Did the Secessionists Want War?

[CSA Today]

Nope. This isn't my reckoning -- it is your reckoning. Setting up strawmen to attack is merely a diversionary tactic.

You may argue that the 1776 Virginians were rebels who went to war against their King. You are right about that -- it made them Traitors under the law, which they understood. "The South" of 1860-61 are also putting themselves in the position of Traitors under the law, attacking their own country -- if this is what your use of "Sic Semper Tyranus" is intended to mean, you are correct in that use.

It is you setting up diversionary tactics not me. I said: They (the CS) wanted independence from the US and were willing to fight for it if necessary. You construed that to mean: “they wanted a war more than peace.” I inferred from that that you felt any people willing to defend their independence from a hostile army occupying part of their country and claiming it for their own is the guilty party. The Southern secessionist and I suspect few others elsewhere would have preferred war to peace if reassured that war was unnecessary.

As for your confusion about Sic Semper Tyrannis see the link.
https://statesymbolsusa.org/symbol/virginia/state-motto/thus-always-tyrants

 

[Rhea Cole]

Actually, what Southerners' attitude toward a war was unambiguous. Judge Alexander Hamilton Handy, Mississippi 's commissioner to the state of Maryland, who had been dispatched to encourage them to secede, made the secessionists' war plans crystal clear. Keep in mind, this is the official Mississippi State policy, not Judge Handy's private views.

"... a state of revolution exists..(the Republicans intend) ... to overthrow the constitution & subvert the rights of the South! (these rights are) by which one man can own property in his fellow man... Slavery was ordained by God & sanctioned by humanity... Southerners would not give up their slaves!"
"(Republican actions) ... would be a recognition that slavery is a sin, & confine the institution tio its present limits... The moment that slavery I pronounced a moral evil-as a sin-by the general government, thatmoment the safety of the rights of the South (to hold slaves) will be entirely gone."

"(The Southern States) ...must take action before Lincoln comes to power, so that they will out of the power of his (sic) myrmidons. The question of slavery must be settled now or never."

I think we can safely say that Judge Handy made the case for war now or subjection later crystal clear. Henry L. Benning was Georgia's commissioner to the Commonwealth of Virginia. He began by answering the question of the hour.

"What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason can be summed up in a single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of slavery"

Henry Bennett sums it up nicely, don't you think?

 

[trice]

It is you setting up diversionary tactics not me. I said: They (the CS) wanted independence from the US and were willing to fight for it if necessary. You construed that to mean: “they wanted a war more than peace.” I inferred from that that you felt any people willing to defend their independence from a hostile army occupying part of their country and claiming it for their own is the guilty party. The Southern secessionist and I suspect few others elsewhere would have preferred war to peace if reassured that war was unnecessary.

So "willing to fight" means "they wanted peace" when they started the shooting? You are saying they were willing to start a war and did instead of acting peacefully: IOW, they wanted war more than peace.

 

[Rhea Cole]

So "willing to fight" means "they wanted peace" when they started the shooting? You are saying they were willing to start a war and did instead of acting peacefully: IOW, they wanted war more than peace.

I am not saying anything at all. The commissioner stated explicitly, in so many words, that if the Southern states do not fight a war now to protect their God given right to hold other people as property, right now, it will be too late later. "...now or never!" leaves no wiggle room.
The South Carolinian commissioner cites the 1860 census that showed SC to be almost 70% black. If they did not act now, by 1870 the whites would be 10% at which point the fate of the French in Haiti would be theirs. The South had to act now or suffer racial oblivion. Google it, the stated reasons for both secession & the racial defense argument are themes repeated over & over again.

 

[CSA Today]

So "willing to fight" means "they wanted peace" when they started the shooting? You are saying they were willing to start a war and did instead of acting peacefully: IOW, they wanted war more than peace.

The biggest take away I get from this nonsense is that people throughout the ages who claimed they wanted independence were lying, what they really wanted was to start a war. Have you ever wondered how many independent countries they would be in the world today if it were not for these freedom-loving warmongers?

 

[Rhea Cole]

The biggest take away I get from this nonsense is that people throughout the ages who claimed they wanted independence were lying, what they really wanted was to start a war. Have you ever wondered how many independent countries they would be in the world today if it were not for these freedom-loving warmongers?

War of Independence & War of Liberation are the common linkage, that is for sure.

 

[CSA Today]

@CSA Today ,

My "precious union" as you call it in your post #75 above, is much more than you imply, much more than you can tear down.

