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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,139
Very well spoken. I hope Lefty gets the point.
If at least a sizable percentage of the people of California were truly committed to the Confederacy then there would of been widespread guerrilla warfare as there was in Missouri and Kentucky. California at the time was a very rural states lots of places for guerrillas to hide. Lots of wild forage to eat.
If seizing California was truly the main goal of the Confederacy then the leaders of the Confederacy would of had a viable plan. Do far no evidence of such a plan.
Leftyhunter[/QUOTE]

The South not only had a plan but a magnificent and well known plan. These threads have brought it to you, as pro-slavery advocates for secession and war have basically not paid attention to the universe of antebellum data but only what suits their myopic narrative.
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,139
The formal, legal incorporation of Native girls into non-Indian households constituted only a part of the female captive trade. Many girls and women came into white and Californio homes through informal, extralegal, and violent networks of exchange that crisscrossed the state. In northwestern California, local militiamen and vigilantes who waged war against Indian peoples simply appropriated female captives for their own use. When a white posse from Trinity County killed and entire village of 150 Wintu people in 1852--an event known ever after as the Bridge Gulch Massacre--the men spared only a handful of young women and girls. They carried them back to the town of Weaverville and gave them to white families who kept them as servants. One white woman eventually sold her young female charge to a passing teamster for forty-five dollars.

Traffics in female captives remained vibrant in Trinity County across the 1850s. After a party of Trinity whites attacked a Native village and killed three people, one man "brought home a young squaw, he said for a cook." In another part of the county, a Kentuckian "lawfully purchased" an eight or nine-year-old girl "for his seraglio" to serve as his wife or mistress. When the child ran away with the help of her uncle, the southerner pursued "the juvenile squaw" and killed four members of her band in the chase. Commerce in Native women and girls became so common that it may have generated a semi-institutionalized slave market in some parts of the county. One resident in the same manner that southern papers advertised rates for purchasing slaves. Prices for four classes of Indian women--"good, middling, inferior and refuse"--appeared in the paper's columns, and anyone who wanted to purchase a "good to middling" woman would have to give her captor five oxen, seven deerskins, and five blankets.

Incorporated into new households, captive women and girls filled crucial roles as domestic servants. In the far northwestern counties, where nearly one in every four white families may have held Indian children as servants, the labor of captive girls sustained household economies. Helen Carpenter, a Mendocino white woman who enjoyed the services of at least nineteen indigenous apprentices, including seven adult women and one small girl, viewed young female apprentices as crucial helpmates to rural California housewives. These youngsters, she noted, were in great demand as servants, because even the smallest and most awkward girl could soon be taught to wash dishes and "rock the baby." In nearby Humbolt County, ten-year-old Kate, allegedly "purchased of her parents. . . by their voluntary consent, performed "household and domestic duties" for the family of her new master, William B. Hagans."
pp149-150 Freedom's Frontier by Smith

So, in Northern CA 1 in 4 families owed a Native. Northern California was in a war with Native Americans. The above is the mild part of it. California had PLENTY of SLAVERY. Republicans held control of the north. But when it came to freedoms and rights of their colored, no takers. The first impulse of giving rights to Chinese or Natives turned them proslavery Democrats.

So this was going on in California during the 1850s, Then we have the economic factors which havn't been discussed. Influence could of changed California's future. It was a State, but it was in Play.
Well spoken. No surprise. A fine contribution. And, of course, China had one major export to replace conventional slavery in California and just call it something else, to wit, Coolies! Talk about an import!!
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,139
I would say land grabbing was a huge part of the Civil War, but Kansas far moreso than California. The Republicans/North were meant to take Nebraska and the Dems were meant to have Kansas. The Northern Republicans decided they wanted both and that is where the problem really started. The calculated settlement of New Englanders into Kansas (along with others from Ohio and other Northeastern states) tipped Kansas to the Republican Party (or their sympathizers). All of this happen without the Democrats even knowing until it was too late.

Kansas' value was obviously tied to California, so I agree that it was important.
Thanks for your post, old glory. The contrast you make between Kansas and California is instructive. The only reason I cannot endorse it myself is because of the apparent absence of obsession with Kansas in antebellum documents from 1855 forward. I see California all over the place as a southern obsession. And I think it falls outside the pail of the phrase "common territories."

