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.
Wild Rose & Trice... play nice. Ami is watching. I am enjoying learning info on this thread and would hate to see it get shut down.
Sorry. I was defending myself and I thought I was being polite about it. I agree it should never get personal, but unfortunately everyone doesn't see it that way.
Note to Ami: My apologies, you don't have to worry about Tim and myself. I won't address any more of his posts.
Sincerely,
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
I am truly sorry you feel the necessity to spit out all this bile. However, if you go back and read what you have actually said to me over the last few weeks you will find that my characterization of your position is justified by what you yourself have said.
I asked you about the long record of illegal seizures by the secessionists and you told me they were justified in them because they felt justified. Told that many Southerners had opinions you do not wish to know about, you have tried to make them go away by saving their numbers were insignificant; shown that Southerners in large numbers felt exactly as described, you seek again to avoid simply acknowledging the facts. Asked about specific incidents, you try to change the debate to other issues, often unrelated issues that came far after.
As I say, I am truly sorry to see you act that way. Studying history means studying all of it. Evaluating events means accepting what happened, not only what you would like to believe. The people who created the Civil War and fought it were just that: people. They do not fit into neat little cubbyholes, they were rarely all good or all bad, and they were often forced by the pressure of events to make decisions they would not have made at leisure. Often, the pressure was intentionally created by a few to force those decisions upon them. But all of this is normal in human society; the secessionists were little different than others in the methods they used.
Truth remains. It always does, even if you or I have trouble seeing it or acknowledging it. History is, at the core, what happened. It is not what other people think it was.
Some did; some didn't. The counties of West Virginia remained strongly opposed to secession, as did those of East Tennessee. There was a large massacre of Unionists in Texas who were merely trying to flee North (1862 or 1863, IIRR). NC produced the largest number of Confederate soldiers -- and also the largest number of Union volunteers in the seceding states, IIRR. We have those 100,000+ USCT who came from seceding states as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
Those numbers are negligable compared to those that supported secession. Even in Tennessee, more than 2/3 of the state were for secession. West Virginia didn't have enough to vote to stay in the Union, so they seceded the state...ironic, isn't it?
In early 1861, Tennessee voted against secession. There are strong indications that the 2nd vote was not impartial, with a great many charges of vote fraud and intimidation, followed by the Governor sending troops in to occupy the areas that had not voted for secession. Those troops, surprisingly enough, had been called up before the vote and not one of them cast a vote against secession -- stunning in a state so deeply divided. It is also useful to remember that that entirely secessionist state force had been stationed at the polling places to watch, and that the secessionists had adopted a policy of presenting open ballots so that everyone could see how they voted -- leaving it obvious who voted the other way. This pretty much destroys the protection of the Australian ballot for any Unionist in the disputed areas, particualrly in Middle Tennessee.
In Virginia, there was a vote in the convention against secession on April 8, IIRR. When the time came for the next vote, the ex-governor had already sent militia off to seize Harpers Ferry (illegally, since the current governor had said no and this man had no authority). He walked into the convention and slammed a pistol down on the table to start the meeting, demanding an immediate vote. Certainly dramatic, and yet another example of how secessionists arranged events to stampede the people into a vote the secessionists wanted. By the time the actual vote in Virginia came about, several thousand Confederate troops were already in the state, the Virginia militia had seized Harpers Ferry and Norfolk Navy Yard, crossed into Maryland, an attempted Confederate seizure of Washington had fallen flat, and a shooting war was in progress. This is not likely to lead to a calm and dispassionate election result (and state troops were also stationed at polling places here; there were a number of incidents as a result, and the troops were sent back to barracks in some places to avoid the confrontations).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
Those poor Germans you mention had organized a Union Loyal League. They eventually formed three units of about 500 "supposedly" Confederate troops that was actually formed for the explicit reason of complying with the conscription order, but never with the intention of serving the Confederacy. This was treason. When the Union Loyal League's key leaders were arrested the militia was disbanded and many fled for Mexico (not to the North). Again, this was treason with the added charge of desertion. There is more, but to claim these poor people were just caught in the middle and trying to get out of Confederate territory is not an accurate account.
