MHO Home   Forum Home   Help   Register   Login
 
 
Welcome to MilitaryHistoryOnline.com.
You are not signed in.
The current time is: 11/19/2017 12:57:36 PM
 Civil War - General    
AuthorMessage
Page 2 of 2 (Page: 1  2) 
John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 526

Re: Petition to Designate All Civil War-Related Monuments as National Monum
Posted on: 9/8/2017 3:16:54 PM
JohnT,

You forget that the Confederacy sent a delegation to Washington to negotiate and offer a peace Treaty but Lincoln refused to even talk to the members. Seward did negotiate unofficially but as Lincoln wouldn't sign off on any points of agreement nothing got done.

Are the state legislature the legally elected representatives of the people of the state? Do they make and institute the laws of the state? Are there different levels of courts, local, state and federal and do they have to follow the laws instituted by the legislatures and Congress? Have interpritations of laws ever been different from level to level of court or by section of the country? Can't a case be made that the body making and instituting laws and treaties be just as qualified to interperate the intentions of the law and treatins they created?

Look I think war inevitable but I don't think it can be blamed on one side but has to be shared by both sides equally. For every action there will be a reaction. There wasn't one thing in the entire Republican platform that the South wanted or needed by their interpretation of their wants and needs. And I'm not talking slavery related. If slavery was the main goal then back off on other areas or if the tariff is the main agenda then back off on slavery. Its got to be a give and take with compromise or we get what we are seeing today. And I'm sorry but instead of learning from history we seem to be rewriting it and repeating its mistakes.

As for Sumter your facts are a little off. The troops in Sumter weren't starving, food was being rationed but unlike at Vicksburg they weren't eating rats and mules to survive. The way I understand it they were on 2 meals a day with hardtack substituting for bread. I believe that in early March Anderson reported 6 weeks food left.

Buchanan tried to resupply and reinforce in early January, the 9th I believe, with a force of 200 men, ammunition and food on the "Star of the West" a unarmed side-wheeler. Shots were fired across its bow by cadets from the Citadel manning the battery on Morris island and it turned back. That prompted the warning to not try another relief, reinforcement, resupply mission. Anderson was unaware of the attempt and choose not to return fire as the batteries weren't firing on him.

Oh and it was also the Buchanan Administration which gave the orders to hold the forts in Charlestown harbor "to the last extremity." The order was written by assistant Adjutant General Major Don Carlos Buell and approved by Sec of War John Floyd.

You also fail to mention that Lincoln offered to evacuate Sumter if Virginia would guarantee to reject secession.

Lincoln forces the issue by sending the resupply/reinforcement mission, you also fail to mention it was more than just food on the ship.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


scoucer
Berlin, Germany
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 1941

Re: Petition to Designate All Civil War-Related Monuments as National Monum
Posted on: 9/9/2017 3:34:14 PM

Quote:
If you like the old union of the founders and states rights, its because your racists and want slavery.

--1stvermont


Sounds to me more like "libertarian" defensiveness a la Ron Paul. And ,of cause, if you think the union of the founders and states rights are a little bit, lets say, "anachronistic" you are a leftie, communist, socialist, democrat, liberal, antifa fascist/terrorist.

Trevor
---------------
`Hey don´t the wars come easy and don´t the peace come hard`- Buffy Sainte-Marie

Some swim with the stream. Some swim against the stream. Me - I´m stuck somewhere in the woods and can´t even find the stupid stream.

jthlmnn
Milwaukee, WI, USA
top 40
E-4 Corporal


Posts: 168

Re: Petition to Designate All Civil War-Related Monuments as National Monum
Posted on: 9/9/2017 3:54:14 PM

Quote:
JohnT,

You forget that the Confederacy sent a delegation to Washington to negotiate and offer a peace Treaty but Lincoln refused to even talk to the members. Seward did negotiate unofficially but as Lincoln wouldn't sign off on any points of agreement nothing got done.


Didn't forget. No way were they going to see Lincoln. They presented themselves as the representatives of a government that didn't exist. The president doesn't meet with frauds, or legitimize fraudulent claims. The men who sent them were filled with either hubris, stupidity, or a blend of both.


Quote:
Are the state legislature the legally elected representatives of the people of the state? Do they make and institute the laws of the state? Are there different levels of courts, local, state and federal and do they have to follow the laws instituted by the legislatures and Congress? Have interpritations of laws ever been different from level to level of court or by section of the country? Can't a case be made that the body making and instituting laws and treaties be just as qualified to interperate the intentions of the law and treatins they created?


I am sorry, but I cannot make out what point you are trying make here.


Quote:
Look I think war inevitable but I don't think it can be blamed on one side but has to be shared by both sides equally. For every action there will be a reaction. There wasn't one thing in the entire Republican platform that the South wanted or needed by their interpretation of their wants and needs. And I'm not talking slavery related. If slavery was the main goal then back off on other areas or if the tariff is the main agenda then back off on slavery. Its got to be a give and take with compromise or we get what we are seeing today. And I'm sorry but instead of learning from history we seem to be rewriting it and repeating its mistakes.


I see that as a weak argument. The slave-holding states still dominated congress. Nothing at all could pass without the cooperation of at least some of them. I also have a problem accepting displeasure with a party platform as justification for exercising what was "the nuclear option" for that era. When I review the events leading up to the attempted secession, I see people getting upset, but not over things that have happened to them (as was the case in our war of independence from GB), but over what they thought might happen somewhere in the future. In other words, they were moved to secession by the anticipation of grievances to come.


Quote:
As for Sumter your facts are a little off. The troops in Sumter weren't starving, food was being rationed but unlike at Vicksburg they weren't eating rats and mules to survive. The way I understand it they were on 2 meals a day with hardtack substituting for bread. I believe that in early March Anderson reported 6 weeks food left.


The relief mission sent by Lincoln was in response to Anderson's report that his food supply would be "exhausted" in a week: meaning he would have nothing. If however, you prefer "malnourished", or even quite hungry, I'm ok with that.


