The Confederacy Declared War on the US But Not All Of It

Joined
Feb 18, 2017
Messages
635
Location
Northwest Missouri
#21
That argument presupposes that one accepts the right of states to seceed and consequently that federal intervention to maintain a state within the Union is wrong. While certainly beset by division, at the end of the day, Missouri remained part of the Union, which is also indicated by the fact that over 109,000 men enlisted and fought for the Union but only 30,000 men fought for the Confederacy.
The Federal Gov't acted precipitously to usurp the lawful functions of the State of Missouri in a rush to divert it's population and resources to use by the Union against the Confederate States. Missouri had already held a constitutional convention, in which the delegates chose not to secede and to remain neutral. Organization and training of the State militia was conducted according to both Missouri and Federal law. The Federal Gov't had already accepted the privately raised foreign militia regiments in St. Louis as Missouri's contribution to Lincoln's call for troops. Good luck finding authority within the Constitution for Federal invasion and takeover of the State, given it's non-belligerent stance. And no one believes those troop numbers.
 

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

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#22
That argument presupposes that one accepts the right of states to seceed and consequently that federal intervention to maintain a state within the Union is wrong. While certainly beset by division, at the end of the day, Missouri remained part of the Union, which is also indicated by the fact that over 109,000 men enlisted and fought for the Union but only 30,000 men fought for the Confederacy.
IMHO Missouri secessionists were more putsch than public sentiment.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#23
The Federal Gov't acted precipitously to usurp the lawful functions of the State of Missouri in a rush to divert it's population and resources to use by the Union against the Confederate States. Missouri had already held a constitutional convention, in which the delegates chose not to secede and to remain neutral. Organization and training of the State militia was conducted according to both Missouri and Federal law. The Federal Gov't had already accepted the privately raised foreign militia regiments in St. Louis as Missouri's contribution to Lincoln's call for troops. Good luck finding authority within the Constitution for Federal invasion and takeover of the State, given it's non-belligerent stance. And no one believes those troop numbers.
As host.
Interesting comments.
I believe we have discussed Missouri extensively in another thread. I can bump that thread for you to comment if you wish for you lay out your case there rather than refighting it here.
 
Joined
Feb 18, 2017
Messages
635
Location
Northwest Missouri
#24
Its your call, sorry if I derailed your thread this morning. I had my say and will stand by it, wherever you chose to move my posts. FYI, I view the entire CW/WBTS through my Missouri prism and have relatively less interest in events not directly involving Missouri or Missourians. That's not to say that I am not somewhat amused by the repetitive discussions of how Bobby Lee's Corps Commanders let him down at Gettysburg, whether or not the Confederacy did arm or should have armed it's slave population, whether Sherman acted in the best interest of the Nation in his 'March o the Sea' and old timey tasty recipes.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#25
Its your call, sorry if I derailed your thread this morning. I had my say and will stand by it, wherever you chose to move my posts. FYI, I view the entire CW/WBTS through my Missouri prism and have relatively less interest in events not directly involving Missouri or Missourians. That's not to say that I am not somewhat amused by the repetitive discussions of how Bobby Lee's Corps Commanders let him down at Gettysburg, whether or not the Confederacy did arm or should have armed it's slave population, whether Sherman acted in the best interest of the Nation in his 'March o the Sea' and old timey tasty recipes.
As host.
Hosts do not have moderator powers, we just have to act as a facilitator and try to keep things moving alone and on topic.
You have some interesting opinions deserving of their own threads.

Thanks
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,418
Location
Laurinburg NC
#26
If war was declared on NC both sides would most likely post troops (militia) along the border.
Undisciplined militias might do something stupid... even just a musket going of by mistake can cause a firefight.
Local farmers living at the border with a grudge might use the war as an excuse to solve it.
Drunk armed civilians might similarly do something to teach the traitors in NC a lesson. (they had not joined their fellow southern states)
A ship with a letter of marque would be able to attack a NC ship if they where at war. (The money in that could tempt someone)

In all cases "we are at war" would be a pretty good defense for any actions taken.

This made it clear to both NC and to everyone in the CSA that the two was not at war.
The only significant action that I'm aware is the unauthorized seizure of Fort Johnson and Fort Cashwell by a decidedly pro-secessionist militia and citizens from Wilmington in January 1861. Pro - secessionist Governor John Ellis promptly ordered the forts return to the US government. The forts' temporary occupation came nowhere close to provoking a war between North Carolina and the bordering Confederate states of South Carolina and Georgia or the US. The governor ordered the forts reoccupied after Lincoln's call for troops.
 
Joined
Jan 11, 2019
Messages
8
#27
It is worth observing that slavery was not mentioned anywhere in the legal and official act of the Confederate Congress which recognized that the United States was waging war against it. Its sole motive for waging war was self-defense, as the Act explicitly declares.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#31
It is worth observing that slavery was not mentioned anywhere in the legal and official act of the Confederate Congress which recognized that the United States was waging war against it. Its sole motive for waging war was self-defense, as the Act explicitly declares.
This act?
 

jackt62

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Jul 28, 2015
Messages
3,167
Location
New York City
#32
Indeed. As does the United States Constitution.
Nobody argues that the US Constitution permitted the existence of slavery. However, because founders struggled with this uncomfortable practice, they wrote the document in such a way as to never affirmatively declare it a "right" (as in the Bill of Rights for example), and made do with acknowledging slavery in a roundabout way, as in the following original clauses, which were superseded by the 13th and 14th Amendments:

Article 1
3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

Article 4
"3: No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

In contrast, the Confederate Constitution included affirmative provisions to protect and enhance the practice of slavery:

Article 1, Section 9:
(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

Article 4, Section 3:
3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
 



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