Depending upon source, this was a group of 61-68 men headed for Mexico. Nineteen were killed in the fighting that morning; nine captured wounded were executed later in the day. The survivors split up, six more being killed at the crossing of the Rio Grande, some 20 reaching Mexico and another group fleeing back home. Apparently the local commander had sent the pursuit out saying he didn't wish any prisoners. Surrounding this were an unspecified but apparently large number of hangings by Confederate troops, both before and after the battle or massacre on the Nueces.
That these were Unionists is certainly admitted; it is the whole point of what I said. That they were trying to avoid conscription is pretty clear. The counties they were in (Gillespie, Kerr, Kendall, Medina, and Bexar Counties) had been declared in rebellion by the Confederate commander H. P. Bee. The local Confederate commander, Captain Duff, had long since written in a letter "The God **** Dutchmen are Unionists to a man…I will hang all I suspect of being anti-Confederates."
There was also the "Great Hanging" up around Gainesville in Texas. That looks like about 40 men hanged, some of them by a lynch mob when they were going to be released, 5 more in Sherman, another 5 in Decatur, and assorted others around and about. Try http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/...s/GG/jig1.html for anyone interested in a general account of the story.
My point to you was that there were substantial numbers of people in the South who disagreed strongly with the Confederacy. Nothing else. I apologize for getting the direction of the flight of the men in the Nueces disaster wrong, but suppose that it might be a little difficult to flee directly North through Confederate territory from South Texas, and that Mexico might have looked like an easier destination.
But I am amazed. Presented with proof that men like Pryor and Wigfall at Charleston were text-book examples of treason under the US Constitution, you told me that traitor was a hard word and you would resist using it. Here you seem eager to do so. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, Rose. If you see anyone who resists Confederate policy this way as traitors, you must also see US citizens who act against their nation as traitors.
In early 1861, Tennessee voted against secession. There are strong indications that the 2nd vote was not impartial, with a great many charges of vote fraud and intimidation, followed by the Governor sending troops in to occupy the areas that had not voted for secession. Those troops, surprisingly enough, had been called up before the vote and not one of them cast a vote against secession -- stunning in a state so deeply divided. It is also useful to remember that that entirely secessionist state force had been stationed at the polling places to watch, and that the secessionists had adopted a policy of presenting open ballots so that everyone could see how they voted -- leaving it obvious who voted the other way. This pretty much destroys the protection of the Australian ballot for any Unionist in the disputed areas, particualrly in Middle Tennessee.
In Virginia, there was a vote in the convention against secession on April 8, IIRR. When the time came for the next vote, the ex-governor had already sent militia off to seize Harpers Ferry (illegally, since the current governor had said no and this man had no authority). He walked into the convention and slammed a pistol down on the table to start the meeting, demanding an immediate vote. Certainly dramatic, and yet another example of how secessionists arranged events to stampede the people into a vote the secessionists wanted. By the time the actual vote in Virginia came about, several thousand Confederate troops were already in the state, the Virginia militia had seized Harpers Ferry and Norfolk Navy Yard, crossed into Maryland, an attempted Confederate seizure of Washington had fallen flat, and a shooting war was in progress. This is not likely to lead to a calm and dispassionate election result (and state troops were also stationed at polling places here; there were a number of incidents as a result, and the troops were sent back to barracks in some places to avoid the confrontations).
Tim, Following are some excerpts from Orville J. Victor, The History Civil Political, and Military of the Southern Rebellion, (New York: J.D. Torrey Publisher, 1861 which relate to your points.
"Giving a majority for "separation" of fifty-seven thousand six hundred and seventy five. How this vote was obtained we are well informed. Thc election in February had resulted in a majority of about sixty thousand against calling a Convention to consider an ordinance of secession-showing the Union sentiment to overwhelmingly predominate. Without any ****her action whatever with no indication from the people of a change of sentiment, the loyal voters of the State were astounded, on the morning of May 8th, to learn that, on the 6th their Commonwealth had been transferred to the keeping of the guns of Davis, but that they (the voters) were permitted the unusual privilege of voting upon the Ordinance of Secession-which was proclaimed on the morning of said May. That vote having been ordered for June 8th, time was thus allowed for the State to pass under Confederate military rule. When that day came it was equivalent to immediate military arrest in West Tennessee for a man to express a Union sentiment; in Middle Tennessee it subjected the person to such persecutions as few cared to challenge; in East Tennessee the loyal sentiment was so immensely in the ascendant, through the labors of such men as Andrew Johnson, Judge Nelson, Parson Brownlow, Emerson Etheridge, Horace Maynard, and their fellow-laberers1 that the vote polled on the 8th was over eighteen thousand majority against separation.