Quote:
Buchanan tried to resupply and reinforce in early January, the 9th I believe, with a force of 200 men, ammunition and food on the "Star of the West" a unarmed side-wheeler. Shots were fired across its bow by cadets from the Citadel manning the battery on Morris island and it turned back. That prompted the warning to not try another relief, reinforcement, resupply mission. Anderson was unaware of the attempt and choose not to return fire as the batteries weren't firing on him.

Oh and it was also the Buchanan Administration which gave the orders to hold the forts in Charlestown harbor "to the last extremity." The order was written by assistant Adjutant General Major Don Carlos Buell and approved by Sec of War John Floyd.


All true, I agree. Buchanan was still considered to be much more sympathetic to Southerners and their institutions than Lincoln, however. The change of occupants in the White House did not improve the hope of secessionists for a favorable outcome.

I am well aware of the events regarding the Star of the West. Other than noting it as further evidence that the erstwhile confederacy initiated hostilities, I fail to see how it affects any of my arguments.


Quote:
You also fail to mention that Lincoln offered to evacuate Sumter if Virginia would guarantee to reject secession.

That's because I believe the story has no merit. John Botts timeline is off, he has no corroboration (even from the people he claimed also heard Lincoln say it), it makes no internal sense, and it drips of a vendetta against an acquaintance who "went South."

(For those who are wondering what we are talking about, here is a pdf of testimony to the Committee on Reconstruction, as well as other documents regarding Mr. Botts' allegation that Lincoln made the offer John P cited to a Col. John Baldwin, and that Col. Baldwin turned Lincoln down. All this while Virginia was debating secession. [Read More]


Quote:
Lincoln forces the issue by sending the resupply/reinforcement mission, you also fail to mention it was more than just food on the ship.

--John R. Price


You are correct. In my rush to wrap up the post, I forgot to include that. I also forgot to include that President Lincoln informed Gov. Pickens that only food would be unloaded if the ship was left unmolested.

"I am directed by the President of the United States to notify you to expect an attempt will be made to supply Fort-Sumpter with provisions only; and that, if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or amunition, will be made, without further notice, or in case of an attack upon the Fort." [Read More]

Did Lincoln force the issue? I can see that as a reasonable conclusion. I can also see as reasonable the conclusion that those attempting secession had painted themselves into a corner, and that they succumbed to pressure from intemperate minds.

Yours,

JohnT

morris crumley
Lawrenceville, GA, USA
top 10
E-9 Sergeant Major
Posts: 1239

Re: Petition to Designate All Civil War-Related Monuments as National Monum
Posted on: 9/9/2017 3:58:57 PM
Trevor, I`ve always found it rather humorous that the people who blasted "states rights" supporters as being racists and or Neanderthals...seem not to understand that it was also states rights that was used as the argument for legislating and carrying out "anti-slavery" laws in the North. States rights was used by both sides.


.....and those people are lefties, communist, socialist, democrat,liberal, antifa fascist/terrorist....not that there`s anything wrong with that!....

Respects, Morris
---------------
"You are a $70, red-wool, pure quill military genius, or the biggest damn fool in northern Mexico."

scoucer
Berlin, Germany
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 1941

Re: Petition to Designate All Civil War-Related Monuments as National Monum
Posted on: 9/9/2017 7:58:04 PM

Quote:
Trevor, I`ve always found it rather humorous that the people who blasted "states rights" supporters as being racists and or Neanderthals...seem not to understand that it was also states rights that was used as the argument for legislating and carrying out "anti-slavery" laws in the North. States rights was used by both sides.


.....and those people are lefties, communist, socialist, democrat,liberal, antifa fascist/terrorist....not that there`s anything wrong with that!....

Respects, Morris
--morris crumley


Morris, please forgive the misunderstanding "furriner" who was unfortunate to grow up in an anachronistic monarchy. You will be glad to know that, because of Brexit, I will be throwing off the yoke of said monarchy and ceasing to be a subservient subject , becoming the proud citizen of a Republic.


Trevor
---------------
`Hey don´t the wars come easy and don´t the peace come hard`- Buffy Sainte-Marie

Some swim with the stream. Some swim against the stream. Me - I´m stuck somewhere in the woods and can´t even find the stupid stream.

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5522

Re: Petition to Designate All Civil War-Related Monuments as National Monum
Posted on: 9/10/2017 6:11:30 AM
There are republics and then there are republics.

Dependent upon the structure of government and the division of powers, one could exchange the light yoke of a rather benign monarch in a constitutional monarchy for the heavier yoke imposed by a too powerful President of a Republic. (too serious, I know).

Cheers,

George

Michigan Dave
Muskegon, Michigan, MI, USA
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 2861

Re: Petition to Designate All Civil War-Related Monuments as National Monum
Posted on: 9/10/2017 9:11:40 AM
George,

Is Canada a Republic??

[Read More]

Oh Republic of Canada!?

:)
MD
---------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 526

Re: Petition to Designate All Civil War-Related Monuments as National Monum
Posted on: 9/10/2017 12:46:47 PM
JohnT,

"Didn't forget. No way were they going to see Lincoln. They presented themselves as the representatives of a government that didn't exist. The president doesn't meet with frauds, or legitimize fraudulent claims. The men who sent them were filled with either hubris, stupidity, or a blend of both."

Now if your choice is to go to war I agree completely but if your choice is to negotiate and leave no stone unturned to try and avoid war. You are saying it is all about choice aren't you?


"I am sorry, but I cannot make out what point you are trying make here"

Two points. First both the intent and interpretation of laws can be very different in the levels of the courts and the sections of the country. Second that the legislatures as the direct representatives of the people sometimes might be a better determiner of the intent and interpretation of laws than the mainly appointed courts.

