California: The Prize of Secession and the following War of Southern Aggression

Status
Not open for further replies.

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,633
Location
los angeles ca
#83
Th
Thanks for your post.

I certainly can and I certainly will right after you define "western territories."

By the way, I have absolutely no problem with your disagreement about California being in view of Jefferson Davis and Company. After all, he only produced 13 fat volumes about the subject --unless you think Oregon was one of them. I certainly don't but I grant you that right --not that you need my grant.

Let's hear from you and Lefty and a couple others what constitutes "the western territories" from your "truthful" Secesh Decls. What? Please. Beg. Grovel. No long explanations, just property descriptions, as if you fellows were the Confederates wanting to expand and the rest of us who disagree with you are Congress, ready to flat out give you whatever you mean by "western territories." What do you want from us? Tell me. Don't tell me what is NOT meant by "western territories," as I have no interest in what is NOT. What IS?!
The present day states of New Mexico,Arizona and California and if possible other Present day states West of Missouri.
Leftyhunter
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,642
#84
Yes I stipulate that the secessionists had a fantasy that they would seize California. So far you have not presented any evidence that the Confederacy had any real means of seizing California.
Leftyhunter
I never said they did. In fact, I don't believe they did. Simple as that.
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
11,637
#86
I have absolutely no problem with your disagreement about California being in view of Jefferson Davis and Company. After all, he only produced 13 fat volumes about the subject --unless you think Oregon was one of them. I certainly don't but I grant you that right --not that you need my grant.
Thanks for your response.
I may be mistaken, but I do not believe that I have ever said Davis was not interested, as all Americans were, in California and the west.
And as Secretary of War, Davis had a keen interest in California as well as the western territories: a good deal of the 'business' of the War Department in the 1850s was focused on the West. And, yes, as Secretary of War Davis directed the Pacific Railroad Surveys.
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
11,637
#87
Let's hear from you and Lefty and a couple others what constitutes "the western territories" from your "truthful" Secesh Decls. What? Please. Beg. Grovel. No long explanations, just property descriptions, as if you fellows were the Confederates wanting to expand and the rest of us who disagree with you are Congress, ready to flat out give you whatever you mean by "western territories." What do you want from us? Tell me. Don't tell me what is NOT meant by "western territories," as I have no interest in what is NOT. What IS?!
Thanks for your response.
I find it improbable that- given your extensive knowledge and how often the term is used in discussions here- you do not know what were considered the "western territories" in the antebellum period. Help me out.
 

uaskme

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
2,108
#88
The people of Kansas gave refuge to slaves from Missouri. Troops from Kansas liberated slaves in Missouri and elsewhere. Kansas was the first state to have armed black troops engage in combat . The First Kansas Coloured Troops beat Confederate forces at the battle of Island Mound. Not quite understanding your point about white people of Kansas supporting racism.
In contrast the Confederacy being the ideal multi racial democracy didn't even recruit black troops until March 1865 when their was no hope of victory.
Leftyhunter
Edited. During the Territorial Stage The Topeka Conference Excluded Negroes. Southerners were attacked because they had Southern ancestors, not because they had Slaves. There wasn’t a hand full of Slave Owners in Kansas. The Doyle’s who John Brown Murdered, had no Slaves. If a Southerner settle in Kansas, he would of Voted with the South. He was Pro Southern. Most of them had nothing to do with Slavery. Missouri was a Union State. So the Slaves from MO were Union Slaves. Lincoln refuses to emancipate his Slaves. Thoses Slave Owners were Loyal to the Blue Clad Tax Collectors. Edited.
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,633
Location
los angeles ca
#89
You seem confused? During the Territorial Stage The Topeka Conference Excluded Negroes. Southerners were attacked because they had Southern ancestors, not because they had Slaves. There wasn’t a hand full of Slave Owners in Kansas. The Doyle’s who John Brown Murdered, had no Slaves. If a Southerner settle in Kansas, he would of Voted with the South. He was Pro Southern. Most of them had nothing to do with Slavery. Missouri was a Union State. So the Slaves from MO were Union Slaves. Lincoln refuses to emancipate his Slaves. Thoses Slave Owners were Loyal to the Blue Clad Tax Collectors. Educate yourself.
The Topeka Convention had nothing to do with what actually occurred in Kansas. Kansas not any Southern state actually did form the first African American regiment that unlike the Louisiana Native Guards actually drew blood. Kansas did give refuge to slaves. Kansas troops actually liberated slaves in Missouri and other states.
Many slave owners supported the Confederacy not the Union so no your assertion that all slave owners in Missouri were loyal to the Union is false. Missouri was a divided states that sent at least 30k men to the Confederate Army.
It doesn't matter if the Doyle's owned slaves or not they fought on the side of the Border Ruffians.
Southerners in Missouri were attacked because the attacked the Free Soil emigrants.
Edited.
Leftyhunter
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,482
Location
Laurinburg NC
#90
Edited. During the Territorial Stage The Topeka Conference Excluded Negroes. Southerners were attacked because they had Southern ancestors, not because they had Slaves. There wasn’t a hand full of Slave Owners in Kansas. The Doyle’s who John Brown Murdered, had no Slaves. If a Southerner settle in Kansas, he would of Voted with the South. He was Pro Southern. Most of them had nothing to do with Slavery. Missouri was a Union State. So the Slaves from MO were Union Slaves. Lincoln refuses to emancipate his Slaves. Thoses Slave Owners were Loyal to the Blue Clad Tax Collectors. Edited.
Excellent points.
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
626
#91
When I taught American history (1492--present) a decade or so ago, I used to begin my discussion of of the Civil War with a Rohrschach polling of my students. I asked them: What is the first state that comes to your mind, when I say the words "Civil War"? Invariably they would say things like South Carolina, North Carolina (where I taught), Virginia, Georgia, or even northern states like Massachusetts and New York. Of all of them, totally saturated with grade school drivel, not one student ever mentioned California; but at the conclusion of the poll, I did. I told them that the reason they named the states that they did is because that is where most of the battles were fought, i.e., in the eastern United States. I told them what the war was really about was the prize of California, that after all was said and done it was a war for real estate, a war for soil more than slavery --not excluding slavery, of course, but just more over soil than slaves. South Carolina's Declarations about slavery was just a cheerleading pretext for the South to do something it had wanted to do for thirty previous years. California was clearly and simply the prize both sides were fighting for, as that Golden State possessed ports on the Pacific for trade with Peking that both sides were striving for in order to achieve permanent commercial hegemony. The war was really not much different than the American Revolution, when the Colonists were disgusted with Britain's monopoly on tea and other trade, and so the war was on. Right after the conclusion of the war, one of the first things the new states did was to engage in the trade with China. As Don Doyle points in his fine book, The Cause of All Nations, by late 1864 into early 1865, Jefferson Davis and others were ready to throw in the towel on slavery, if only the Union would let them go in peace. Lincoln, an old land surveyor like the "Father of His Country" (who according to one wag said was also "the father of Governor Posey of Indiana"), said "No deal." The clear implication of this Confederate capitulation was --and still is-- that simple independence was the core goal of the seceding states.

