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.
Trice, you cut me to the quick. I have plenty of problems with both sides.
Good, then please explain clearly what you see as a problem with the acts of the secessionists. I don't recall any mention of such from you and am eager to see what they might be.
Did you perhaps have a problem with the 1859 SC legislature voting for $100,000 military contingency fund in January of 1860? Or with the Governor for calling upon the new 1860 Legislature for 10,000 troops on November 5, 1860, before Lincoln had been elected? Or with the new legislature for giving the outgoing Governor approval to use that convenient $100,000 the same day? Or with the Governor for ordering his agent to buy 10,000 rifles (apparently to arm the 10,000 troops) on November 6th, 1860 (Election Day)?
Regards,
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
That being said, when you first pretend that nothing happened to precipate the flurry of facility take-overs across the South; and then state that there was no reason for them to be upset about it, while trying to say that a governor's call for militia in preparation for having to go it alone after secession was a hostile act, seems to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black, and then some.
So moving some 80 men from one post to another is intolerable, but a call before that to raise and arm a force of 10,000 men has no impact? Is that what you are saying? What's the difference in your mind?
Regards,
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
No one had any interest in getting at Anderson, as I'm sure you know. They wined him and dined him right up until his cloak and dagger move.
I think you are simply making a pretense here, but I am willing to see what you think you are talking about and evaluate it. Please post the details of this "wining and dining" so we can see what you believe was going on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
Their only interest was a harbor free of hostile troops representing a government intent on preventing their exercise of self-government in all its forms. The mere recognition that they could have taken all the forts in the harbor at any time they pleased, for at least 6 months prior to Anderson's move, is sufficient to quell any errant thoughts such as you suggest.
Well, of course, there were no "hostile troops" -- as I am sure you know. Doing what you are describing would have been an attack on their own government and a violation of the oath of all the officials, illegal under US law, illegal under South Carolina law, making the South Carolina people ... well, what would you say that made them under the law: Criminals, Rebels, or Traitors?
Regards,
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Trice, are you pretending to be unaware again? Assuming you are being sincere, then I will answer your question, by pointing to Col. John Gardner, commanding officer at Fort Moultrie, trying to transfer arms from Charleston arsenal to Fort Moultrie, on November 8. This is what he was no doubt trying to make sure wouldn't happen again. And the fact that Col. Gardner was promptly relieved of command by President Buchanan for this provocative and destabilizing act is more evidence that violating the status quo was not taken lightly by the administrations of either side.
So, correct me if I am wrong, but if I am reading this correctly, the SC government had the right to prevent United States troops from transferring federal property from one federal installation to another? Col. Gardner was doing what was right. Buchanan was a lame duck, and had been since the day that he was elected. That is why he is only remembered for being a president who did nothing to prevent the Civil War. It is a shame that Gardner was relieved of his command, really. That was the property of the United States government that he was transferring, and the state of South Carolina had no right to impede upon that transfer.
__________________ "The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize." George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
So moving some 80 men from one post to another is intolerable, but a call before that to raise and arm a force of 10,000 men has no impact? Is that what you are saying? What's the difference in your mind?
Regards,
Tim
Tim, SC was on the way out. Secession was a foregone conclusion. As a free and independent state, she would be entirely responsible for her own defense. Surely this is not something that needs to be questioned.
Did you perhaps have a problem with the 1859 SC legislature voting for $100,000 military contingency fund in January of 1860?
No.
Quote:
Or with the Governor for calling upon the new 1860 Legislature for 10,000 troops on November 5, 1860, before Lincoln had been elected?
No.
Quote:
Or with the new legislature for giving the outgoing Governor approval to use that convenient $100,000 the same day? Or with the Governor for ordering his agent to buy 10,000 rifles (apparently to arm the 10,000 troops) on November 6th, 1860 (Election Day)?
No.
Tim, do you know the actions of each of the other states in regards to such matters during this time of political uncertainty and upheaval?
Trice, you cut me to the quick. I have plenty of problems with both sides.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Good, then please explain clearly what you see as a problem with the acts of the secessionists. I don't recall any mention of such from you and am eager to see what they might be.
Well, you said "No" to all the suggestions I made, but never said what you meant. So again what, exactly, are the problems you have with the secession side? Is there some reason you do not wish to tell us what they are?
Regards,
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Tim, SC was on the way out. Secession was a foregone conclusion. As a free and independent state, she would be entirely responsible for her own defense. Surely this is not something that needs to be questioned.
Why not? The entire concept of a legal "right of secession" was unresolved in 1860. Many people, North and South, felt that there was no such "right". For example, Robert E. Lee used words like "anarchy" and "treason" when talking of secession, and said he believed the Founding Fathers had never intended it to exist.
As a result, it is entirely legitimate to question everything you want to claim as fact here, because it was never established as fact. In relation to this, note the quote in my signature on this post, where a famous man, a native of South Carolina, casts grave doubt on the entire concept you wish to assume, 70 years before the Civil War.
Regards,
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
So, correct me if I am wrong, but if I am reading this correctly, the SC government had the right to prevent United States troops from transferring federal property from one federal installation to another? Col. Gardner was doing what was right. Buchanan was a lame duck, and had been since the day that he was elected. That is why he is only remembered for being a president who did nothing to prevent the Civil War. It is a shame that Gardner was relieved of his command, really. That was the property of the United States government that he was transferring, and the state of South Carolina had no right to impede upon that transfer.
I was only answering the question asking me why they did what they did. And once again, it was in response to a destabalizing action by a Charleston harbor US military officer. And the reaction in Washington was the same in both instances. It was all very consistent.
You curiously defend Col. Gardner by saying that he was doing what was right. Yet, he got relieved from duty for doing it. Evidently his superiors didn't think what he was doing was right, and neither did the Carolinians. Both sides of the equation objected to what he did. Why was that? I don't see why it is so difficult to accept.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