In spite of all it's mistakes, blunders, and obvious errors, it still, and always will, far outstrip the CSA and it's desire for war to continue the practice of chattel slavery.

The obvious fact was that at the mid-19th century, slavery was on the way out for most of the civilized world. Even in the United States by 1860, the North was slowly ridding itself of the institution, hence that historical division of the day, Free States and Slave States.

This is why secessionists wanted war, because they knew to remain in the United States would mean the loss of their power, their positions of leadership within the government and the inability to keep denying people, all the people, of their rights and liberties under the US Constitution.

There is no saving grace with the Confederacy. It was a giant step backwards from the slow and painful forward process the US was taking towards a better future. It's were it now belongs, then and now, on the ash heap of history as a terrible, failed idea.

I morn the men who died for it, but not for it's passing. It deserved to die.

Unionblue

Oh I see, the Lincoln regime was all set to withdraw its claims of territory along its occupying troops from the Confederate States and wished them all a cheery adieu until warloving Southerners could no longer restrain themselves and opened fire.

 

[unionblue]

@CSA Today ,

Sarcasm is not historical fact.

Fact is, secessionists wanted war and they got it.

They just didn't get the results they wanted from that war.

Slavery, empire, and limitations on ordinary, everyday, citizens rights.

They deserved defeat.

Unionblue

 

[trice]

So "willing to fight" means "they wanted peace" when they started the shooting? You are saying they were willing to start a war and did instead of acting peacefully: IOW, they wanted war more than peace.

The biggest take away I get from this nonsense is that people throughout the ages who claimed they wanted independence were lying, what they really wanted was to start a war. Have you ever wondered how many independent countries they would be in the world today if it were not for these freedom-loving warmongers?

This is a very, very round-about attempt to avoid admitting simple facts. Apparently the desire to fight a war disappears (in your view) because the reason they want to fight the war is "independence". This is simply obfuscation.

Yes, "the South" would have been perfectly happy to have "the North" (as in "the rest of the country") dither about and let them have their way without a war being the cost of "independence" -- but they were also determined to start a war if "the North" (as in "the rest of the country") did not let them get away with their illegal, violent acts.

Note also that even if "the South" got away without a war against the rest of the United States of America, there is plenty of evidence that "the South" (certainly many of their leaders) was determined to fight wars of conquest against someone (take your pick, one or more of: Mexico, various places in Central America, Brazil, Spain over Cuba, Caribbean islands, etc.) "The South" wanted to expand aggressively, by violence and war if the victims did not want to knuckle under.

 

[trice]

So "willing to fight" means "they wanted peace" when they started the shooting? You are saying they were willing to start a war and did instead of acting peacefully: IOW, they wanted war more than peace.

I am not saying anything at all. The commissioner stated explicitly, in so many words, that if the Southern states do not fight a war now to protect their God given right to hold other people as property, right now, it will be too late later. "...now or never!" leaves no wiggle room.
The South Carolinian commissioner cites the 1860 census that showed SC to be almost 70% black. If they did not act now, by 1870 the whites would be 10% at which point the fate of the French in Haiti would be theirs. The South had to act now or suffer racial oblivion. Google it, the stated reasons for both secession & the racial defense argument are themes repeated over & over again.

In this post you say it isn't you saying "the South" wanted war -- it was a commissioner in South Carolina. Are you somehow trying to say that means "the South did not want war? It appears he recognized how bad the demographics looked -- and he saw war as the solution. IOW, they wanted war more than peace. (or at least your example shows that.)

 

[CSA Today]

@CSA Today ,

Sarcasm is not historical fact.

Fact is, secessionists wanted war and they got it.

They just didn't get the results they wanted from that war.

Slavery, empire, and limitations on ordinary, everyday, citizens rights.

They deserved defeat.

Unionblue

Sorta reminds you of the 19th USA doesn't?

 

[Rhea Cole]

In this post you say it isn't you saying "the South" wanted war -- it was a commissioner in South Carolina. Are you somehow trying to say that means "the South did not want war? It appears he recognized how bad the demographics looked -- and he saw war as the solution. IOW, they wanted war more than peace. (or at least your example shows that.)

I suggest that you read what the commissioners wrote & said to the legislatures of the states that were still sitting on the fence. Their intentions & reasoning is crystal clear. Charles Dew's Apostles of Disunion is the best text I know of on the subject.