To pre-empt one complaint against this view, it is true that I do not recall seeing the words "California" or "China" in the Secession declarations of any of the states. I could be wrong, as I am going by recall rather than re-reading them all. However, California is clearly in view in light of the frequent reference to "western territories" in these Declarations. It is axiomatic that the South had no intention of stopping with New Mexico and Arizona, to say nothing of Colorado, Nevada, and Utah. But most of all: California.

Are there other posters out there who agree with me?

James
California is mentioned in Roland's biography of Albert Sidney Johnston, as the General was stationed there in 1861:

"Because of Johnston's high military authority, and because he was a Southerner and former slaveowner, his name became involved in various rumors of conspiracy and disloyalty in California. An estimated 7% of the population of California had migrated from the South; at least two Confederate secret societies - the Knights of the Golden Circle and the Knights of the Columbian Star - were active in California during the Civil War. These groups hoped to form an independent Pacific republic which would give assistance to the Southern Confederacy. Johnston was reputed to be in league with these societies...

So prevalent became the rumors concerning Southern conspiracies in California that Governor John G. Downey called upon Johnston to express his fears. Johnston assured the Governor that the fortifications and arms of the Pacific Department were secure. 'I have spent the greater part of my life in the service of my country [he told Governor Downey], and while I hold her commission shall serve her honorably and faithfully. I shall protect her public property, and not a cartridge or a percussion cap belonging to her shall pass to any enemy while I am here as her representative. There is no man in the Union more sorely afflicted than I am at the occurrences now taking place. I have been long identified with Texas, her interests and public men, and her action may control my future destiny. But in any event I shall give due notice and turn over intact my department to my successor.'