Finding themselves powerless before the tyranny inaugurated, the Unionists of East Tennessee resolved, as a last resort, to hold a Convention at Greenville, to consult at large-thirty-one counties having delegates present on the first day. Judge Nelson presided. After a four days' session it adopted a Declaration of Grievances and Resolutions which, emanating from a body composed of enlightened and substantial Southern men, deserve particular consideration. Occupying a position in the physical centre of the Union's area; originally settled almost exclusively by citizens of the Slave States adjoining, (Virginia and North Carolina); allied to the Southern States by sympathy with "Southern Institutions" as well as by commercial relations; intelligent, Law-abiding and conservative, East Tennessee, it may be presumed, represented the voice of an arbiter, whose decision and views history will sustain. We quote from the Declaration such sentences and sentiments as seem to demand repetition
"We, the people of East Tennessee, again assembled in a Convention of our delegates, make the following declaration in addition to that heretofore promulgated by us at Knoxville, on thc 30th and 31st days of May last: so far as we can learn, the election held in this State on the 8th day of the present month was free, with but few exceptions, in no part of the State, other than in East Tennessee. In the larger parts of Middle and West Tennessee no speeches or discussions in favor of the Union were permitted. Union papers were not allowed to circulate. Measures were taken in some parts of West Tennessee, in defiance of the Constitution and laws, which allow folded tickets, to have the ballot numbered in such a manner as to mark and expose the union votes. A disunion paper, the Nashville Gazette, in urging the people to vote an open ticket declared that 'a thief takes a pocketbook or effects an entrance into forbidden places by stealthy means -a tory, in voting, usually adopts pretty much the same course of procedure. Disunionists, in many places, had charge of the polls and union men, when voting were denounced as Lincolnites and Abolitionists. The unanimity of the votes in many large counties, where, but a few weeks ago, the Union sentiment was so strong, proves beyond doubt that union men were overawed by the tyranny of the military power and the still greater tyranny of a corrupt and subsidized press. * * * Volunteers were allowed to vote in and out of the State, in flagrant violation of the Constitution. From the moment the election was over, and before any detailed statement of the vote in the different counties had been published, and before it was possible to ascertain the result, it was exultingly proclaimed that separation had been carried by from fifty to seventy thousand votes. This was to prepare the public mind to enable 'the Secessionists to hold possession of the State though they should be in a minority.' The final result is to be announced by a disunion Governor, whose existence depends upon the success of secession, and no provision is made by law for an examination of the vote by disinterested persons, or even for contesting the election. For these and other causes, we do not regard the result of the election as expressive of the will of a majority of the freemen of Tennessee. * * The Union men of East Tennessee, anxious to be neutral in the contest, were content to enjoy their own opinions and to allow the utmost latitude of opinion and action to those who differed from them. Had the same toleration prevailed in other parts of the State, we have no doubt that a majority of our people would have voted to remain in the Union. But, if this view is erroneous, we have the same and, as we think, a much better-right to remain in the Government of the United States than the other divisions of Tennessee have to secede from it."
Thus far in regard to the character of that "election" -- the second instance, in all the Seceded States, in which an Ordinance of Secession was submitted to the people for their acceptance or rejection!* The Declaration then proceeds to give the Convention's views of National obligations and relations, and to express its opinions of the secession movement. We may quote:
"We prefer to remain attached to the government of our fathers. The Constitution of the United States has done us no wrong. The Congress of the United States has passed no law to oppress us. The President of the United States has made no threat against the law-abiding people of' Tennessee. Under the Government of the United States we have enjoyed as a nation more of civil and religious freedom than any other people under the whole heaven. We believe that there is not cause for rebellion or secession on the part of the people of Tennessee. None was assigned by the Legislature in their miscalled Declaration of Independence. No adequate cause can be assigned. The Select Committee of that body asserted a gross and inexcusable falsehood in their address to the people of Tennessee when they declared that the Government of the United States has made war upon them.
