and constituted themselves members of Congress, when it was not officially known by the convention until the 4th of March that a majority of the people had voted for secession. While a portion of these delegates were representing Texas in the Congress of the Confederate States, two of them, still claiming to be United States Senators, have continued to represent Texas in the United States Senate, under the administration of Mr. Lincoln—an administration which the people of Texas have declared odious and not to be borne. Yet Texas has been exposed to obloquy and forced to occupy the ridiculous attitude, before the world, of attempting to maintain her position as one of the United States, and, at the same time, claim to be one of the Confederate States."
Further from Houston: "It has created a committee of safety, a portion of which has assumed the executive power of the government, and, to supplant the executive authority, have entered into negotiations with federal officers. This committee, and commissioners acting under it, have caused the Federal troops to be removed from posts in the country exposed to Indian depredations, and had them located, with their arms and field-batteries, on the coast, where, if their desire is to maintain a position in the country, they cannot only do so successfully, but destroy the commerce of the State. They have usurped the power to withdraw these troops from the frontier; but though in possession of ample stores, munitions of war, and transportation, have failed to supply troops in place of those removed. As a consequence, the wail of women and children is heard upon the border. Devastation and ruin have thus come upon the people; and though the convention, with all the means in its power, has been in session two weeks (adjourned session), no succor has been sent to a devastated frontier."
More from Governor Houston: "The convention has assumed to appoint agents to foreign States, and created offices, civil and military, unknown to the laws, at its will, keeping secret its proceedings. It has deprived the people of a right to know its doings. It has appointed officers and agents under its assumed authority."
More from Governor Houston: "It has declared that the people of Texas ratify the provisional government of the Confederate States, requiring all persons then in office to take an oath of allegiance to the same or suffer the penalty of removal."
More from Governor Houston: "It has overthrown the theory of free government by combining in itself all the departments of government and exercising the powers belonging to each."
More from Governor Houston: "I have refused to recognize this convention. I believe it has received none of the powers it has assumed either from the people or the legislature. I believe it guilty of a usurpation which the people cannot suffer tamely and preserve their liberties. I am ready to lay down my life to maintain the rights and liberties of Texas. I am ready to lay down office rather than yield to usurpation and degradation."
Yes, the Confederates did do all of that which we have discussed ad nauseam. As for Fort Sumter this, too, has been discussed in another thread to the point of exaustion. However, the Confederates only fired after repeated warnings to evacuate.
Again: just as Lincoln said in his Cooper Union speech. Blame the robbery victim for forcing you to shoot him because he didn't hand his property over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
Major Anderson committed an act of aggression in the eyes of the South Carolinians by placing himself into Ft. Sumter in the first place.
At the time, South Carolina armed vessels were patrolling the water between Ft. Moultrie and Ft. Sumter; South Carolina militia were patrolling the streets outside Ft. Moultrie. Crowds were coming out to Ft. Moultrie to threaten and insult the garrison. Faced with this, Anderson moved his force (all 85 of them, counting the officers and the brass band) to a place of relative safety and did nothing else. You need to develop some way to see the abusive acts of the secessionists and be more forthright in comparing the two.
[quote=Wild_Rose]Yes, I know you think it's an outrage that the Southern states pulled a few rugs out from under the feet of U.S. authorities that would use those forts, arms and posts against them. They were struggling for survival and you are worried about legalities.
As always, secessionists seek to avoid responsibility for what they did first by pointing to what came later. What struggle for survival are you talking about here? What had been done to them in December 1860 to April of 1861 that would raise any reasonable threat? Don't just proclaim it was there: detail what you mean. If you are honest with yourself, you will see that it is essentially nothing, and that it is overwhelmed by the abusive acts of the secessionists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
You have defended Mr. Lincoln's every action and no doubt side with him and Sherman on their "total war" against the non-combatant civilians of the South, yet the peaceful taking of forts (prior to Sumter) on Southern soil sends you into fits of self-righteousness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
Tim, you posted more than 70 Southern actions for me to address. I did address as many as I thought practical and chose the ones that seemed the most important. Now, don't you think it's a bit unreasonable for you to accuse me of ignoring facts? If you will tell me what I ignored that you believe conflicts with "what I want to believe", I'll be happy to address that for you, provided that there is enough space on this board for me to do so.
Rose, you declared you weren't going to address virtually all of them, declaring they were all justified in your belief. Look yourself in the mirror and stop spending so much effort avoiding data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
Putting yourself in the Southern position, would you wait until after the U.S. put troops and arms in place before making any preparation to secure your state?
The US had no force of troops that could do that in existence. Most of the Federal Army (7/8ths) was west of the Mississippi, much of it in places like Colorado, California, Utah and Oregon. It took months to recall even a portion of those forces in 1861; heck, it took 2 weeks to just get a message to California. There was no imminent threat to do what you insist upon.
But in any case, it is illegal. The secessionists insisted they were acting legally and acted illegally in case after case. You insist the same. This is wrong.
I have said before many times that I might have done much the same if I were leading a rebellion in the South. Actually, I would hope to be more intelligent about the actions, since I find these stupid, but if you want to start a war you need weapons, men, and money. But that is not a legal or constitutional "right of secession as the Confederate leaders like Jefferson Davis claimed. It is merely revolution, as Robert E. Lee saw it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
I'm sure you know fully well that the South didn't want to start a "rebellion". No one wants war. They wanted peaceful separation from the U.S. They had reason to anticipate resistance and seized that which could be used against them.
There are Japanese who use similar logic to prove the war in the Pacific in 1941-45 was the result of US aggression. Hitler held that his actions were justified by his fears of what others might do to Nazi Germany. Napoleon had some great rationalizations for takeovers he staged. The Kaiser had some great explanations for what he did to Belgium. Somehow, aggressors all seem to tell you that they had to take your property or invade your country or kill your people, and they always tell you it was wrong for you to resist them. Once again, all these actions by the South are part of rebellion and revolution; they cannot be reconciled with Southern claims that they were acting peacefully.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
The Governor of Alabama told the president that a careful inventory was being made of items found in the fort. It wasn't his intention to steal from the U.S.. It is in no way armed robbery. That is absurd.
Rose, if a man accosts you in the street, takes your wallet at gunpoint, drives off with your car, but hands you a receipt and says he would like to negotiate a payment somewhere down the line, he is still a thief. If brought to trial, he would still be convicted.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