[Johnston] took steps to guard his command against surprise. He strengthened the security forces of all installations and ordered 10,000 additional muskets with suitable accoutrements and ammunition to be transferred from the Bernicia arsenal to the impregnable fortress of Alcatraz Island. To the commander of Fort Alcatraz, Johnston issued orders that the position be defended against all attempts to seize it, 'from whatever direction such efforts may be made.' The numbers and appearances of boats and passengers in the harbor were to be closely observed, lest a disguised assault take the island fortress unaware."
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,482
Location
Laurinburg NC
#93
When I taught American history (1492--present) a decade or so ago, I used to begin my discussion of of the Civil War with a Rohrschach polling of my students. I asked them: What is the first state that comes to your mind, when I say the words "Civil War"? Invariably they would say things like South Carolina, North Carolina (where I taught), Virginia, Georgia, or even northern states like Massachusetts and New York. Of all of them, totally saturated with grade school drivel, not one student ever mentioned California; but at the conclusion of the poll, I did. I told them that the reason they named the states that they did is because that is where most of the battles were fought, i.e., in the eastern United States. I told them what the war was really about was the prize of California, that after all was said and done it was a war for real estate, a war for soil more than slavery --not excluding slavery, of course, but just more over soil than slaves. South Carolina's Declarations about slavery was just a cheerleading pretext for the South to do something it had wanted to do for thirty previous years. California was clearly and simply the prize both sides were fighting for, as that Golden State possessed ports on the Pacific for trade with Peking that both sides were striving for in order to achieve permanent commercial hegemony. The war was really not much different than the American Revolution, when the Colonists were disgusted with Britain's monopoly on tea and other trade, and so the war was on. Right after the conclusion of the war, one of the first things the new states did was to engage in the trade with China. As Don Doyle points in his fine book, The Cause of All Nations, by late 1864 into early 1865, Jefferson Davis and others were ready to throw in the towel on slavery, if only the Union would let them go in peace. Lincoln, an old land surveyor like the "Father of His Country" (who according to one wag said was also "the father of Governor Posey of Indiana"), said "No deal." The clear implication of this Confederate capitulation was --and still is-- that simple independence was the core goal of the seceding states.

To pre-empt one complaint against this view, it is true that I do not recall seeing the words "California" or "China" in the Secession declarations of any of the states. I could be wrong, as I am going by recall rather than re-reading them all. However, California is clearly in view in light of the frequent reference to "western territories" in these Declarations. It is axiomatic that the South had no intention of stopping with New Mexico and Arizona, to say nothing of Colorado, Nevada, and Utah. But most of all: California.

Are there other posters out there who agree with me?

James
I don't, starting with the thread title.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,333
#95
I think they were far more duplicitous than either of us think. Yancey leads the pack. Already proven in other posts.



Well, I do agree that the SC Declaration of Causes ... was duplicitous by intent, and was written by a committee of South Carolinians. But, I believe the people and its leaders, of SC, stayed in a brutal unforgiving war much too long for it to have been a matter of money or personal gain.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,333
#96
Control their own economy. Don't minimize all the complaints the secessionists made about money collected in the South being spent for the benefit of the North. It's a very common refrain.



But, without slavery, how, exactly, would the economy of the South have been so different from that of the North that the difference required secession and war ?

Without out slavery, there would have been no identifiable geographical or political point on a map to precisely discern where the North ended and the south, began, or vice versa.
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
7,848
Location
South Carolina
#97
But, without slavery, how, exactly, would the economy of the South have been so different from that of the North that the difference required secession and war ?

Without out slavery, there would have been no identifiable geographical or political point on a map to precisely discern where the North ended and the south, began, or vice versa.
For an answer to that, I'd direct you to a book I read and reviewed: "The First South" by John Richard Alden.

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/the-first-south.139171/#post-1665121

There were always differences between North and South that went beyond slavery, and which pre-dated the controversies over slavery. Even without slavery, I can easily see North and South reaching the point of armed conflict, as nearly happened in 1832 over the tariff.
 
Joined
Feb 17, 2019
Messages
12
Location
Bergen, Norway
#98
Thanks for your post.

I certainly can and I certainly will right after you define "western territories."

By the way, I have absolutely no problem with your disagreement about California being in view of Jefferson Davis and Company. After all, he only produced 13 fat volumes about the subject --unless you think Oregon was one of them. I certainly don't but I grant you that right --not that you need my grant.

Let's hear from you and Lefty and a couple others what constitutes "the western territories" from your "truthful" Secesh Decls. What? Please. Beg. Grovel. No long explanations, just property descriptions, as if you fellows were the Confederates wanting to expand and the rest of us who disagree with you are Congress, ready to flat out give you whatever you mean by "western territories." What do you want from us? Tell me. Don't tell me what is NOT meant by "western territories," as I have no interest in what is NOT. What IS?!
The phrase “western territories” or similar do not appear in the Declarations of Causes. The words used are “the common territories” or variants thereof, or just “the territories”.

I understand “the common territories” to mean the territories of the United States established by an organic act and directly overseen by the Federal government, and also the unorganized territories within the borders of United States.

In 1860 these would have been:

New Mexico Territory
Utah Territory
Washington Territory
Kansas Territory
Nebraska Territory

Indian Territory
What became Dakota Territory
 

uaskme

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
2,108
What is the myth? Please clarify.
Union policy aimed to prop up slavery, not to aid its demise. Lincoln believed that before he could woo potentially loyal planters back into the Union he would have to revive the plantation economy; and that required a stable labor force. The political need to rejuvenate the plantations and fear of black violence initially caused military commanders in Louisiana and politicians in Washington to support the status quo of antebellum slavery in the occupied area. Nevertheless, as war continued and as an increasing number of slaves and runaways, came under Union control, the old system could not be sustained. pp2 Slaves and Freedmen in Civil War Louisiana by Ripley

There was a reason, Lincoln exempted slaves under Federal Control from the EP.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.



(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top