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.
The first thing England did when it finally set up a peace accord ( years after 1776) with the colonies was:
Recognizing the 13 colonies as free and sovereign States;[1] (Wikipedia)
There is no modern neo- Confederate movement of any size or consequence that I know of. Today the cities and states that have movements to leave the Union are actually pro- Lincoln supporters who oppose the Iraq War ( there is a huge movement to leave the Union in Vermont today).
My guess is that because we teach people Lincoln fought to free the slaves, even today most liberals don't understand that leaving the Union was the main cause.
So from Seattle to Madison, Vermont to Tennessee they discuss leaving.
It is philosophically impossible to oppose Bush and support Lincoln. It can't be done.
Long after 1776 when we actually signed the Treaty Of Paris "Recognizing the 13 colonies as free and sovereign States;[1]" (Wikipedia), when exactly did the colonies give up the "free and soverign states" part?
"....philosophically impossible to oppose Bush and support Lincoln." Are you sure about that Psychomike??
Philosophy can be a slippery subject for those not familiar with it.
The states were equally free and independent Under the Constitution. Revisionists are most notable for not knowing that.
Long after 1776 when we actually signed the Treaty Of Paris "Recognizing the 13 colonies as free and sovereign States;[1]" (Wikipedia), when exactly did the colonies give up the "free and soverign states" part?
The Treaty of Paris is where the British officially recognized the independence of the United States. This is what the American Revolution came to be about from July of 1776 on. If they had lost the war, the King would not be recognizing they were independent, and men like Adams, Franklin, Washington, etc. might well have been strung up on gibbets as traitors.
But the United States dates its' existence from well before that day in 1783. They jointly declared their independence that July (NY agreeing a little later than the rest, but still in July of 1776). Each and every one of the 13 original colonies agreed to be part of a "Perpetual Union" before the treaty of Paris. They changed their own (still barely dry) constitutions to acknowledge the superiority of th US law. Each and every state that came after them acknowledged it as well and agreed to the Union -- or they never would have become states.
If you will bother to read the quote below my signature, you will see it is a direct statement from one of the "Founding Fathers". He denied that any of the 13 original states were ever seperately sovereign and independent. He was not alone in his belief -- nor was the rest of the nation united with him in his thought.
But in any case, it is undoubted that the states did give many of the attributes of their independent and sovereign status to the United States in forming it (largely for pragmatic and practical reasons that suited them at the time). Legally, the question is whether or not they were able to reclaim them without restriction, at any time on their own whim (the "right of secession") or not. The absolute and unilateral nature of that seems unlikely; it is certainly unproven.
Personally, I have no doubt it is possible for a state to leave the Union; the Constitution provides methods that could be used to accomplish this. I am also absolutely convinced the method of aggressive abuse used by the seceding states in 1860-61 is wrong and illegal under our laws. That is what the Civil War was about -- and it has long been acknowledged that the North never went to war over freeing the slaves, only that they adopted it as a war measure once they had been violently attacked.
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.
Southern leaders of the Civil War period placed the blame for the outbreak of fighting squarely on Lincoln. They accused the President of acting aggressively towards the South and of deliberately provoking war in order to overthrow the Confederacy. For its part, the Confederacy sought a peaceable accommodation of its legitimate claims to independence, and resorted to measures of self-defence only when threatened by Lincoln's coercive policy. Thus, Confederate vice president, Alexander H. Stephens, claimed that the war was "inaugurated by Mr. Lincoln." Stephens readily acknowledged that General Beauregard's troops fired the "first gun." But, he argued, the larger truth is that "in personal or national conflicts, it is not he who strikes the first blow, or fires the first gun that inaugurates or begins the conflict." Rather, the true aggressor is "the first who renders force necessary."