"The secession cause has thus far been sustained by deception and falsehood: by false hood as to the action of Congress, by false dispatches as to battles that were never fought and victories that were never won; by false accounts as to the purposes of the President, by false representations as to the views of Union men, and by false pretenses as to the facility with which the secession troops would take possession of the Capital and capture the highest officers of the Government. The cause of secession or rebellion has no charms for us, and its progress has been marked by the most alarming and dangerous attacks upon the public liberty. In other States, as well as our own, its whole course threatens to annihilate the last vestige of freedom. .....
1Brownlow, in his "Experiences among the Rebels," says: "For Separation and Representation at Richmond East Tennessee gave fourteen thousand and seven hundred votes. One half of that number were rebel troops, having no authority under the Constitution to vote at any election. For No Separation and No Representation, East Tennessee, gave thirty-three thousand straight-out Union votes, with at least five thousand quiet citizens deterred from coming out by threats of violence and by the presence of drunken troops at the polls to insult them."
*The Virginia vote of May 23rd, 1861, was taken under like circumstances; the hordes of the Confederacy being everywhere in Eastern Virginia, to ***** with the bayonet any man presumptuous enough to entertain Union sentiments. We do not name the vote allowed in Texas: it was a mockery too base to be called a vote."
Transcribed by Jennifer Foulk, Furman University, from Orville J. Victor, The History Civil Political, and Military of the Southern Rebellion, (New York: J.D. Torrey Publisher, 1861), II, 295-298. http://alpha.furman.edu/~benson/tennres1.htm
Rhett and Yancy were important figures in the secession movement, however, it is a mistake to place too much importance on those two. They alone did not secede the states and they alone did not force anyone else into secession.
Rhett (a former US Congressman and Senator) had been one of the leaders of the SC secessionists for more than 30 years. He owned the most influential paper in the South and used it relentlessly to promote his views on secession. He is generally regarded as the leader of the Fire-Eaters, along with Yancy. Yancy had been the leading orator of secession throughout the 1850s for the Deep South, and his 1858 debate with Pryor at the Southern Commercial Convention is something I direct your attention to if you are at all intersted in the topic of how secession came about. Yancy (another former member of Congress) and Rhett orchestrated the split in the 1860 Democratic Party, with Yancy leading the walkout of slave-state delegates that killed the Charleston Convention.
These were major figures in their time and place, the leading movers and shakers of the Fire-Eater movement. Both were part of the formation of the Confederate government in Montgomery in February of 1861. Both served as leading members of their states' secession convention. Both served in the Confederate Congress, and both ended as disgruntled opponents of Jefferson Davis.
No one man is totally responsible for any movement so large as secession was. But if you had to pick any two to be the representative of the movement in the 1850s, these would be the two. Underestimating their importance is hard to do.
Tim, Following are some excerpts from Orville J. Victor, The History Civil Political, and Military of the Southern Rebellion, (New York: J.D. Torrey Publisher, 1861 which relate to your points.
...
Thank you.
These are all just examples of the normal techniques used to rush a hesitant people into a decision they don't want. They are what I was referring to, in general and in specific.
Having a vote after the fighting has started is very different than having it beforehand. I suspect that Virginia would have inclined for secession anyway in late May as things stood, but the vote would have been closer without the pressure (and no one can say what it actually was anyway, since there are a number of Virginia counties where the records have been lost.)
I think it might have been different still if Virginia had taken no action before the vote: if they had waited a month for a plebiscite instead of starting by seizing Harpers Ferry and the Navy Yard, mobilizing the militia, putting batteries along the Potomac, sending arms to Maryland agitators, and letting the Confederate troops into the state before the people had their say. Who knows? Perhaps they would have tried for a neutrality policy, as Kentucky did try.
Tennessee might have gone out on the second vote anyway -- but if the pressure had been missing the vote probably would have been much closer (the change in votes is really only in Middle TN). Having a Governor and legislator already offering your men to the Confederacy in April, many weeks before the vote, does not convince me that they are palying the game fair.
The same in other places. The rush to secession was orchestrated. There was no immediate threat, no clear and present danger to respond to that required instant action; there were some moderately distant concerns to worry about. There was no desire to let things proceed in a calm fashion. This is, of course, just routine history for such things: extremists trying to lead the people in their direction, and in this case many of the extremists had their hands on the machinery of local and state government to help things along.
You'll find some of the same effort in the North, of course once the war starts to push the people towards responding. You'll find seizures of a few things, such as arms shipments, in the days before Ft. Sumter. But you will find relatively little like it in the North in the Winter of Secession, and an awful lot like it in the seceding states, far greater in kind and degree.
