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.
You might want to study it youself, instead of depending on Conner (of all people).
You (and Conner) glide over, Why the Democratic Party ruptured.
Your knowledge of the Civil War Era is abysmal. If Douglas had been the Candidate of a unified democratic party, then the solid south and northern democrat would have won the election. You might study up, independent of your revisionist sources, to discover why Stephen A. Douglas was as hated by the southern leadership as Lincoln AND preferring Lincoln to be elected rather than Douglas, who was more in harmony with the southern agenda than Lincoln.
At Ft. Sumter, the southern leadership got exactly what it wanted for its narrow political goal, war; just as they got what they wanted in the the general election; Lincoln as President.
At Ft. Sumter, the southern leadership got exactly what it wanted for its narrow political goal, war...
That's what Lincoln wanted...the South wanted to be 'left alone.'
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
No, the historical record is quite clear. Lincoln was the one who wanted to be left along. It was the south that was disrupting the status quo of the Union, the Constitution And Ft. Sumter.
Davis needed Va. and the Border States in the confederacy and Ft. Sumter was seen as the ticket to unify the confederacy.
That's what Lincoln wanted...the South wanted to be 'left alone.'
Thank you, Battalion.
Why is it that these Northern Sympathizers all share the same character traits?
1). They positively believe that, because of their idolatrous
worship of their sectional historians, they are the last word in anything "Civil War", up to and including that grossly inaccurate title for the war, itself...
2). They are convinced that they are right and that everyone else, if they do not agree with their assessment of things, is completely ignorant of the facts, and they try this system of 'shame' in order to silence those who do not agree with them.
3). They are completely convinced that a few mouthy Southerners were 'everyone', and only Hollywood's 'take' on the Southern (the White Trash Red Neck Stereotype)
man is the only type of Southerner who ever existed, and who is worth mentioning...
4). Lincoln was a god, above all reproach, and he and his left wing Second party could do no wrong.
THE SOUTH WANTED A WAR.
IT WAS ALL ABOUT THE SLAVES
THE SOUTH WAS ARROGANT AND IRRATIONAL
THE SOUTH PROVOKED FORT SUMTER
THE SOUTH WANTED TO CHANGE THE GOVERNMENT
THE SOUTH WERE TRAITORS TO THE UNION
Notice how that each of these actually does apply to the North!
They are indeed a one-sided curious bunch!
(After reading THEY WERE WHITE AND THEY WERE SLAVES, by Michael Hoffman II, I am ready to say that the 'Red Neck White Trash' were actually the original SLAVS, or slaves, and had worked themselves out of slavery over the generations, and the negro was expected to do the exact same thing, by the moneyed interests who owned both blacks and whites, some at the same time!)...
But one thing is for sure. the yankee attitude, manners, and disposition is the one fixed point in an ever-changing universe!
(When do you reckon they will figure out that THAT was the real reason for Southern Secession?!)
Let me run this past you, and get your 'feel' for it;
It was at this point -- Post #15 -- that this thread went south. Beowulf had some interesting fuel for discussion in Anderson's communications with various persons in Washington. Apparently they were untenable so again we have a thread that pretty much like every other one in which the Virginian participates -- having nothing to do with the subject; just more of the same libertarian screed and blather, filled with invective and pompous, empty words.
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
Generally, we believe it because it can be factually documented.
For example, we believe the South wanted a war because they spent several months preparing for one and then chose to start it. Seems clear enough.
For example, we believe it was over slavery because so many of the leading Southerners of the day said it was about slavery. Several seceding states produced official declarations of what caused them to secede: they are overwhelmingly about slavery in their own declarations: South Carolina refused to include anything else (specifically rejecting a proposal to mention the Tariff, content to make the sole issue slavery). Seems clear enough.
For example, we believe that any American citizen who participates in an assault on his own country is guilty of Treason under the definition in the Constitution. That other Virginian, Congressman Roger Pryor, typifies this: he was a US citizen and serving Federal official when he participated in the assault on Ft. Sumter. Another Virginian, Edmund Ruffin, reputedly fired the first shot at Sumter. Both were US citizens at the time; both fit the definition of Treason in the US Constitution. Seems like a pretty clear example. If you don't like those, several states used armed force and seized US property in advance of any "declaration of secession" by their state. Even under secessionist theories, those acts would be called Treason under the law. Seems pretty clear there as well.
We say, for example, that the state of Louisiana and the Confederacy counterfeited US coins after seizing the US Mint because it is well-known that they did. Battalion even claims to have one of the coins (although no one can be certain if it is or not). Again, this seems to be another clear example of abusive acts by Southerners.
