It probably was cotton, after all.

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Status
Not open for further replies.

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
30,287
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
well, the Union did have a part in the war....

Like Pickett said, "I believe the Union army had something to do with it."

i mean they were not dispassionately running away from marauding hoards of Confederate soldiers roaming freely among the Northern populace

Bad pre-rebellion planning/assumptions about Northern "greasy mechanics" I suppose.

and the Confederates sent numerous delegations to seek a peaceful resolution

Numerous? How many delegations were sent to Washington before Ft. Sumter was fired on?

but sending a fleet of warships and 3 speedy tug boats with 200 reinforcement troops to the harbor leading to Sumter stopped any peace talks ongoing....

It was over the day South Carolina seceded.

that and Lincoln refused to meet with any delegations
Why should he if the condition for that meeting is recognition of the bandits who stole everything not nailed down, are some kind of recognized country?

Unionblue
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
30,287
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
those that wrote the constitution made that pact...the people of the time made that pact...by law no pact made by any "of age" person is beholden to their children...its at least questionable that the constitution written by long dead persons could be binding to future generations
And yet it has been binding and the envy of most of the world.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
30,287
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
"win" is a subjective term...win by overthrowing the Union and installing the confederate government? Win by forming a separate state? I believe there is objective evidence, that altho the CSA was preparing for war, they hoped there would be none. They seceded, not for war as you imply, but to form a separate country.
Like we have both agreed, they had a right to try and win by force of arms and the federal government had the right to put it down.

We, in this time, are a result of that force of arms.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
30,287
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
According to the North and their toadies.
Not buying it because the South at the time had the power to tie up Lincoln and the Republican party agenda into knots for his entire first term. If they had wanted to, if they had applied the least amount of legal brainpower to the idea of secession, they may have had at least a chance. Taney was for the South. The majority of the Supreme Court in 1860 was not hostile to the South or slavery. There would have been enough votes in the Congress to defeat any ant-South/slave legislation. So why no effort to do such?

Because they felt/believed the legal means was not there in the Constitution or could be supported in the courts. That was their choice, they made it, and then paid for it.

I simply cannot buy into the theory that any people who claim they can 'lick' five times their number in a fight are somehow dressed in pure white and trembling in fear at a supposed domination by those going by the election results and the Constitution.

"Toadies?" More like a poor substitute for losing a fight.
 

Patrick Sulley

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
560
Why should he if the condition for that meeting is recognition of the bandits who stole everything not nailed down, are some kind of recognized country?
oh..maybe to prevent the bloodshed of 700k, recognize the CSA then negotiate to bring them back. I may be wrong but unlike the CSA i am not convinced they would have prospered and a few years they would have returned..maybe even within the 5 years span of the ACW
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Patrick Sulley

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
560
Because the slaveholding South did not have a justifiable case under the law or the Constitution.
The revolutionary right of secession is based on the
Declaration of Independence
and the philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and John Locke, that

whenever any form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, . . .
These words come directly from the Declaration of Independence. This passage was also used, verbatim, in South Carolina's Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
30,287
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
"prominent" is a subjective word. I will research it if necessary, but help a brother out and instead name them...to save me the trouble....i trust ya.
How can I refuse after such a compliment? :smile:

From the book, The Slave Power: The Free North and Southern Domination, 1780 - 1860, by Leonard L. Richards, page 213-214:

"...Alexander H. Stephens and other Unionists called on the South to consider its domination of the federal government since the founding of the Republic, to play democratic politics and try to regain power in the next election. There was no reason to panic, they said. Lincoln would have a rough time governing. He had come far short of winning a majority of the nation's vote. His party controlled neither Congress nor the Supreme Court, and it lacked the organizational means to distribute patronage and carry out routine services in the slave states.

Oddly enough, James Henry Hammond, the South Carolina fire-brand, fully agreed with this position...

...Privately, however, Hammond dismissed as wishful thinking Seward's prediction that the North would take the government and end the rule of the South. He also dismissed the notion that Lincoln's election meant the end of southern dominance. Lincoln's election was just a setback. The North, as Hammond saw it, lacked staying power, and thus the South, if united, would continue to dictate national policy. The notion that the South had only two choices--either to secede or accept an inferior position in the national government--was nonsense. Secession was not only foolish but self-destructive. Indeed it reminded him of "the Japanese who when insulted rip open their own bowels..
."

It's a start for you, Patrick. :smile:

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
30,287
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
oh..maybe to prevent the bloodshed of 700k, recognize the CSA then negotiate to bring them back.

It takes two to negotiate and there were attempts to do such, but it's pretty hard to do when one side is stealing, shooting, taking prisoners, etc., and then demanding before any negotiation takes place that it insists on being recognized as an independent country.

I may be wrong but unlike the CSA i am not convinced they would have prospered and a few years they would have returned..maybe even within the 5 years span of the ACW.

Nice to know what you hope would have happened. I can't see it that way as we are examining actual, completed, history.
"What if's" are great for alternate science fiction books but they aren't history.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Patrick Sulley

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
560
And here I thought that because the trial would be held in Virginia and find a impartial jury might have been part of the problem.
Well, what do you think an acquittal/conviction of Davis, even with a biased jury, would do? Prove the right of secession?

Regardless of the outcome of a trial of Davis, we at least would then have a real secession decision instead of an oblique ruling based on money owed to/by Texas, we would have a real SCOTUS decision on secession.

Problem is that Chase was his district judge and would have to recuse himself from considering the constitutionality in any appeal to the loss/win on the Davis decision sent to SCOTUS. Then if he won on appeal or if the government lost in the event the biased Virginia jury acquitted him, the SCOTUS would have to rule on the merits of secession (something the Texas v White didnt do). The federal government could ill afford an unfavorable decision and the subsequent repeat secession of the southern states and then any other state that wanted to leave.
 
Last edited:

Patrick Sulley

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
560
Privately, however, Hammond dismissed as wishful thinking Seward's prediction that the North would take the government and end the rule of the South. He also dismissed the notion that Lincoln's election meant the end of southern dominance. Lincoln's election was just a setback. The North, as Hammond saw it, lacked staying power, and thus the South, if united, would continue to dictate national policy. The notion that the South had only two choices--either to secede or accept an inferior position in the national government--was nonsense. Secession was not only foolish but self-destructive. Indeed it reminded him of "the Japanese who when insulted rip open their own bowels..."
Leonard L. Richards opinion on what Hammond thought privately? There are problems with Richards book from what i see...notably his methodology.
 
Last edited:

Patrick Sulley

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
560
They threw the dice based on a theory, not a confirmed means and came up snake eyes.
Why not sue South Carolina if secession was illegal and a matter of law? Get a declaratory judgment if SC didnt participate...then be on less ambiguous grounds and then attack?
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

GwilymT

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Messages
948
Location
Pittsburgh
We’ve gone a little too far afield from the original topic of the thread here.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top