Would you agree?
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
15,311
Location
los angeles ca
If at least a sizable percentage of the people of California were truly committed to the Confederacy then there would of been widespread guerrilla warfare as there was in Missouri and Kentucky. California at the time was a very rural states lots of places for guerrillas to hide. Lots of wild forage to eat.
If seizing California was truly the main goal of the Confederacy then the leaders of the Confederacy would of had a viable plan. Do far no evidence of such a plan.
Leftyhunter
The South not only had a plan but a magnificent and well known plan. These threads have brought it to you, as pro-slavery advocates for secession and war have basically not paid attention to the universe of antebellum data but only what suits their myopic narrative.[/QUOTE]
So you made an unsourced assertion. As a general rule in studying history if you make an argument it should be backed up by facts.
Leftyhunter
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,139
The South not only had a plan but a magnificent and well known plan. These threads have brought it to you, as pro-slavery advocates for secession and war have basically not paid attention to the universe of antebellum data but only what suits their myopic narrative.
So you made an unsourced assertion. As a general rule in studying history if you argument it should be backed up by facts.
Leftyhunter[/QUOTE]

My simple assertion is self authenticating evidence. Let me know when you have finished reading the pacific railroad surveys and Commodore Perry's narrative. Keep me posted.

I have absolutely no objection to learning some history from you or anyone. You --and some others-- seem to take some of the golden dust I storm your way, as if these remarkable facts you have never heard of before are the leprosy virus. Puzzling. Is it another southern conspiracy to avoid dealing with a simple concrete irrefutable fact that the seizure of Southern California at the very least was the key to Confederate success? No California, then no other "common territories" or whatever other vague description some posters (a la the "obviously" disappearing Private A) might wish to call them.

Let me say that again for the sinking of the slavery ship: No California, no Confederate success. It's that simple.

Grade schools, high schools, and most universities do not teach this or even know it. It is only here, so far as I know, on civil war talk.com. Fabulous venue!

James
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
15,311
Location
los angeles ca
So you made an unsourced assertion. As a general rule in studying history if you argument it should be backed up by facts.
Leftyhunter
My simple assertion is self authenticating evidence. Let me know when you have finished reading the pacific railroad surveys and Commodore parities narrative. Keep me posted.[/QUOTE]
If the ACW was all about seizing California then the Confederate Army would of made a serious attempt to seize it.
A war to establish a TRR is nonsensical. If the South wanted to build a TRR they could of at least attempted to build one has it was not illegal to build a TRR.
It's amazing to what lengths you will argue without evidence that Slavery was not a factor in the ACW.
Leftyhunter
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,030
Glad to see some partial agreement. I just cannot go along with your statement about money or personal gain, the only things it seems to me that war is about.



Perhaps, but, I find the evidence of 'other' causes of secession and war, obscure and counter intuitive, to the obvious evidence from the history of the United States States, as recorded by those present at the time.

As I have noted on other threads on this board, I find the track of Slavery wide and deep across the pages of American History, from the very beginnings of Constitutional Gov't to the debates in the csa Congress in Richmond, in 1865, concerning the recruiting of Blacks and Slaves to help defend Southern Independence and its unique way of life.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,030
I can easily see North and South reaching the point of armed conflict, as nearly happened in 1832 over the tariff.


historically. the mentor and de facto leader of SC's opposition to Constitutional Authority, John C. Calhoun(SC's favorite Son) Saw the real issue as not being over tariffs(it was only the excuse)but, over the issue of agitation over Slavery in the North.



P.S. in 1830, SC discovered she stood alone in defiance against Tariff's, but, found much support in defense of Slavery in 1860-61.
 
Joined
Feb 17, 2019
Messages
7
Location
Bergen, Norway
I like, but you left out California. It did not matter one whit to the confederacy that California was already a free state. Stealing California from the union was no different than stealing New Mexico and Arizona etc.
It mattered to the Californians.

South Carolina’s secession convention published, in addition to their Declaration of Causes, an “Address of the people of South Carolina, assembled in Convention, to the people of the Slaveholding States of the United States”. It was written by Robert Barnwell Rhett, and was addressed to the slaveholding states, and not to any free state.