And on and on. By pretending that real events didn't happen, or claiming the abusive acts were justified by events that happened later, people like you make believe you actually have a case to argue. You obviously don't, or you would not bother trying to sweep so much under the rug.
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.
It was at this point -- Post #15 -- that this thread went south. Beowulf had some interesting fuel for discussion in Anderson's communications with various persons in Washington. Apparently they were untenable so again we have a thread that pretty much like every other one in which the Virginian participates -- having nothing to do with the subject; just more of the same libertarian screed and blather, filled with invective and pompous, empty words.
ole
So, you reject the notion that UNIONIST could mean anything other than Lincoln's left wing party? That the whole country had somehow gone part abolitionist/ part Radical Republican party, just that fast (or, were pretending to be, so they wouldn't be made prisoners of the state, like Mahoney was)?
UNIONIST could not mean, to you, say, in the sense of Jefferson, who was only a Unionist in a CONSERVATIVELY run country with no real threat from this WHIG Second party?
No, everyone suddenly, overnight, became absolutely blue state yankee in thought?
I find that very hard to believe...
I don't believe it. Not even with the mob pressure to subscribe to this hostile party who had overrun Washington City.
Generally, we believe it because it can be factually documented.
For example, we believe the South wanted a war because they spent several months preparing for one and then chose to start it. Seems clear enough.
For example, we believe it was over slavery because so many of the leading Southerners of the day said it was about slavery. Several seceding states produced official declarations of what caused them to secede: they are overwhelmingly about slavery in their own declarations: South Carolina refused to include anything else (specifically rejecting a proposal to mention the Tariff, content to make the sole issue slavery). Seems clear enough.
For example, we believe that any American citizen who participates in an assault on his own country is guilty of Treason under the definition in the Constitution. That other Virginian, Congressman Roger Pryor, typifies this: he was a US citizen and serving Federal official when he participated in the assault on Ft. Sumter. Another Virginian, Edmund Ruffin, reputedly fired the first shot at Sumter. Both were US citizens at the time; both fit the definition of Treason in the US Constitution. Seems like a pretty clear example. If you don't like those, several states used armed force and seized US property in advance of any "declaration of secession" by their state. Even under secessionist theories, those acts would be called Treason under the law. Seems pretty clear there as well.
We say, for example, that the state of Louisiana and the Confederacy counterfeited US coins after seizing the US Mint because it is well-known that they did. Battalion even claims to have one of the coins (although no one can be certain if it is or not). Again, this seems to be another clear example of abusive acts by Southerners.
And on and on. By pretending that real events didn't happen, or claiming the abusive acts were justified by events that happened later, people like you make believe you actually have a case to argue. You obviously don't, or you would not bother trying to sweep so much under the rug.
Tim
I know I sound like UnionBlue, here, but i don't suppose you'd care to actually get back on THREAD, here, and answer the thread, as written?
Your objections are indeed well documented and taken under advisement, but I'll take anything the South did
over Northern war crimes (especially since I don't sit around either bragging about, or justifying counterfeit coins, like the North does its civilian atrocities under their 'generals'...)...
Now, can we answer something I posted. For example, my 'Hostilities' thread... Half of you are complaining it is TOO MUCH, and the other half are complaining NOT ENOUGH.
A mean average, then, suggests that I posted JUST THE RIGHT AMOUNT.
So, what about what I wrote? I don't care about your version of the Bible, just the thread subject! What about The telegram from Anderson?
I know I sound like UnionBlue, here, but i don't suppose you'd care to actually get back on THREAD, here, and answer the thread, as written?...
I don't see anything particularly worth responding to. It has all been hashed out here often enough, and on dozens of other boards on the Internet.
What is it you think that rambling mish-mash shows? None of it has ever been hidden, and the reason you even have access to those messages is that the Federal government either published them in the OR or made them available through the archives. Nothing was hidden; in fact, the world was stunned by the Federal publication of so much information as the decades rolled by (particularly the European military world of the day). You can find discussions of exactly these same messages all the way back to 1865, and possibly earlier.
I have no problem saying that Seward acted like a fool; anyone who studies the situation comes to that conclusion. But Seward, even more than Lincoln, had no authority to recognize the secession nor to meet with representatives of the secession officially. Particularly when the acceptance of their letters by itself was equivalent to granting their claims. Justice Campbell surely knew as much -- and he was in a very ambiguous position himself, acting on behalf of the secessionists when he might yet be called to hear this as a judicial matter. Do you think he would have removed himself from the proceedings because of his obvious conflict of interest if it had come before him?
So what is it you think your posts in this thread say? Leave out all the posturing and rhetoric. Boil it down to facts you think were established here that haven't been known before.
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.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Telegraph from Major Robert Anderson 
Linear Mode