There were plenty of people willing to whip up their fears and paint colorful pictures of the new world they would boldly go into, to play on "states' rights" and "Southern honor" and all the other catch-phrases. They'd tell you it was necessary to seize all those things, and to use force, and of course once you have done those things, it gets harder to turn back. They would say you were in the "right", no matter what you did, and they would point to any sign that the rest of the nation was irritated and outraged by your actions as "proof" that you were "threatened". This is all fairly normal practice, and it doesn't matter whether we are talking about Americans or Arabs or Israelis or Nazis or French revolutionists like Robespierre or the Japanese or anyone else. The techniques are the same; the method is the same, although there are differences of degree. Get things stirred up, stampede the mass towards your goal, and try to manage it as the chaos swirls about you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
Is that what Lincoln did?
Lincoln himself? About secession in the days we are talking about, from December of 1860 to the Spring of 1861? No, not really or not very much. In the period from his election to his inauguration he barely spoke out at all. His inauguration speech lays out his position clearly enough and was obviously opposed to secession. But he seized no property, he made no use of armed force to occupy property not belonging to the US, he confiscated no funds, he sent no troops to polling places, he took no illegal actions at all that I can recall -- and as you seem to have already acknowledged.
If you mean do politicians in elections use purple prose to paint their opponents and make them look bad, then surely they often do. US politics in that day were raucus, and the election of 1860 particularly so. Having the Wide-Awakes coming through your town was probably unsettling. In the style of that day, Lincoln campaigned little himself but his views were known and the Republicans had more than enough rabble-rousers out there. Still, I cannot see that this could be what you refer to.
Now if you want to say that his actions in Maryland were illegal, they were all eventually supported by the Supreme Court and the Congress because of the war and emergency. They were carried on too long and there were abuses under them, IMHO. While perhaps acceptable due to the war, they are the sort of thing that a free nation should rarely abide with.
We can point to other actions that no free nation can tolerate in times of peace and calm: military law imposed, suspension of Habeas Corpus, etc., etc. None are justified by anything except the emergency of the Civil War.
If you wish to talk of the Emancipation Proclamation, it is regarded as justified by the circumstances as well, essentially a penalty against insurrectionists not too different than declaring their property forfeit. It is certainly designed as a clever political maneuver among other things, and would have been rejected if he tried it in a time of peace.
But I see little of Lincoln acting as the secessionists did, using force first, seizing property, funds, bullion, posts, vessels, and equipment; posting troops on the people, calling illegal elections, attempting to intimidate voters in an election, prior to the assualt on the Union by Confederacy. I do find dozens of incidents like that on the part of secessionists to get secession started, to manipulate their own states out of the Union. Lincoln's justification for his acts, whether we agree with them or not, is a clear and strong one. What, exactly, justifies the course the secessionists followed?
Such actions are routine and to be expected when studying history. It is rather calm and peaceful action that should be noted and regarded as exceptional -- these are much more rare, and so usually praiseworthy.
So if you want me to say that Lincoln and the Republicans tried to get people to follow their lead, than certainly they did. If you want to know if they pulled out all the stops on rhetoric and political tricks, they certainly pulled out a lot of them. Obviously they tried to fire up their supporters, as would only be expected. But I truly do not see where they decended to the level the secessionists did in those days as war came and states seceded. If you do, please list when you respond.
February 9th, 1861. And they merely voted, by a 54-46% margin, against holding a State Convention, at that time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
There are strong indications that the 2nd vote was not impartial, with a great many charges of vote fraud and intimidation,
Source? Are we to take it that there were no instances of fraud and intimidation in the heavily Unionist east Tennessee counties?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
… followed by the Governor sending troops in to occupy the areas that had not voted for secession.
Did these troop deployments precede or follow the voting? If it was after the voting, how exactly did these pro-secessionist troops intimidate pro-Union voters?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Those troops, surprisingly enough, had been called up before the vote and not one of them cast a vote against secession -- stunning in a state so deeply divided.