In it, South Carolina asks the “Citizens of the slaveholding States of the United States” to join them in “in forming a confederacy of Slaveholding States”. Free states were not asked to join.

South Carolina sent commissioners to other slave states to convince them to secede. So did Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Mississippi. None were sent to free states.

In short, California was never asked to secede and join the Confederacy. No free state was.

If California was the “the prize of secession”, why not simply ask her to join?
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
10,269
My simple assertion is self authenticating evidence. Let me know when you have finished reading the pacific railroad surveys and Commodore parities narrative. Keep me posted.
You can do better than that! "Self-authenticating evidence" is not evidence unless it complies with specific rules, such as Federal rule 902.
There is no need, in this open, friendly discussion to hide behind rules that don't even apply here- except to avoid answering a question.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,139
My simple assertion is self authenticating evidence. Let me know when you have finished reading the pacific railroad surveys and Commodore parities narrative. Keep me posted.
If the ACW was all about seizing California then the Confederate Army would of made a serious attempt to seize it.
A war to establish a TRR is nonsensical. If the South wanted to build a TRR they could of at least attempted to build one has it was not illegal to build a TRR.
It's amazing to what lengths you will argue without evidence that Slavery was not a factor in the ACW.
Leftyhunter[/QUOTE]

I don't argue negatives. Usually impossible. I argue positives and let the losers lose by default.

You are welcome at any time to teach me something positive about history. That is not an invitation limited to just do you but to anyone.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,139
Perhaps, but, I find the evidence of 'other' causes of secession and war, obscure and counter intuitive, to the obvious evidence from the history of the United States States, as recorded by those present at the time.

As I have noted on other threads on this board, I find the track of Slavery wide and deep across the pages of American History, from the very beginnings of Constitutional Gov't to the debates in the csa Congress in Richmond, in 1865, concerning the recruiting of Blacks and Slaves to help defend Southern Independence and its unique way of life.
Thank you for your post.

In reference to all of my posts, the fundamental question is this: "what was the tipping point that lead South Carolina to secede?" Short and simple.

The resounding answer to the question is a combination of the western territories and a transcontinental railroad to penetrate them all the way to San Diego. Short and simple. You may wish to know that by March 1857, Charleston have built a real road to Memphis, and the next leg was from Memphis to El Paso to San Diego. Contrary to the sentiments of many posters in these threads, Charlston was well on the way to succeeding and never should have seceded. It seceded because it wanted the entire pie for itself. In a word: greed, another central theme not only in American history but in world history.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,139
It mattered to the Californians.

South Carolina’s secession convention published, in addition to their Declaration of Causes, an “Address of the people of South Carolina, assembled in Convention, to the people of the Slaveholding States of the United States”. It was written by Robert Barnwell Rhett, and was addressed to the slaveholding states, and not to any free state.

In it, South Carolina asks the “Citizens of the slaveholding States of the United States” to join them in “in forming a confederacy of Slaveholding States”. Free states were not asked to join.

South Carolina sent commissioners to other slave states to convince them to secede. So did Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Mississippi. None were sent to free states.

In short, California was never asked to secede and join the Confederacy. No free state was.

If California was the “the prize of secession”, why not simply ask her to join?
Thank you for your post.

Let me see if I understand your syllogism here:

1. In order for a free state to be the object of theft, it had to have been invited to join the confederacy.

2. California was not invited to join the confederacy.

Conclusion: therefore, California was not an object of interest to the confederacy.

One question, yes or no: would Aristotle approve of this syllogism? Please advise. After that yes or no, feel free to elaborate all you like.

James
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,139
You can do better than that! "Self-authenticating evidence" is not evidence unless it complies with specific rules, such as Federal rule 902.
There is no need, in this open, friendly discussion to hide behind rules that don't even apply here- except to avoid answering a question.
Thank you for your post.

I never try to avoid answering questions, especially questions that are understandable. That is straw. I have cited more sources than you can count on these threads.

Each one of us who posts on this site is a source. People who write books are sources. Documents they use are sources. No one has to accept a single word that I say as valid. Not a problem at all. My statement was and remains a summary of my evaluation of the antebellum literature, a couple of huge pieces of which posters here upon appear not to have read. Those are my sources. For starters, why not count the number of times the word California appears in De Bow's Review from 1845-1861 and in the pacific railroad surveys from 1854-1860? You need not take my word for anything, but you might wish to consult those sources before throwing out California.