"I see that as a weak argument. The slave-holding states still dominated congress. Nothing at all could pass without the cooperation of at least some of them. I also have a problem accepting displeasure with a party platform as justification for exercising what was "the nuclear option" for that era. When I review the events leading up to the attempted secession, I see people getting upset, but not over things that have happened to them (as was the case in our war of independence from GB), but over what they thought might happen somewhere in the future. In other words, they were moved to secession by the anticipation of grievances to come."

Dominated I think not. There were 33 states in 1860 of which only 15 were slave states plus I didn't say slave vs free I said the South. Not every vote requires a two thirds majority. I would also say that on the issues other than slavery it had been happening for decades. They all knew what a protectionist tariff was like, they all knew who got the lions share of internal improvements, the all knew the types of internal improvements being done, they all knew the discriminatory banking practices and the fight over form of governmental power had been ongoing since 1776. Plus with respect slavery had been under attack from factions in the North for decades.

EDIT To make my point clear with that breakdown it was 36 to 30 Free to Slave in the Senate but in the House we are talking population and it would have been 156 Free to 84 Slave in 1860. Plus in the House the boarder states representation would have been split certainly not 50-50 but peel a few off the slave numbers and in the Senate KY, Maryland, Mizzu and Del would swing both ways on some issues. IMHO the whole idea on a Southern/Slave state dominated Congress is fantasy certainly by the 1850's and again IMHO by Nullification Crisis. Plus another fantasy is the Republican Party was built on and around Abolition as the main agenda/cause.

"The relief mission sent by Lincoln was in response to Anderson's report that his food supply would be "exhausted" in a week: meaning he would have nothing. If however, you prefer "malnourished", or even quite hungry, I'm ok with that."

Lincoln was told by letter on March 5th that Anderson had 6 weeks rations left he waited until April 6th to publically announce the resupply mission. And no I wouldn't say "malnourished" there was plenty of food with the exception of fresh vegtables. The real problem was in wood for heat and cooking fires but they were getting two very good meals of preserved and salted food everyday.(you know precooked and "canned")

"All true, I agree. Buchanan was still considered to be much more sympathetic to Southerners and their institutions than Lincoln, however. The change of occupants in the White House did not improve the hope of secessionists for a favorable outcome.

I am well aware of the events regarding the Star of the West. Other than noting it as further evidence that the erstwhile confederacy initiated hostilities, I fail to see how it affects any of my arguments."

There was never going to be a favorable outcome it was always going to be war unless the South caved. There is nothing Buchanan could have done except start the war sooner. If he recognizes the Confederacy Lincoln and the Republican dominated Congress will disavow or if he makes a deal to bring them back
by making a deal against the Republican agenda the same will happen. Plus again you said Buchanan did nothing and let the South take what they wanted.

"That's because I believe the story has no merit. John Botts timeline is off, he has no corroboration (even from the people he claimed also heard Lincoln say it), it makes no internal sense, and it drips of a vendetta against an acquaintance who "went South."

(For those who are wondering what we are talking about, here is a pdf of testimony to the Committee on Reconstruction, as well as other documents regarding Mr. Botts' allegation that Lincoln made the offer John P cited to a Col. John Baldwin, and that Col. Baldwin turned Lincoln down. All this while Virginia was debating secession. [Read More]"

OK fair enough I'm not sure I agree but I understand your point.

"You are correct. In my rush to wrap up the post, I forgot to include that. I also forgot to include that President Lincoln informed Gov. Pickens that only food would be unloaded if the ship was left unmolested.

"I am directed by the President of the United States to notify you to expect an attempt will be made to supply Fort-Sumpter with provisions only; and that, if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or amunition, will be made, without further notice, or in case of an attack upon the Fort." [Read More]

Did Lincoln force the issue? I can see that as a reasonable conclusion. I can also see as reasonable the conclusion that those attempting secession had painted themselves into a corner, and that they succumbed to pressure from intemperate minds."

"The Star of the West" had food, ammo, cannons and 200 reinforcements on her and Lincoln was sending 3 larger ships in April with only food? There were only 86 men at Sumter and there was no refrigeration. Plus the whole point is for the forces holding out to surrender when they run out of food rather than fight in out. Plus again Pickins had given ample and numerous warnings that any attempt to resupply would be meet by force. Now which choice has a greater chance of creating casualties, firing on wooden ships at sea with no place to shelter or on a fort designed to resist bombardment?


---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5522

Re: Petition to Designate All Civil War-Related Monuments as National Monum
Posted on: 9/10/2017 2:27:12 PM

Quote:
George,

Is Canada a Republic??

[Read More]

Oh Republic of Canada!?

:)
MD
--Michigan Dave


Canada is a constitutional monarchy reflecting our ties to the British.

There has always been a movement in this country to sever ties with the British and to become a republic.

Many Quebeckers for reasons well understood, do not appreciate our association with a British monarchy. Ironically, it was the British whose legislation allowed the Quebec culture to survive. It was the Canadian Confederation that encouraged that culture to thrive, much to the consternation of many Anglos.

Some newer Canadians do not appreciate the ties that bind. They may have been under British rule at some time in their history and are now independent.

As much as republicans, small "r" may have difficulty in understanding, we too are an independent nation governed by an elected House of Commons. The association with the monarchy is symbolic but it is enough to cause some Canadians to ask why.

EDIT: I meant to mention that it is my belief that most Canadians are happy to be a constitutional monarchy. The US is the closest republic to us. We watch and admire some aspects of US government and are baffled by others. So we can be smug and we are right now as we believe that our system is working quite well.

I'm not always sure how we compare our constitutional monarchy to a Republic and then say which is better, especially if the influence of the monarch is largely symbolic.

How different are our systems of government?

Cheers,

George



morris crumley
Lawrenceville, GA, USA
top 10
E-9 Sergeant Major
Posts: 1239

Re: Petition to Designate All Civil War-Related Monuments as National Monum
Posted on: 9/11/2017 1:25:22 PM
Lincoln does much more than just sending the Star Of The West. He then orders another resupply effort involving the warships Pawnee, Pocahontas and Powhaten as well as the Baltic and Harriet Lane as escort.