This seems like a self-selecting group. Tennessee troops that would report for such duty would be the same type of people that would favour secession.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
It is also useful to remember that that entirely secessionist state force had been stationed at the polling places to watch, and that the secessionists had adopted a policy of presenting open ballots so that everyone could see how they voted -- leaving it obvious who voted the other way. This pretty much destroys the protection of the Australian ballot for any Unionist in the disputed areas, particualrly (sic) in Middle Tennessee.
Open balloting was the norm across the US at the time. In the Virginia vote, the decision was unanimous in 48 counties, but in 80-odd other counties, Unionists found the courage to vote in favour of remaining in the Union, including 40 or so in which there were over 100 votes in favour of remaining.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
In Virginia, there was a vote in the convention against secession on April 8, IIRR.
Wrong again. The first vote on the secession resolution was April 4th. It was defeated by a vote of 89 to 45, because they were trying to work out a compromise acceptable to all parties. Many Unionist delegates were bitterly disappointed that President Lincoln would send warships to South Carolina, and some refused to believe that Lincoln’s post-Sumter call for 75,000 troops was genuine. I would suggest reading the latter half of Volume III and the first half of volume IV of the Proceedings of the Virginia Convention of 1861 for details.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
When the time came for the next vote, the ex-governor had already sent militia off to seize Harpers Ferry (illegally, since the current governor had said no and this man had no authority).
How exactly did the ex-Governor order anyone to do anything? He was a private citizen in 1861.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
He walked into the convention and slammed a pistol down on the table to start the meeting, demanding an immediate vote.
Wrong again. President of the Convention, John Janney, an anti-secessionist delegate, chaired the Convention throughout. Exactly when did ex-Gov. Wise slam his pistol on the podium? And how does a delegate, not in the President’s chair, “start” a “meeting?” On which day did the pistol-slamming occur?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Certainly dramatic, and yet another example of how secessionists arranged events to stampede the people into a vote the secessionists wanted.
So the people of Virginia were stampeded, and didn’t really want to leave the Union? Why didn’t they desert at the first opportunity or simply ignore the orders?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
By the time the actual vote in Virginia came about, several thousand Confederate troops were already in the state, the Virginia militia had seized Harpers Ferry and Norfolk Navy Yard, crossed into Maryland, an attempted Confederate seizure of Washington had fallen flat, and a shooting war was in progress.
And the President of the United States had called for 75,000 troops to invade the southern States and overthrow the elected State governments. That might have influenced the voting as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
This is not likely to lead to a calm and dispassionate election result (and state troops were also stationed at polling places here; there were a number of incidents as a result, and the troops were sent back to barracks in some places to avoid the confrontations).
Source? Incidents? Which “barracks” were the Virginia troops sent to? Virginia wasn’t in the habit of maintaining barracks anywhere. The only barracks in Virginia were the Federal ones, unless you mean the barracks at VMI. Did the Cadets cause these “incidents?” And were they ordered back to Lexington? Tim, you’re going to have to do better than this. John Taylor
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
...Tim, you’re going to have to do better than this. John Taylor
John, the general tenor of your post leads me to believe you are looking to pick a fight here. Before we start down that road, what's up?
Surely you have seen everything I just posted in one form or another before, whether posted by me or someone else, and often with documentation. It is all fairly common Civil War fare. If you know, for example, enough to give us the name of President of the Convention, John Janney, I am fairly certain you already know about Henry A. Wise, the men he met with at the hotel on the 16th to plan the capture of Harpers Ferry, how the governor refused to OK it unless the convention first voted for secession, how Wise promised he would get a secession vote the next day, how the militia movement started anyway on the night of the 16th-17th and how he addressed that convention with what is described as a wild look in his eye while brandishing his pistol on the 17th to get that vote.
The use of troops by the governor in Tennessee is also common fare. Troops had been called up by the pro-secessionist governor -- which probably accounts for the 100% pro-secession vote from the troops -- many of whom were detailed to the polling places while the election was in process. The secessionists in TN had adopted a policy of handing in their ballots without folding them, contrary to normal TN practice, so that everyone could see how they voted. This policy was widely promoted through editorials in their papers as the election came near. This has been mentioned before on this forum even in the short time I have been here.
If you want to be so incredibly exacting, the prewar Federal barracks, with the exception of Ft. Monroe, had all been seized by Virginia or Confederate/Virginia forces by the time of the election. I apologize for the sloppiness of my choice of words, because undoubtedly most of those Virginia troops at the polls were really in "camp" instead of in "barracks" -- unless, of course, they were being quartered inside a building being used as a temporary quarters or "barracks".