James
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 30, 2016
Messages
774
Location
Dixie
California voted overwhelmingly to enter the US as a free state.
There was a pro-slavery (southern) presence in southern ca. but was a minority in the state.
So cal did try to secede and the state voted to let them go but the feds prevented a vote in Congress.
So cal was occupied and most able bodied southern men including A S Johnston left to fight in the east.
The California column stopped the meager attempt by confederates to occupy the “arizona” territory.
No other attempt for relief by confederates or offensive actions against cal except piracy were undertaken.
California was never in jeopardy of being stolen by confederates and was a firm union state.
Southern California was voted on and approved by the state to secede. It was given to the south but...
The Confederacy never made a serious attempt to “claim” what had been given to it and put more effort into occupying “Arizona” than “Colorado” , as feeble as that effort was.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
28,203
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Thank you for your post.

In reference to all of my posts, the fundamental question is this: "what was the tipping point that lead South Carolina to secede?" Short and simple.

The resounding answer to the question is a combination of the western territories and a transcontinental railroad to penetrate them all the way to San Diego. Short and simple.

Yet Southern business efforts to gain foreign investment in a southern route for a TRR was killed by secession over slavery. If a "combination of the western territories and a TRR" was the eventual goal, why kill such an effort over slavery?

You may wish to know that by March 1857, Charleston have built a real road to Memphis, and the next leg was from Memphis to El Paso to San Diego.

Who proposed this? What source did you find this proposed leg being built?


Contrary to the sentiments of many posters in these threads,

The use of the label "sentiments" is a side-step for posters understanding of the actual, historical cause of secession. The label explains nothing.

Charlston was well on the way to succeeding and never should have seceded.

It was "well on the way" but should have "never?" seceded? Is this opinion, sentiment, or theory?

It seceded because it wanted the entire pie for itself.

We have their declaration of secession in which they state why they seceded in their own words and then we have an opinion that they seceded for "a combination of western territories and a TRR." Which of these carries more historical weight?

In a word: greed, another central theme not only in American history but in world history.
If we go with this particular theme, greed, would not 4 BILLION dollars in already realized property and the additional wealth it generated for the slaveholding South have some bearing?

Vice a very large "what if" and a personal "sentiment?"

Unionblue
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
15,311
Location
los angeles ca
Thank you for your post.

I never try to avoid answering questions, especially questions that are understandable. That is straw. I have cited more sources than you can count on these threads.

Each one of us who posts on this site is a source. People who write books are sources. Documents they use are sources. No one has to accept a single word that I say as valid. Not a problem at all. My statement was and remains a summary of my evaluation of the antebellum literature, a couple of huge pieces of which posters here upon appear not to have read. Those are my sources. For starters, why not count the number of times the word California appears in De Bow's Review from 1845-1861 and in the pacific railroad surveys from 1854-1860? You need not take my word for anything, but you might wish to consult those sources before throwing out California.

James
Words in De Bows are all well and good but that does not prove that slavery had nothing to do with the ACW and the ACW was all about acquiring California ,trade with China and a TRR. If California was truly the main goal then very early in the ACW the Confederacy would of tried to seize California well before the Union Navy could block such a move. Only an amphibious assault would work but the Confederate Navy had nowhere the ships required to mount such an invasion.
Magazines don't seize Territory militaries do. In no way shape or form could the Confederacy seize California. The Confederacy couldn't even seize any territory West of Texas.
Leftyhunter
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,139
Words in De Bows are all well and good but that does not prove that slavery had nothing to do with the ACW and the ACW was all about acquiring California ,trade with China and a TRR. If California was truly the main goal then very early in the ACW the Confederacy would of tried to seize California well before the Union Navy could block such a move. Only an amphibious assault would work but the Confederate Navy had nowhere the ships required to mount such an invasion.
Magazines don't seize Territory militaries do. In no way shape or form could the Confederacy seize California. The Confederacy couldn't even seize any territory West of Texas.
Leftyhunter
Edited. I was talking about the word " California" that magazine and you made an amazing shift. Edited.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads




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