By way of a governmental screw-up, Powhaten gets re-routed to relieve Ft. Pickens..and Powhaten was the only ship that carried the armed launches and crew necessary for the transport of troops and supplies from the Baltic.

All while the Virginia Convention was getting set up to decide the issue of secession. The delegates to that convention were elected by the people of Virginia...and the considerable majority were pro-Unionist delegates. There was really no great desire for secession in Virginia, certainly not as great as in the deep-south states.

It was Lincoln, forcing the issue by, first, trying to land supplies and re-enforcement's and munitions at Ft. Sumter then, having provoked the action, calling for 75,000 volunteers that force pro-Union Virginia delegates into siding with the secessionist delegates and the other states.

We will never know what might have happened to "the rebellion" if Virginia stayed. It was the largest, most populated state in the South...it`s influence was enormous. What would have happened if Lincoln de-fused the situation...gave more time for negotiation..and cooler heads to think about things a bit longer? What if he had not rushed to such an extent that he caused the largest state to join the rebellion, and with it Robert E Lee, Thomas Jackson, JEB Stuart, etc. etc. etc. along with over 155,000 soldiers (an 89% enlistment rate).

Did not Major Anderson tell Col. Pettigrew that "In this controversy between the North and the South, my sympathies are entirely with the South." he makes this statement as a result of having pulled his men from Ft. Moultrie to Sumter in order to help prevent casualties and bloodshed that might sabotage hopes for a peaceful resolution to matters.

Respects, Morris
---------------
"You are a $70, red-wool, pure quill military genius, or the biggest damn fool in northern Mexico."

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 526

Re: Petition to Designate All Civil War-Related Monuments as National Monum
Posted on: 9/11/2017 3:48:58 PM
Morris,

The "Star of the West" was sent under Buchanan before Lincoln takes office on Jan 9.

Also the Virginia Convention had been sitting since Feb 13 and the original vote which rejected secession was taken on April 4 which was two days before Lincoln's public announcement that he was sending a resupply mission to Sumter. If memory serves the majority of delegates had left and gone home and had to be called back after the firing on Sumter and Lincoln's call for troops for another vote.

Anderson evacuated from Moultrie because it was undefendable on the landward side by the small number of troops he had but he did so on Dec 26 I believe only six days after South Carolina's secession. It also wasn't in the best shape of repair.

JohnT,

About the whole idea that Lincoln offer to evacuate Sumter if Virginia voted to reject secession the is evidence that Seward made that offer on Lincoln's behalf in backroom negotiations with delegates of the Virginia Convention. That it was at the very least a rumor making the rounds of the delegates for maybe a week or more before the April 4 vote. I knew that I had gotten it in a different context than the one you cited and that is why I said not sure I agreed.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


jthlmnn
Milwaukee, WI, USA
top 40
E-4 Corporal


Posts: 168

Re: Petition to Designate All Civil War-Related Monuments as National Monum
Posted on: 9/11/2017 4:04:46 PM
John P,

1) The "peace Commission": It was a nice piece of political theater. They represented themselves as agents of the Confederate States of America. If Lincoln meets with them, he gives tacit recognition of the legitimacy of this erstwhile nation. He could not do that, and they, or the people who sent them, knew as much. This was a ploy to gain recognition, and nothing more. Full text of their letter of introduction from Jefferson Davis to Lincoln as follows. (emphases mine)


Quote:
The President of the United States: Being animated by an earnest desire to unite and bind together our respective countries by friendly ties, I have appointed M. J. Crawford, one of our most settled and trustworthy citizens, as special commissioner of the Confederate States of America to the Government of the United States; and I have now the honor to introduce him to you, and to ask for him a reception and treatment corresponding to his station and to the purpose for which he is sent. Those purposes he will more particularly explain to you. Hoping that through his agency. &c. [sic.]
JEFF'N DAVIS.

For the purpose of establishing friendly relations between the Confederate States and the United States, and reposing special trust, &c., Martin J. Crawford, John Forsyth, and A. B. Roman are appointed special commissioners of the Confederate States to the United States. I have invested them with full and all manner of power and authority for and in the name of the Confederate States to meet and confer with any person or persons duly authorized by the Government of the United States being furnished with like powers and authority, and with them to agree, treat, consult, and negotiate of and concerning all matters and subjects interesting to both nations, and to conclude and sign a treaty or treaties, convention or conventions, touching the premises, transmitting the same to the President of the Confederate States for his final ratification by and with the consent of the Congress of the Confederate States.

Given under my hand at the city of Montgomery this 27th day of February, A.D. 1861, and of the Independence of the Confederate States the eighty-fifth.

JEFF N DAVIS.
ROBERT TOOMBS, Secretary of State.


2) Proper jurisdiction for arbitration of a "constitutional right of unilateral secession": Constitutional rights get arbitrated according to the system laid out in the Constitution. Since this is a dispute between states, the proper jurisdiction is the federal court system. State courts have no constitutional jurisdiction here. The Constitution does empower the Supreme Court to exercise "original jurisdiction" in cases such as this, so it could have, and likely would have, gone immediately to them.

State legislatures acting as courts: I am tempted to believe that you are yanking my chain, here. Aside from violating the separation of powers established by the framers, what could possibly lead you to believe this would be a good idea?

3) Dominance in Congress: I believe you are applying the wrong metric. Think "political party", rather than counting slave vs free states. When the 36th congress convened in March of 1859, the Democratic Party had a majority in the Senate of 38(D)-25(R)-2(A). In the House, the Republicans had a plurality, but not a majority, of 113(R)-84(D)-17(Opp)-8(ALD)-7(ID)-6(A). Any issue regarding slavery would be easily blocked in the senate by a combination of Democrats from slave-holding states and sympathetic Democrats from the free states. The house would not have been so easy, but with their sizable senate majority, no big deal.
All this changed by March of 1861 (end of the 36th Congress), but the shift to more Republican power was to to the exit and absence of Democrats from the secessionist states. The Senate had 15 vacancies, and the House had 29.

