Legislation passed during Civil War and other issues than slavery causing war


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

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,303
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Yes, even though Virginia state troops were already en-route to attack Harper's Ferry before the Convention behind closed doors, by threats and at the point of a gun, voted for secession. The same state that was against coercion of other states also attacked with their state troops, neighboring Maryland within a month after secession in an attempt to sway them into the Confederacy.
Coercion seems to be situational.
 
It would be difficult to estimate that. However, almost 80% of the voters in Virginia approved the secession ordinance in the public referendum that was held in late May 1861.
More than a month after secession by the Convention, Virginia has agreed to become the capitol of the Confederacy and after Virginia state troops have attacked Federal military facilities and another state, do you find that surprising?
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,303
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
You make it sound underhanded. It is entirely just as possible that Virginia, NC, Tenn., would have stayed in the Union without Lincolns call for troops and war rhetoric. Prove to me that those states would have seceded without that, show me beyond the shadow of doubt, that if Lincoln wasn't playing hardball they would have left the union in Spring 61.
Prove a what if, is that the last-ditch argument.
 

Potomac Pride

First Sergeant
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Messages
1,496
Location
Georgia
More than a month after secession by the Convention, Virginia has agreed to become the capitol of the Confederacy and after Virginia state troops have attacked Federal military facilities and another state, do you find that surprising?
No, I don't find their secession as a surprise especially after Lincoln had expanded the Union naval blockade to include Virginia in April 1861. A blockade is practically an act of war.
 
No, I don't find their secession as a surprise especially after Lincoln had expanded the Union naval blockade to include Virginia in April 1861. A blockade is practically an act of war.
The act of war was Virginia's attack on Harper's Ferry and her attack and burning of the Gosport Navy yard, before Lincoln's announcement of the blockade of Virginia and North Carolina.
 

Potomac Pride

First Sergeant
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Messages
1,496
Location
Georgia
The act of war was Virginia's attack on Harper's Ferry and her attack and burning of the Gosport Navy yard, before Lincoln's announcement of the blockade of Virginia and North Carolina.
According to Virginia, the act of war occurred even before those events happened when Lincoln issued his Proclamation Calling for Troops to suppress the southern states. Governor Letcher of Virginia replied to the call for troops by responding: "In reply to this communication, I have only to say, that the Militia of Virginia will not be furnished to the powers at Washington, for any such use or purpose as they have in view.
Your object is to subjugate our Southern States, and a requisition made upon me for such object---an object, in my judgment, not within the purview of the Constitution, or the act of 1795---- will not be complied with. You have chosen to inaugurate Civil War, and having done so, we will meet it, in a spirit as determined as the Administration has exhibited towards the South."
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,303
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
According to Virginia, the act of war occurred even before those events happened when Lincoln issued his Proclamation Calling for Troops to suppress the southern states. Governor Letcher of Virginia replied to the call for troops by responding: "In reply to this communication, I have only to say, that the Militia of Virginia will not be furnished to the powers at Washington, for any such use or purpose as they have in view.
Your object is to subjugate our Southern States, and a requisition made upon me for such object---an object, in my judgment, not within the purview of the Constitution, or the act of 1795---- will not be complied with. You have chosen to inaugurate Civil War, and having done so, we will meet it, in a spirit as determined as the Administration has exhibited towards the South."
Sounds like a heap of political rhetoric to me proving nothing.
 

19thGeorgia

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
2,537
Find that in the secession documents and we will discuss.
Georgia-
"...they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides."
 
According to Virginia, the act of war occurred even before those events happened when Lincoln issued his Proclamation Calling for Troops to suppress the southern states. Governor Letcher of Virginia replied to the call for troops by responding: "In reply to this communication, I have only to say, that the Militia of Virginia will not be furnished to the powers at Washington, for any such use or purpose as they have in view.
Your object is to subjugate our Southern States, and a requisition made upon me for such object---an object, in my judgment, not within the purview of the Constitution, or the act of 1795---- will not be complied with. You have chosen to inaugurate Civil War, and having done so, we will meet it, in a spirit as determined as the Administration has exhibited towards the South."
It's odd that former governor Henry Wise already had Virginia troops en-route to Harper's Ferry and Gosport Naval Yard before the Convention became aware of Lincoln's call for troops.
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
10,670
You make it sound underhanded.
Thanks for your response.
If so, not by intention.
To be clear, I do not doubt that the secessionists in each state were motivated by what they thought were in their best interests.
However, the circumstances and his Constitutional responsibilities required Lincoln to prevent dissolution of the Union. Given that, states like Virginia had a choice to make and they did. The issue here is why they made the choice they did. My reading of their documents indicates they chose the course they did because they saw themselves as more like say South Carolina than say Ohio. Their own language tells us why: ""Virginia shall unite her destiny with the slaveholding states of the south".
Yes, it is possible that Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, would have stayed in the Union without Lincolns call for troops. At least for the immediate future. But with the precedent set that any disgruntled state could simply 'take their football and go home', it would have only been a matter of time until some other state or group of states chose a course independent of the Union.
Given the possible alternatives, I am happy that Lincoln played "hardball". It frankly surprises me that anyone living today would not share that view. Our country remains imperfect, but it still has the capacity to become more perfect, something that disunion would have destroyed.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,303
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Well, I am sorry that you don't consider his response to be significant. However, it is a direct quote from the Va. Governor. Some people simply don't pay attention to any matters regarding state secession if it doesn't directly involve the issue of slavery.
Hold on that quote from the VA political, I sense you will need it.
Georgia-
"...they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides."
Not VA is it.
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
10,670
I never stated that slavery wasn't an issue in the secession of Virginia but only that it wasn't the sole issue involved.
Thanks for your response.
Few in our Forum would claim that slavery was the "sole issue". I have made it clear that there were many issues. However, there was one issue among them that was the single, root cause: slavery. Simply put, without the divisive issue of slavery, there would have not been secession or rebellion. None of the other issues had that influence.
 



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