Stephens identified the beginning of the war as Lincoln's order sending a "hostile fleet, styled the 'Relief Squadron'," to reinforce Fort Sumter. "The war was then and there inaugurated and begun by the authorities at Washington. General Beauregard did not open fire upon Fort Sumter until this fleet was, to his knowledge, very near the harbor of Charleston, and until he had inquired of Major Anderson . . . whether he would engage to take no part in the expected blow, then coming down upon him from the approaching fleet . . . When Major Anderson . . .would make no such promise, it became necessary for General Beauregard to strike the first blow, as he did; otherwise the forces under his command might have been exposed to two fires at the same time-- one in front, and the other in the rear." The use of force by the Confederacy , therefore, was in "self-defence," rendered necessary by the actions of the other side. Jefferson Davis, who, like Stephens, wrote his account after the Civil War, took a similar position. Fort Sumter was rightfully South Carolina's property after secession, and the Confederate government had shown great "forbearance" in trying to reach an equitable settlement with the federal government. But the Lincoln administration destroyed these efforts by sending "a hostile fleet" to Sumter. "The attempt to represent us as the aggressors," Davis argued, "is as unfounded as the complaint made by the wolf against the lamb in the familiar fable. He who makes the assault is not necessarily he that strikes the first blow or fires the first gun."
From Davis's point of view, to permit the strengthening of Sumter, even if done in a peaceable manner, was unacceptable. It meant the continued presence of a hostile threat to Charleston. Further, although the ostensible purpose of the expedition was to resupply, not reinforce the fort, the Confederacy had no guarantee that Lincoln would abide by his word. And even if he restricted his actions to resupply in this case, what was to prevent him from attempting to reinforce the fort in the future? Thus, the attack on Sumter was a measure of "defense." To have acquiesced in the fort's relief, even at the risk of firing the first shot, "would have been as unwise as it would be to hesitate to strike down the arm of the assailant, who levels a deadly weapon at one's breast, until he has actually fired."
In the twentieth century, this critical view of Lincoln's actions gained a wide audience through the writings of Charles W. Ramsdell and others. According to Ramsdell, the situation at Sumter presented Lincoln with a series of dilemmas. If he took action to maintain the fort, he would lose the border South and a large segment of northern opinion which wanted to conciliate the South. If he abandoned the fort, he jeopardized the Union by legitimizing the Confederacy. Lincoln also hazarded losing the support of a substantial portion of his own Republican Party, and risked appearing a weak and ineffective leader. Lincoln could escape these predicaments, however, if he could induce southerners to attack Sumter, "to assume the aggressive and thus put themselves in the wrong in the eyes of the North and of the world." By sending a relief expedition, ostensibly to provide bread to a hungry garrison, Lincoln turned the tables on the Confederates, forcing them to choose whether to permit the fort to be strengthened, or to act as the aggressor. By this "astute strategy," Lincoln maneuvered the South into firing the first shot.
The standard textbook answer to this question is that the South obviously started the war because it “fired the first shot” by attacking Fort Sumter, which was located in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina. Most textbooks don’t mention several facts that put the attack in proper perspective. For example, after the Fort Sumter incident, the Confederacy continued to express its desire for peaceful relations with the North. Not a single federal soldier was killed in the attack. The Confederates allowed the federal troops at the fort to return to the North in peace after they surrendered. South Carolina and then the Confederacy offered to pay compensation for the fort. Lincoln later admitted he deliberately provoked the attack so he could use it as justification for an invasion. The Confederates only attacked the fort after they learned that Lincoln had sent an armed naval convoy to resupply the federal garrison at the fort. The sending of the convoy violated the repeated promises of Lincoln’s secretary of state, William Seward, that the fort would be evacuated. Seward continued to promise the Confederacy that the fort would be evacuated even after he knew that Lincoln had decided to send the convoy. Major John Anderson, the Union officer who commanded the federal garrison at the fort, opposed the sending of the convoy, because he felt it would violate the assurances that the fort would be evacuated, because he knew it would be viewed as a hostile act, and because he did not want war. Several weeks before the Fort Sumter incident, Lincoln virtually declared war on the South in his inaugural address, even though he knew the Confederacy wanted peaceful relations.