 

[wilber6150]

The South didn't want to be dominated by the North. The North didn't want to lose their cash cow; ergo, there was no other choice but war.

The South gained by having a war that dragged in the border states, the Union gained by avoiding war and waiting out the deep South

 

[wilber6150]

They wanted independence from the US and were willing to fight for it if necessary just had their colonial ancestors fought against the British Motherland for it.

Sic Semper Tyrannus.

Yup, and one of the first things South Carolina did after secession is to send out feelers to England about rejoining the UK

 

[Rhea Cole]

In this post you say it isn't you saying "the South" wanted war -- it was a commissioner in South Carolina. Are you somehow trying to say that means "the South did not want war? It appears he recognized how bad the demographics looked -- and he saw war as the solution. IOW, they wanted war more than peace. (or at least your example shows that.)

You completely misunderstood what I meant. I am not saying anything. The commissioners sent out by the seceding states had volumes to say on this subject.
The main rationale for starting the war in 1861 was a fear of demographic oblivion. At the present rate of reproduction, it was said, in as little as 30 years the slave population would double to 8,000,000. Alabama already had 7 slaves for every acre of tillable land in 1860. The white population of South Carolina would be as little as 5% & inevitably suffer the fate of the French on St Dominica. The South had to go to war immediately or the white race would sink into oblivion in the near future. It was a war to guarantee the superiority of the white race & it had to start now.
That is not my opinion, or anyone living's opinion, this is exactly what the people who put their lives, fortune & racial purity on the line in 1861 believed, period, end of story.

 

[Red Baron]

I am certainly glad that Jefferson Davis got that straightened out. South Carolina hotheads had preached violent revolution for fifty years. They tried that one on Andrew Jackson. He stated that he would raise an army in Tennessee & hang traitors until his horse wet its hooves in the ocean. Wisely, the hot heads waited until poor ole Buchanan's administration to secede. That was a good move, 'cause Jackson was not kidding.

I believe if you will read Davis' speech, you will find that he was referring to territorial claims. They wanted to be left alone & would not attack their northern neighbors. Also, Davis was very aware of the moral advantage that befell the party that did not shoot first. We all know how the onside goal at Fort Sumpter showed just how right Davis was.

Potomoc pride is correct. Jefferson Davis even sent representation to Washington to offer a treaty to buy all federal lands in the South. Lincoln refused to meet.This proves that Lincoln wanted it all and he would use war to get it

 

[Rhea Cole]

Potomoc pride is correct. Jefferson Davis even sent representation to Washington to offer a treaty to buy all federal lands in the South. Lincoln refused to meet.This proves that Lincoln wanted it all and he would use war to get it

Funny thing about that, Lincoln's entire rationale about "owning the South" was that he already did. You don't pay for things you own. The offer was a propaganda ploy to impress the Europeans. Davis wanted them to believe that the Southern government was peace loving & only acting in defense to their rights. That right, of course, had repeatedly been defined a the right to own other human beings without interference from the Federal Gov. Look it up, that is exactly what Davis' said. It is also much more interesting than the preposterous notion that Lincoln would even consider buying the South.

 

[Rhea Cole]

Yup, and one of the first things South Carolina did after secession is to send out feelers to England about rejoining the UK

Actually, the very first thing they did was to appoint commissioners who were tasked with going to the legislatures of slave states sitting on the fence & making the case for secession. There is no purer version of the reasons for secession than what those men told their fellow slaveholders in 1861. In fact, the Ordinance of Secession was passed on Dec 20, 1860. The day before, Isaac W. Hayne proposed sending commissioners out with copies of the Ordinance as soon as it passed. From that point on, gathering other slave states into a confederation consumed their every waking hour. Their survival depended on it. In all candor, the image of the stiff necked men who had worked for decades to free themselves & guarantee their "... God given right to hold their fellow human beings as property." kneeling down before Victoria, who had wholeheartedly supported banning slavery in her empire, made me start my day with a laugh, I thank you for that. You might want to read the Ordinance of Secession, Victoria's government was not going to touch that with a ten foot pole.

 

[unionblue]

Sorta reminds you of the 19th USA doesn't?

Sorry, I don't speak fantasy.

 

[wausaubob]

I think the secessionists wanted war, without a clear conception of the fact that war is a beast which grows rapidly. The war they conceived of was limited and not that lethal.
Its instructive to think that Virginians like Winfield Scott, and navy men like David Farragut, did not think the war would be short, or easy or that the Confederates had a good grasp of what naval power meant.