4) Provisions at Fort Sumter: After reviewing the official correspondence of various officers at Fort Sumter with each other and Washington, DC, I admit that that the food situation was not as dire as I had previously thought. But then, neither was it as good as you present.

For any who are curious to read the correspondence, going back to the move from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter, a transcription has been digitized by Cornell U. and is available here: [Read More]

5) Nowhere in this thread have I stated that Buchanan "did nothing and let the South take what it wanted." I said that,

Quote:
"The inaction of the Buchanan administration gave them both the time to recruit other states to their cause, and the hope that they could garner a sufficient number as to convince the the remaining states to let them go."

Between the Star of the West, in early January, and Lincoln's inauguration in mid March, what actions did the Buchanan administration take? That Gov. Pickens, for example, was less worried about Buchanan than Lincoln is demonstrated in the quotation below.

Excerpt from a Letter dated February 13, 1861, from Gov. Pickens to Hon. Howell Cobb (President of the Provisional Congress)

Quote:
If war can be averted, it will be by making the capture of Fort Sumter a fact accomplished during the continuance of the present administration, and leaving to the incoming administration the question of an open declaration of war. Such a declaration, separated, as it will be, from any present act of hostilities during Mr. Lincoln's administration, may become to him a matter requiring consideration. That consideration will not be expected of him, if the attack on the fort is made during his administration, and becomes, therefore, as to him, an act of present hostility. Mr. Buchanan cannot resist, because he has not the power. Mr. Lincoln may not attack, because the cause of the quarrel will have been, or may be considered by him as past.


6) The April mission to Fort Sumter: The Star of the West, in early January, was supposed to be a secret mission authorized by Buchanan involving one ship, which contained food, men, and munitions. Lincoln did give notice as to what was coming, and why. Said message was delivered on the evening of April 8, three full days before the ships would arrive. The citation below affirms the veracity of Lincoln's message to Gov. Pickens. Obviously one or more ships had supplies only, while the rest contained men and munitions.

Exerpt - Orders from the Navy Dept. to Capt. Samuel Mercer, Commanding USS Powhatan, April 5, 1861:

Quote:
The primary object of the mission is to provision Fort Sumter, for which purpose the War Department will furnish the necessary transports. Should the authorities at Charleston permit the fort to be supplied, no further particular service will be required of the force under your command, and after being satisfied that supplies have been received at the fort, the Powhatan, Pocahontas, and Harriet Lane will return to New York, and the Pawnee to Washington.

Should the authorities at Charleston, however, refuse to permit or attempt to prevent the vessel or vessels having supplies on board from entering harbor, or from peaceably proceeding to Fort Sumter, you will protect the transports or boats of the expedition in the object of their mission-disposing of your force in such a manner as to open a way for their ingress and afford, so far as is practicable, security to the men and boats, and repelling by force, if necessary, all obstructions towards provisioning the fort, and re-enforcing it; for in case of resistance to the peaceable primary object of the expedition a re-enforcement of the garrison will be attempted.
[Read More]

(Note: The day following the arrival of Lincoln's message regarding the relief convoy, the confederate government ordered that Fort Sumter either be surrendered or reduced, before the ships arrived.)

Yours,

JohnT


John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 526

Re: Petition to Designate All Civil War-Related Monuments as National Monum
Posted on: 9/11/2017 4:49:47 PM
JohnT,

And Lincoln and the rest of republicans didn't play politics and vie for public opinion? For there to be a peaceful resolution both sides have to negotiate and that isn't going to happen when one side refuses to recognize the other nor meet with the others representatives. Again you are saying its all a matter of choice is losing a little face better than war?

Do you really think that if the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of secession there wouldn't be war? It was a Southern leaning Court. I guess I'm saying that the direct representatives of the people might have a better idea of the wants of the people more than a appointed judge. And then there is the Virginia clause in the ratification of the Constitution.

But then again slavery would have to be the only issue of contention and while I agree it was a major issue of contention it wasn't the only one nor the only one that mattered. The Senators might be able to vote with the South on slavery but can they and will they for any of the rest?

"Inaction" is another way of saying do nothing. Given Pickens letter and his perception of the situation it would seem Buchanan did all he had to do to preserve the Union, he made sure Sumter stayed in Union hands. Plus you and I both know Congress was seated well before Lincoln and with the missing Southern members what you called a sizable majority in the Senate is gone and that there were many different peace and reunification plans making the rounds on both sides. And we both know that Pickens was wrong because even if Sumter falls peacefully the Republicans aren't letting the South go without a fight. They can't if they want a future or want any of their agenda enacted.

And how are the Confederates to know what is on those other ships? How would it look to you if you were defending? Plus again would you give in on the cusp of victory given the fact that Lincoln won't even recognize or meet with your representatives? That in your heart and soul you know they can't let you go without a fight because to do so is their political doom.


---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


jthlmnn
Milwaukee, WI, USA
top 40
E-4 Corporal


Posts: 168

Re: Petition to Designate All Civil War-Related Monuments as National Monum
Posted on: 9/11/2017 7:04:26 PM

Quote:
JohnT,

And Lincoln and the rest of republicans didn't play politics and vie for public opinion? For there to be a peaceful resolution both sides have to negotiate and that isn't going to happen when one side refuses to recognize the other nor meet with the others representatives. Again you are saying its all a matter of choice is losing a little face better than war?


"Losing a little face" shows that you do not appreciate the gravity of what was being attempted.


Quote:
Do you really think that if the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of secession there wouldn't be war? It was a Southern leaning Court. I guess I'm saying that the direct representatives of the people might have a better idea of the wants of the people more than a appointed judge. And then there is the Virginia clause in the ratification of the Constitution.


