Discussion in 'Civil War History - General Discussion' started by ucvrelics.com, Nov 3, 2018.
Washington fought to create this nation, while the confederate fought to tear it apart.
Actually, the Confederates fought to leave it, to go away, not to, “tear it apart.”
You all could have kept it, but without income from cotton. This was unacceptable, apparently.
Not tear it apart, divide it.
Not exactly leave it. The Confederacy tried to violently seize the New Mexico Territory, Maryland , Kentucky and Missouri. Had the Confederacy won in the battle of Glorieta Pass they would if moved further West to capture Southern California.
@jgoodguy has a thread with sources that the Confederacy wished to seize Northern Mexico. In the antebellum era slave owners had financed attempts to seize Nicaragua. No doubt if the Confederacy won they would try again.
So no the Confederacy was not at all interested in being " left alone".
They did? Wow.
Maybe you can source some of this stuff? I thought Lincoln went for some of these places first?
Nicaragua and all of that was definitely not a unifying issue in the South. You can’t put a handful on, “them,” but I know you’ll try.
The thing was given that the southern (no pun intended) halves of those states you mentioned had significant pro-Confederate support there was a good reason for this to occur.
It should also be noted Maryland was not in danger of secession and just like Delaware slavery was declining for a long time and had a large free black community. Even when Lee invaded Maryland in 1862 he did not intend on taking over the state and annexing it for the Confederacy he just wanted to invade the North to bring about a peace.
Kentucky and Missouri were considerably more divided between Confederate and Union supporters.
The whole seizure of places like Northern Mexico really is more because of certain resources.
We’ve gone down this road with similar threads before. I predict several pages of point/counterpoint and tit for tat. And when it’s over, everyone will still believe what they started out believing.
"A fair answer" indeed. One has to be impressed with the straightforward answer acknowledging that the rebels of 1860 and those 1776 were alike. That seems to be a common perspective among those in the generation that fought the Civil War and those immediately after. Some today would have us believe that though Washington, et al. were traitors to their King, Davis, et al. were not traitors to their government. It is a mystery why so many feel the need to hide that fact, especially when their acts were forgiven and the nation reconciled.
Yet the Lincoln Administration had to use extraordinary, unconstitutional means to prevent Maryland from seceding.
The key word is rebel. Yes a Washington was a Rebel.
That's the nature of this Forum and any discussion of the Civil War. Much information is shared, much is learned, few opinions are changed. If one seeks only to change opinions, the Civil War is not a good starting point.
'Making war to win peace'. Isn't that the claim of every 'leader' in war?
I've only been a member for less than 2 months and I can tell there are several very opinionated people in this forum. Sort of like the politicians who started the whole thing in the first place.
Well here's the thing: Maryland's governor was a Unionist (like Delaware) and nearly half of its population was black (free to be precise) and the rest of Maryland was not slavery heavy so other than the whole Baltimore thing (occurring in a city with a large free black population) it was not in danger that much.
There's no shame in being labeled a "rebel" or a "traitor." My own ancestors have been called such things by, perhaps, half a dozen different regimes.
But, it seems to me you can't say "I'm proud to be pro-Confederate," without also meaning "I'm proud to be pro-slavery." The two things are just too inseparable. Sure, the confederacy meant other things besides slavery. But, take slavery out of the mix and there would have been no secession, no confederacy.
So why did Lincoln round up the Maryland legislature and throw them in jail?
Most of Maryland's legislature was Unionist aside from those pro-Confederates unlike the neutrality tried by Kentucky and Missouri
FREDERICK, September 12, 1861.
Honorable W. H. SEWARD, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.
SIR: An adjourned session of the Legislature of Maryland will meet in extra session at this place on Tuesday, 17th instant.
Many loyal citizens believe that at the coming session some effort will be made on the part of the "Tory" majority to convulse the State and force it into an attitude of hostility to the Government. Already it is believed in intelligent quarters that at the last extra session it was decided in a caucus of the majority to pass an ordinance of secession at their next meeting at all hazards. Perhaps, sir, these beliefs are unfounded apprehensions but the magnitude of the risk should leave no foothold for uncertainty, and surely the course of the legislative majority has not been one to inspire confidence. Prevention of evil is what the loyal citizens of Maryland desire and this is almost secured by the interposition of the Federal Government in the arrest and detention of Thomas J. McKaig, State senator from Allegany.
There are twenty-two senators, of whom twelve is the requisite majority to enact a law. Of the present senators eight are loyal and reliable, leaving fourteen in whom I have no faith and I speak the sentiment of many.
Of the fourteen referred to McKaig as already stated is a political prisoner; Yellott is among the rebels and we do not fear he will return; and it is rumored that Heckart is evading the Federal authorities. If this rumor be true and Heckart remains away the people will feel secure from legislative disloyalty; but if not true we hold it to be the duty of the Federal Government under its constitutional obligation (Article IV, section 4) to guarantee to Maryland a republican form of government and protect her from domestic violence; to interpose and cause the arrest of those senators whose notorious disaffection to the Govenment causes popular alarm here and is calculated to produce civil strife under pretext of law.
I should have referred this subject to your honorable colleague, the Postmaster-General, with whom I have a personal acquaintance, but for his absence from the seat of government as announced in the public journals and but for the fact that a longer delay would be impolitic. These desultory remarks hastily thrown together may still be suggestive, and if they produce the result I desire in guaranteeing order and security in Maryland I shall feel that I have done a good work in bringing the subject to your notice.
With sentiments of great respect, your obedient servant,
Editor of the Examiner.
Well there was a meeting by the Maryland Legislature though most of them were non-neutral pro-Union and only a minority pro-Confederate.
Separate names with a comma.