In his inaugural speech, given weeks before the attack on Fort Sumter, Lincoln threatened to invade the seceded states if they didn’t continue to pay federal “duties and imposts” (the tariff) and/or if they didn’t allow the federal government to occupy and maintain all federal installations within their borders. Imagine what the American colonists would have thought if the British had said to them, “We want peace. But, we’re going to invade you if you don’t keep paying our tariff and/or if you don’t allow us to occupy and maintain all British installations within your borders.” The colonists would have rightly regarded this as a virtual declaration of war. Of course, in effect, the British did say this to the colonies. This was the same position that Lincoln presented to the Confederate states weeks before the Fort Sumter attack. Furthermore, five months earlier, some Republicans in Congress publicly swore “by everything in the heavens above and the earth beneath” that they would convert the seceded states “into a wilderness” (James McPherson, The Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era, New York: Ballantine Books, 1988, p. 251).
If Lincoln had desired peace, he knew all he had to do was evacuate Fort Sumter, as his own secretary of state had been promising would be done for weeks. When the Confederate authorities were told the fort was going to be evacuated, Confederate forces stopped building up the defenses around the harbor and celebrated. Across the harbor, Major Anderson was grateful the fort would be evacuated and that therefore North and South would separate peacefully (Cisco, Taking A Stand, pp. 105-106).
But, sadly, Lincoln didn’t pursue peace with the Confederacy. For a while it seemed as though he was prepared to evacuate Fort Sumter, in spite of his earlier statements to the contrary. Initially all but two of his cabinet members urged evacuation, as did his general-in-chief, General Winfield Scott. However, Radical Republicans and influential Northern business interests applied intense pressure on Lincoln and on his cabinet not to evacuate the fort. Radicals in the Senate threatened impeachment if the fort were evacuated (Catton and Catton, Two Roads to Sumter, p. 277). Once the low Confederate tariff was announced, powerful Northern business interests came out strongly opposed to peace with the Confederacy. As the pressure for aggression mounted, Lincoln decided to provoke an attack on the fort in order to use the attack as a pretext for invasion and to whip up a majority of the Northern public into a war frenzy against the South. Lincoln himself later admitted in two letters that he provoked the attack so he could use it as justification for waging war (Francis Butler Simkins, A History of the South, Third Edition, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1963, pp. 213, 215-216; J. G. Randall and David Donald, The Civil War and Reconstruction, Lexington, Massachusetts: D. C. Heath and Company, 1969, p. 174).
DJPsychomike, apparently only reads his own posts. All the points in his last post has been answered on this thread, in some instances, many times.
P.S. It is not difficult to retrieve, Lincoln's Inaugural Address, but it is more than a half page long and since most revisionists' attention span is not that long, it is not difficult to understand, why most of them have not.
With all due respect, I really must say--that, it takes a 'bigger man' per se, as not to draw a fist and punch someone out; regarding the excuses that President Lincoln 'created' something to warrant the Confederacy to fire on Ft. Sumter. Laying blame on Ft. Sumter's commander for the decision not to proffer the fort up due to it being on South Carolina's property--I offer this thought. For one, 'officers' of the Army have to get permission via channels to make such a huge choice. The General swore an oath to protect Government property, welfare of the Union, etc.; he is not a politian, not an attorney/judge and or representative of American Jurisprudence. He did not have a 'writ of mandamus' or any lawful recognized document via his officials and or the Congress to relinquish Ft. Sumter.
For the times in which these people lived, there was a gentleman's code of conduct, honor based and fair ground. If General Beauregard didn't strike first; until all of the associated Confederacy states and or commonwealth's agreed to the plan, as well as the collateral affects and effects from the ripple from this behavior; I am confident that more 'civil' structured means would have followed to their exhaustion.
Neither side was able to really prepare. The immediacy of creating an army was unwarranted slaughter of good men and officers; because both sides had to 'rush.' Emotions ran the Confederacy rather than good planning in my opinion, based on reading the Official Records of the Rebellion--even by Confederate officers! Disorder was the 'day' even months leading to the first battle at Bull Run/Manassas.