Maybe war, maybe not. Pure speculation, either way, because the people attempting to secede never tried. Yes, it was a Southern leaning court, which should have encouraged them to go this route and establish a much firmer legal claim to their right of secession. Since the seceding states did not try, I can only conclude a lack of confidence in the constitutionality of their claim

The duty of a court is to decide based upon the law, not on what people want.

The "Virginia clause" as you phrase it, has no relevance, and never did. Ratification is a "you do" or "you don't" proposition: yes or no. That's it. That is the opinion of that great Virginian, James Madison, who is remembered by some as "The Father of the Constitution. During the process of ratification, Madison had occasion to write these words to Alexander Hamilton:

"July 20, 1788 - Yours of yesterday is this instant come to hand & I have but a few minutes to answer it. I am sorry that your situation obliges you to listen to propositions of the nature you describe. My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.

This idea of reserving right to withdraw was started at Richmd. & considered as a conditional ratification which was itself considered as worse than a rejection." (emphases mine)


Quote:
But then again slavery would have to be the only issue of contention and while I agree it was a major issue of contention it wasn't the only one nor the only one that mattered. The Senators might be able to vote with the South on slavery but can they and will they for any of the rest?


Based upon the words of those who were attempting secession, as they were attempting secession, and trying to convince others to attempt secession, I differ quite strongly.


Quote:
"Inaction" is another way of saying do nothing. Given Pickens letter and his perception of the situation it would seem Buchanan did all he had to do to preserve the Union, he made sure Sumter stayed in Union hands. Plus you and I both know Congress was seated well before Lincoln and with the missing Southern members what you called a sizable majority in the Senate is gone and that there were many different peace and reunification plans making the rounds on both sides. And we both know that Pickens was wrong because even if Sumter falls peacefully the Republicans aren't letting the South go without a fight. They can't if they want a future or want any of their agenda enacted.


Aside from the one abortive attempt to re-enforce and resupply Fort Sumter, early in the crisis and before six other states attempted to follow South Carolina's lead, what did Buchanan do regarding any of the other federal installations? In fact, in what other ways was Buchanan at all proactive?


Quote:
And how are the Confederates to know what is on those other ships?


You send a boat out, tell them your bosses got Lincoln's message, and ask to inspect the "food only" ships. If they are what they claim to be, you let them pass.


Quote:
How would it look to you if you were defending? Plus again would you give in on the cusp of victory given the fact that Lincoln won't even recognize or meet with your representatives? That in your heart and soul you know they can't let you go without a fight because to do so is their political doom.


--John R. Price



How it looks would depend on what my long-term goal is, and what my level of patience is.
Cusp of victory? Victory defined as what, exactly?
Or, That in your heart and soul you know this enterprise has a bogus foundation, and the other guys can't let you go, because to do so would doom the nation.

Yours,

JohnT

Michigan Dave
Muskegon, Michigan, MI, USA
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 2861

Re: Petition to Designate All Civil War-Related Monuments as National Monum
Posted on: 9/12/2017 9:07:30 AM
Hey Guys,

Really enjoying the debate on this thread, just to let you know that a lot of MHO follows threads like these silently, enjoying the educated interesting banter you lay-out!

carry on gentlemen!
MD
---------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."

morris crumley
Lawrenceville, GA, USA
top 10
E-9 Sergeant Major
Posts: 1239

Re: Petition to Designate All Civil War-Related Monuments as National Monum
Posted on: 9/12/2017 10:31:49 AM
John P....or John T..or, damn it`s confusing ..too many Johns!

Any way, I was trying to point out that Lincoln did more than just send one side wheeler (as Buchanan did), but he sent a cobbled-together little armada,(there were also three or four tugs sent as well).

You are absolutely correct that Maj. Anderson had his men removed from Sullivan`s Island, rowing the distance in the darkness to withdraw into Sumter, because Moultrie was not as defensible or safe as Sumter. But, Anderson also conveyed to Pettigrew that he had no information or positive orders from Washington, and that he hoped that by moving his men to Sumter the matter could be worked out peacefully. He then admitted to Pettigrew that "In this controversy....my sympathies are entirely with the South." This was on 27 December.

Respects, Morris
---------------
"You are a $70, red-wool, pure quill military genius, or the biggest damn fool in northern Mexico."

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 526

Re: Petition to Designate All Civil War-Related Monuments as National Monum
Posted on: 9/12/2017 1:39:26 PM
JohnT,

1) I understand the gravity of the situation but do you understand that to negotiate a settlement peacefully you have to negotiate with somebody from the other side. It isn't negotiating to say I'm right your wrong so you have no choice but to do what I say how I say. He could have negotiated with Davis or the representatives appointed by Davis as Davis according to Lincoln was still a sitting Senator of the United States.

2 & 3) I understand the duty of the court but it is the will of the people that makes and fashions laws because it is the representatives of the people who make/design laws and institute them into society. Yes there is separation of powers but there is also a blending of powers in what I describe.

Madison's is but one interpretation. I grant that it is now the most broadly accepted but then the results of the war have something to do with that and I'm talking of the period before the results of the war were known. There were different opinions based on a different yet at least somewhat valid logic. Plus the other states accepted Richmond's "conditional ratification" or the Constitution wouldn't have been ratified because Virginia wasn't taking the clause out.

4) I've never claimed the Confederacy had a Jefferson to elaborate all the reasons for their displeasure with the North and federal government. I have said that slavery was a tool and pretext used by both sides above and beyond the basic issue of Abolition or continues slavery. For the South it was a very big part of the Economy so of course they are going to use it as a point of common grievance against the incoming Republican Party, President and Congessional majority. Does claiming Pear harbor as the reason for war against Japan mean that Japanese actions before Dec 7 have no bearing or part in starting the war?

5.) Actually one other state voted secession on Jan 9 and two other had the vote sced for the next two days I believe before the attempt to resupply was public knowledge. There was another Fort off Florida holding out on orders from Washington. In fact without starting the war by ordering a series of ;ast stands by overwhelmed very small garrisons made smaller by allowed resignations or negotiate with individuals and groups the incoming Republicand refused to recognize as having any power there was nothing he could do.