A lot of what you just posted looks simply like nit-picking when you already know better, merely trying to rile things up. Am I right in my impression? If so, why?
John, the general tenor of your post leads me to believe you are looking to pick a fight here. Before we start down that road, what's up?
Not wishing to pick a fight, Tim, just unwilling to let egregious errors of fact go unchallenged. You and I disagree on a lot in terms of interpretation of what facts mean, and which facts are more relevant than others, but when you present errors of fact like you did in that post, my respect for the truth requires a rebuttal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Surely you have seen everything I just posted in one form or another before, whether posted by me or someone else, and often with documentation. It is all fairly common Civil War fare. If you know, for example, enough to give us the name of President of the Convention, John Janney, I am fairly certain you already know about Henry A. Wise, the men he met with at the hotel on the 16th to plan the capture of Harpers Ferry, how the governor refused to OK it unless the convention first voted for secession, how Wise promised he would get a secession vote the next day, how the militia movement started anyway on the night of the 16th-17th
A “Spontaneous Southern Rights Association” (consisting of Wise, and Imboden and others) did meet in Richmond on the night of the 16th to form a Southern Rights canvas for the upcoming Virginia local elections, but took no action. On the 17th, when the Convention was in secret session, without a recorder present, the Convention voted to secede from the Union. The Virginia militia did not approach Harper’s Ferry until 10:00 pm on the 18th of April, when the former superintendent and Virginia Convention delegate, Alfred Barbour had an interview and told the local Federal commander that they were coming. The Union commander ordered his troops to burn the buildings and withdrew across the Potomac. (Official Records, vol. 2, pg. 1) Have you read the Proceedings of the Virginia Convention of 1861?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
and how he addressed that convention with what is described as a wild look in his eye while brandishing his pistol on the 17th to get that vote.
Your source for this was probably Hall’s Rending of Virginia. Hall’s source was Waitman Willey, the unconditional Unionist delegate who voted against secession on April 4th, April 17th, and then went on to the “loyal” Virginia Convention that maintained the legal fiction that they represented the entire Commonwealth in the Convention that tore the State apart, in plain violation of the provisions of the US Constitution. Not that I would expect Willey (or you) to be overly concerned with compliance with the Constitution, or the expressed will of the people of a State if it conflicts with the requirements of the Union. Willey and his westerners probably didn’t want to admit that theirs was not the position of the majority of the people of the State, so they dreamed up this myth that the Convention was dragooned into secession. To show the fiction of this position, there were several delegates (including Janney and John B. Baldwin) who voted no on April 17th, but later, in the interests of unity of the Commonwealth, went back and changed their votes to yes. I am unaware of any delegate who voted yes on April 17th (under Willey’s imagined duress of Wise and his pistol) who later said that his yes vote was coerced. Perhaps you have the name of someone fitting that category. Waitman Willey was scared by the look in Wise’s eyes? Man, that must have taken some courage to vote against secession with a wild-eyed man in the room. How many of the anti-secession delegates in the Virginia Convention were shot for their insolence? Any? I have more respect for the members of that Convention (both Union men and secessionists), than to believe that any of them would be willing to do what they knew was wrong simply because a man with a wild look in his eye was scaring them. I believe they were made of sterner stuff, even the unconditional unionists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
If you want to be so incredibly exacting, the prewar Federal barracks, with the exception of Ft. Monroe, had all been seized by Virginia or Confederate/Virginia forces by the time of the election.
Where exactly were these pre-war US Army barracks (other than Monroe) in Virginia in April 1861?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
I apologize for the sloppiness of my choice of words, because undoubtedly most of those Virginia troops at the polls were really in "camp" instead of in "barracks" -- unless, of course, they were being quartered inside a building being used as a temporary quarters or "barracks".
I have already shown that thousands of anti-secession voters in pro-secession counties voted their conscience all over Virginia. In which counties were the anti-secession voters intimidated into voting for secession by pro-secession militia man? In 40 counties, more than 100 men voted against secession. In 20 of these, secession was the majority position, in the other 20, anti-secession prevailed. Sounds like there was some diversity of opinion in this voting. Respectfully, John Taylor
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
Last edited by JohnTaylor; 07-14-2006 at 11:56 AM.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