I shall also mention, if the Confederacy had their britches in a twist over possessions and such; the Federal Government has justification in having their knickers in a bunch as well; as all the ammunition, the guns, pistols, sabers, horses, harnesses, bridles, bits, equipment, wagons, fort supplies all the way down to horseshoe nails--all were US Government property and was stolen--period!!! Those who carried their own guns, horses, etc., into battle I am not addressing--but, the pre-Civil War 'acts' by those in rebellion while in US Military Uniform and in and under an oath to duty and 'honor bound'--blew the 'spirit of intent' or the excuse of guise of honorable intentions behind real 'criminal behavior.' These officers in the US Military to whom 'stole' from the Federal Government did so with criminal intent. Any excuse for criminal behavior to justify a legal action, just makes the arguement moot. Yes, arguements can go both ways. However, as it was already a legal standard of secession, e.g. Annex of Alexandria County (Arlington) to be part of the original Federal City then it's application to remove itself from the union of other counties that made up the Federal City; it was peacefully transferred back in the legal arena called--the Court of Law.
President Lincoln knew his legal restraints and thus, operated with the cooperation of law that already existed. Property, be it fixed or loose (untethered); it still us US Government property. Until it is sold/bought, restoration to a point where all parties become equal and none have lost; is where it could have been a successful departure from the 'Union.'
It might have been different, to which as General Lee identified the Confederate States as "The Cotton States;" could be much like the little nation of the Pope - Vatican City. Although the passion to preserve the Union is an honorable one; the peaceful resolution would have been preferred and I believe that would have been the most 'honorable' and 'proper' direction. Perhaps then--honor would have meant something.
I am of the hope, that though you are extremely anti-Lincoln; that you will one day acknowledge that those who fought in the Civil War; realized that in reflection all made mistakes and lessons were learned. The acts to which many took after the ending of the American Civil War; was again like no other Civil War to my knowledge. It came to a 'civil' conclusion, though the entire Civil War became quite savage. The 'men' that fought this Civil War, were those to whom 'got on with life' afterwards. All recognize that life isn't fair. Not always do people get their way but, in the larger picture--the soldiers did not forget; that once the Civil War was over; the majority just wanted to 'live' as they once had.
We can never truthfully know what these soldiers and officers went through, their mind and their spirit--What must not happen; is forget what they did in these times. Good people really--put into a situation where many didn't want to be in. We, as individuals have such freedom to speak our minds, be free to do things. It has been due to all the soldiers/sailors/Marines who fought for them. Might not agree with people, politics, views and or opinions-- It is my personal opinion; that it is fine to disagree without being disagreeable. It takes strength to maintain control of one's tongue, one's fists and or weapons and or physical 'intimidation.' This is where the Confederacy lost--they became 'disagreeable' with their disagreements with the Federal Government. President Lincoln is not like a king--he had to answer to the Judicial and Legislative Branches of Government--Lincoln was only the head of the Administrative Branch.
Just some thoughts.
Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf
__________________ "There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals figthing in it... Of the two groups, the historians are the more belligerent." David Donald, Lincoln Reconsidered (1961)
Howdy Wolf, there were attempts made to find out what the Yanks were doing at the Fort, and a request that the soldiers assure the Fort no action was going to be taken, which the Yankee officer declined to answer, would lead to the shots fired.
All he had to say was, "No action will be taken" and no shots would be fired.
That's provocation when you refuse to answer.
As for the Federal property- all that was being negotiated at the time. Newspapers that urged Lincoln to take the matter to court were shut down, the writers often put in jail without charges.
Which raises an interesting question. Many of the answers I get are conjecture (Lincoln would have been all love to the South after the war, changed his mind about integration, on and on for what passes as Lincoln scholarship! Oddly, Lincoln is remembered by what MIGHT have been, while his actual words go unreported! ), yet no one yet has commented on whether it is good to shut down newspapers, replace the courts with a military tribunal, etc. You know, things Lincoln actually did.
No one says it didn't happen, but oddly there are no comments on this.