6) Did Lincoln's letter offer inspection of the ships? Plus again why allow resupply when your whole point in instituting a siege is to take control of the fort? The victory in any siege is to take control of the point being placed under siege and the ultimate goal is to do so without a fight when the garrison runs out of food. Anderson will be out of food within 2 weeks.

In your opinion is there any blame to be placed on the side who pushed the South to what you called the nuclear option? No blame on Lincoln for not being more patient or not trying more negotiation? No blame on industry for pushing for protectionism and infrastructure? No blame on banking for discrimitory practices? No blame on Republican politicians either being industrialists or bankers or economically tied to them? No blame on Abolitionists for not offering viable economic alternatives?
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 526

Re: Petition to Designate All Civil War-Related Monuments as National Monum
Posted on: 9/12/2017 1:50:32 PM
Actually Morris by Dec 26 when Anderson retreated to Sumter he had positive orders from Washington to hold what he believed he could "at all hazards" and to defend his positions by force if attacked. It was one of the main reasons why he was picked to command in the fall of 1860 but in the fall Washington gave him tentative orders to hold three different positions. Sumter and Moultrie were two and I have to check on the third.

Was that Johnson Pettigrew who was KIA at Falling Waters in 63? Anderson was a Southerner but he was also a protégé of Scott and I believe his state didn't seceed until after Sumter was fired upon. I give him a lot of credit for doing his duty as ordered.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


jthlmnn
Milwaukee, WI, USA
top 40
E-4 Corporal


Posts: 168

Re: Petition to Designate All Civil War-Related Monuments as National Monum
Posted on: 9/12/2017 4:54:06 PM

Quote:
Actually Morris by Dec 26 when Anderson retreated to Sumter he had positive orders from Washington to hold what he believed he could "at all hazards" and to defend his positions by force if attacked. It was one of the main reasons why he was picked to command in the fall of 1860 but in the fall Washington gave him tentative orders to hold three different positions. Sumter and Moultrie were two and I have to check on the third.

Was that Johnson Pettigrew who was KIA at Falling Waters in 63? Anderson was a Southerner but he was also a protégé of Scott and I believe his state didn't seceed until after Sumter was fired upon. I give him a lot of credit for doing his duty as ordered.
--John R. Price


Castle Pinckney.

JohnT

morris crumley
Lawrenceville, GA, USA
top 10
E-9 Sergeant Major
Posts: 1239

Re: Petition to Designate All Civil War-Related Monuments as National Monum
Posted on: 9/12/2017 5:20:58 PM
Yeah John, Johnston Pettigrew was an aide-De-camp for Gov. Pickens and led a delegation that met with Anderson.

Anderson was also a mentor of P.G.T Beauregard. I do agree that Anderson acted with absolute devotion to duty, without regards to his own personal feelings of the whirlwind that unfolded at Sumter.

Respects, Morris

[Edit] Major Anderson was also a pro-slavery, slave owner, Kentuckian ....so, I guess any monuments to him would have to come down!
---------------
"You are a $70, red-wool, pure quill military genius, or the biggest damn fool in northern Mexico."

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 526

Re: Petition to Designate All Civil War-Related Monuments as National Monum
Posted on: 9/12/2017 5:54:37 PM
Morris, thanks for some reason I was thinking he was from Tenn.

JohnT, thanks was that the arsenal he moved a number of cannon from there after secession on Dec 20 but quickly abandoned it leaving many small arms and munitions.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


jthlmnn
Milwaukee, WI, USA
top 40
E-4 Corporal


Posts: 168

Re: Petition to Designate All Civil War-Related Monuments as National Monum
Posted on: 9/12/2017 6:04:00 PM
Anderson was born and raised near Louisville, Kentucky. I am not sure where his wife and children resided while he was in service. I have read that they owned a few slaves, who were sold before he reported to Fort Sumter. (No citation or documentation noted, however.)

Interesting trivia:

During the Black Hawk War (1832), then Lieutenant Anderson (based at Fort Crawford, near Prairie du Chien, WI) mustered a young Abraham Lincoln into and out of federal service.

Also assigned to Fort Crawford, but on furlough during most of the war, was one Lt. Jefferson Davis.

Col. Zachary Taylor was commanding officer at Fort Crawford. Jefferson Davis met and fell in love with the Colonel's daughter, Sarah. The future U.S. president disapproved, and the young couple eventually had to elope to Kentucky.

Yours,
JohnT

jthlmnn
Milwaukee, WI, USA
top 40
E-4 Corporal


Posts: 168

Re: Petition to Designate All Civil War-Related Monuments as National Monum
Posted on: 9/12/2017 6:15:07 PM

Quote:
Morris, thanks for some reason I was thinking he was from Tenn.

JohnT, thanks was that the arsenal he moved a number of cannon from there after secession on Dec 20 but quickly abandoned it leaving many small arms and munitions.
--John R. Price


The arsenal was a separate facility. Everything at Castle Pinckney was seized by S.C. militia.

JohnT



John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 526

Re: Petition to Designate All Civil War-Related Monuments as National Monum
Posted on: 9/12/2017 8:38:01 PM
JohnT,

Taylor objected because he didn't want his daughter to have the rough life of being a junior Army officers wife living in frontier garrisons. Davis resigned on May 20 and eloped on June 17 but Sarah dies of either malaria or yellow fever at her sisters plantation in LA only 3 months after. Technically the resignation wasn't effective unto June 30 but he was on leave when he submitted the resignation in May.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


jthlmnn
Milwaukee, WI, USA
top 40
E-4 Corporal


Posts: 168

Re: Petition to Designate All Civil War-Related Monuments as National Monum
Posted on: 9/13/2017 5:07:58 PM

Quote:
JohnT,

1) I understand the gravity of the situation but do you understand that to negotiate a settlement peacefully you have to negotiate with somebody from the other side. It isn't negotiating to say I'm right your wrong so you have no choice but to do what I say how I say. He could have negotiated with Davis or the representatives appointed by Davis as Davis according to Lincoln was still a sitting Senator of the United States.