As for your comments on the way to look at soldiers on both sides, that existed for many years but it does not now. Not just the Southern flag being attacked, but as groups call for Confederate museums to be closed, monuments taken down and refer to it today as the treasonous war for slavery- there is no honor. The North is eradicating the South's history as we write.
If I wrote or said what I have said here in an Ivy League school I would be placed in sensitivity classes. I would be attacked for even raising the other side. Or asking questions.
As all the reasons are obliterated save one, as Jefferson Davis is erased from history, as our leaders run circles laughing at the Constitution and plunging our consolidated Federal power into war to spread Lincoln's form of "Democracy" in the MidEast- honor is gone.
There won't be a movie about the Black Confederates. There will be no play on Jefferson Davis' adopted Black child and the shocking tale of what happened to him after the war. Not even the Reconstruction is safe from the new censorship.
When a civil rights group sued a KKK group and won, they discovered they also won KKK items going back to post WW 1! The items were given to the Smithsonian - and they were destroyed.
Destroyed.
It must be nice to sit around and think about all the wonderful things Lincoln would have said, his jokes, his policies after the war had he not been killed. Sadly, we are stuck with his racist jokes, his colonization plans, his disregard for law over the gun. His flagrant abuse of the courts, and his role as the Great Consolidator.
Can I find a good thing to say about Lincoln? Well, after his Generals begged him to stop allowing his key supporters to trade with the South ( they argued he had prolonged the war a year by allowing food and supplies to go to the enemy!) within weeks the war was all but over and within months Lincoln was dead.
But after prolonging the war a year so his pals could profit, he decided to stop the practice and the war began to end immediately.
Gee, I wonder how many died, were wounded, how much property was destroyed that last year?
But at least he did stop. So I can say something good about him!
Howdy Wolf, there were attempts made to find out what the Yanks were doing at the Fort, and a request that the soldiers assure the Fort no action was going to be taken, which the Yankee officer declined to answer, would lead to the shots fired.
All he had to say was, "No action will be taken" and no shots would be fired.
That's provocation when you refuse to answer.
Good grief, DJ, did you ever serve in the military? If you did, I would not want you for my C.O. Men with hostile intent are asking you what you are doing in the fort and declining to answer is provocation? Nuts! And all he had to do was say, "No action will be taken" I'll just endanger the lives of my men by declaring we'll take no action to defend our post, our lives, etc? RIGHT!
As for the Federal property- all that was being negotiated at the time. Newspapers that urged Lincoln to take the matter to court were shut down, the writers often put in jail without charges.
Sigh.
DJ, WHEN were the newspapers shut down by Lincoln and when were the courts shut down? I have to say you sense of timing is out-and-out, terrible. At the beginning of secession, when Confederate commissioners were sent to Washington to demand the federal property they had seized be turned over to them, WHAT newspapers were shut down? I'm going to regret doing this, but I doubt you are going to look for yourself, but NONE were. And NO court was shut down either.
But, if you really want to know, the very first newspaper man arrested during the Civil War was a SOUTHERN newspaper man who was arrested by Gen. Bragg during the stand-off at Ft. Pickens in Florida. He had the man arrested for reporting on the preperations being made to attack Ft. Pickens, after falsely being accused of being a spy.
Which raises an interesting question. Many of the answers I get are conjecture (Lincoln would have been all love to the South after the war, changed his mind about integration, on and on for what passes as Lincoln scholarship! Oddly, Lincoln is remembered by what MIGHT have been, while his actual words go unreported! ), yet no one yet has commented on whether it is good to shut down newspapers, replace the courts with a military tribunal, etc. You know, things Lincoln actually did.
Another Sigh.
DJ, this very topic has been addressed on this board more than once. The number of newspapers that have been claimed to have been shut down by the Lincoln administration during the course of the Civil War is supposed to be 300 (this is out of over a 1,000 newspapers located in the North). I say "supposed to be" because no one can find out the exact number, the 300 number is the most referred to.
In the research done on this board, approximately 35 Northern newspapers have been identified for certain. Many of these papers were closed down for encouraging desertion and resisting the draft, both crimes at the time. Two newspapers were shut down for about three days for trying to manipulate the gold market by printing false stories about an upcoming draft.
I'll try and find the specific threads where this issue has been discussed before, but again, you are making claims with no proof.
Lincoln has done a lot to be remembered for, in word and in deed, your comment that he is more remembered for WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN more than what he said is personal opinion and flat out wrong.
No one says it didn't happen, but oddly there are no comments on this.
Bunk. There have been many comments on "this." You just haven't asked or taken the time to search this board to see there have been "comments on this."
As for your comments on the way to look at soldiers on both sides, that existed for many years but it does not now. Not just the Southern flag being attacked, but as groups call for Confederate museums to be closed, monuments taken down and refer to it today as the treasonous war for slavery- there is no honor. The North is eradicating the South's history as we write.
The modern-day North could care less about eradicating the South's history. Southern history is not only about a four year period lasting from 1861 to 1865. The problem is there are those who want this to be all of Southern history but even then they cannot bring themselves to present it in a historically accurate manner. The big problem is modern-day agendas and groups trying to hijack Southern history and shooting themselves in the foot when they try such.
If I wrote or said what I have said here in an Ivy League school I would be placed in sensitivity classes. I would be attacked for even raising the other side. Or asking questions.
Has such ever happened to you? I instead have read many a professors story of being challenged all the time by those with a Southern viewpoint when presenting Civil War history. Must be lax in enforcing that sensitivity class. Again, has the above happened to you? Have you personally witnessed such? Or is this just your own opinion or what you have "heard?"
As all the reasons are obliterated save one, as Jefferson Davis is erased from history, as our leaders run circles laughing at the Constitution and plunging our consolidated Federal power into war to spread Lincoln's form of "Democracy" in the MidEast- honor is gone.
Funny, last time I looked, Davis is in the history books, his own works about his reasons for the war can be accessed by ANYONE with a computer or a library card.
As for the rest of the rant, your own personal opinion, nothing more.
There won't be a movie about the Black Confederates. There will be no play on Jefferson Davis' adopted Black child and the shocking tale of what happened to him after the war. Not even the Reconstruction is safe from the new censorship.
No, you're wrong. You ever see "Ride With The Devil?"
Anyone who can read knows about Davis adopting a black child who died when he fell from a balcony at the Confederate White House and how Jefferson was treated while imprisioned. Reconstruction is finally getting fair play after decades of being buried by neo-confederate revisionism. Relax. There are still plenty of folks who will revile it and twist it out of historical shape all the same.
When a civil rights group sued a KKK group and won, they discovered they also won KKK items going back to post WW 1! The items were given to the Smithsonian - and they were destroyed.
Destroyed.
Your point? What items were destroyed that went back post WWI? Were they all propaganda sheets derogatory about colored people? Or were they copies of the Confederate Constitution? Any information on this?
It must be nice to sit around and think about all the wonderful things Lincoln would have said, his jokes, his policies after the war had he not been killed. Sadly, we are stuck with his racist jokes, his colonization plans, his disregard for law over the gun. His flagrant abuse of the courts, and his role as the Great Consolidator.
And you, DJ, are stuck with one narrow, slanted version of Lincoln that you apparently find pleasing, even if it is only comes across as opinion and modern-day propaganda and not history, nor fact.
Can I find a good thing to say about Lincoln? Well, after his Generals begged him to stop allowing his key supporters to trade with the South ( they argued he had prolonged the war a year by allowing food and supplies to go to the enemy!) within weeks the war was all but over and within months Lincoln was dead.
Source? Book? Internet site on a neo-Confederate website? You got a chance here to give me a black eye, take it.
But after prolonging the war a year so his pals could profit, he decided to stop the practice and the war began to end immediately.
Gee, I wonder how many died, were wounded, how much property was destroyed that last year?
But at least he did stop. So I can say something good about him!
What a nice, back-handed, uneven and totally meaningless "good" comment. But at least it is true to form. No source, no documentation, no book, or site to check.
Just more one-sided, partisan, opinion.
IMO.
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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