If you reread Davis' letter of introduction, the commission is presented as a diplomatic delegation. To receive them is to grant de facto recognition to the supposed nation they represent. These people are not asking for a peaceful redress of grievances, they are asking Lincoln to simply surrender a large portion of the nation over which he presides.

Jefferson Davis, along with several others, resigned his senate seat on January 21, 1861. When Lincoln was inaugurated in March, the seat was listed as "vacant." Not only that, but Davis had, in February, prior to Lincoln's inauguration, been elected to the post of "provisional president" of the CSA. So, no, Lincoln could not sit down with him, as that, too, would grant de facto recognition.


Quote:
2 & 3) I understand the duty of the court but it is the will of the people that makes and fashions laws because it is the representatives of the people who make/design laws and institute them into society. Yes there is separation of powers but there is also a blending of powers in what I describe.


That blending is unconstitutional. The framers of the Constitution avoided such a blending, and for good reason: the judiciary was set up to maximize impartiality and minimize popular passions, which can ebb and flow with great speed.


Quote:
Madison's is but one interpretation. I grant that it is now the most broadly accepted but then the results of the war have something to do with that and I'm talking of the period before the results of the war were known. There were different opinions based on a different yet at least somewhat valid logic. Plus the other states accepted Richmond's "conditional ratification" or the Constitution wouldn't have been ratified because Virginia wasn't taking the clause out.


At the time of ratification, nobody accepted the "Virginia clause" as a constitutional right. If they had, then it would have been necessary to include it in the Constitution, since no other state had had included such phrasing in its ratification, and Virginia, therefore, would have been the only state to possess it. A further complication to the theory you present is that such an acceptance would be internally inconsistent: one state would have a right that no others had.

Most everyone understood the natural right, of individuals, under oppression, to revolt and, if successful, to establish a new system for themselves. The "Virginia clause" is a verbatim presentation of that right. While this was/is recognized as a natural right, it is not a constitutional right. If any individual or group wants to invoke it, they need to be physically able to make it stick. It has no protection from the legal framework it finds intolerable. To borrow from Andrew Jackson during the Nullification Crisis,
Quote:
"Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent upon a failure." (Dec. 10, 1832)



Quote:
4) I've never claimed the Confederacy had a Jefferson to elaborate all the reasons for their displeasure with the North and federal government. I have said that slavery was a tool and pretext used by both sides above and beyond the basic issue of Abolition or continues slavery. For the South it was a very big part of the Economy so of course they are going to use it as a point of common grievance against the incoming Republican Party, President and Congessional majority.


What other grievance(s) were severe enough to merit revolution? Where are they in the statements and documents? The original seven states that attempted secession did so individually. There was no need for them to employ a common grievance. Each stated what was important to them. The only grievance(s) were about slavery.


Quote:
5.) Actually one other state voted secession on Jan 9 and two other had the vote sced for the next two days I believe before the attempt to resupply was public knowledge. There was another Fort off Florida holding out on orders from Washington. In fact without starting the war by ordering a series of ;ast stands by overwhelmed very small garrisons made smaller by allowed resignations or negotiate with individuals and groups the incoming Republicand refused to recognize as having any power there was nothing he could do.


My point was that Buchanan ordered the mission before Jan. 9, ergo before any other state had seceded.

Fort Pickens (ironically enough), was the one in Florida.

I am sorry, but i could not follow that last part.


Quote:
6) Did Lincoln's letter offer inspection of the ships?


The details would have been worked out by the parties present, possibly guided by orders from superiors. This would not have been a totally new procedure. Correspondence had been traveling back and forth between the fort and the opposing forces on shore. Procedures for transit of the mails to/from the fort had been worked out. Transfer of private property from seized/abandoned installations at Charleston had been worked out, etc. The inspection of a ship that was not supposed to be carrying extra men or munitions would have been allowed by the commander of the fleet. There likely would have been negotiations as to the details of off-loading, distance to be maintained by armed vessels, etc.

Thing is, that thought never entered the minds of those in charge at Charleston. Davis, Beauregard, etc. decided not to wait for the fleet, but to reduce the fort before the fleet could arrive.


Quote:
Plus again why allow resupply when your whole point in instituting a siege is to take control of the fort? The victory in any siege is to take control of the point being placed under siege and the ultimate goal is to do so without a fight when the garrison runs out of food. Anderson will be out of food within 2 weeks.

In your opinion is there any blame to be placed on the side who pushed the South to what you called the nuclear option? No blame on Lincoln for not being more patient or not trying more negotiation? No blame on industry for pushing for protectionism and infrastructure? No blame on banking for discrimitory practices? No blame on Republican politicians either being industrialists or bankers or economically tied to them? No blame on Abolitionists for not offering viable economic alternatives?
--John R. Price


Edited to add:
No. No "other side" had "pushed the South" into anything. In 1833, they howled over a tariff. Said tariff was lowered. In 1835 the slave states insisted on a "gag rule" in Congress, regarding slavery. They got it. In 1850, their gripe was fugitive slaves. A stronger, and more draconian, Fugitive Slave Act was passed. In 1854, they wanted the Missouri compromise thrown out. It was, thus opening the possibility for Kansas to enter as a slave state. The tariff in place during the winter of 1860-1861 (passed in 1857) was the lowest since the early 1800s. John Brown had been promptly captured by federal troops, and hung. The election of Lincoln, which was the supposed "last straw", was guaranteed by the slave state Democrats who walked out of the Democratic National Convention and splintered the only nation-wide political party of the day.

No. Lincoln was the lawfully elected president, charged with preserving the Union and enforcing its laws. Over the course of three months, the seven states in question showed no interest in negotiating an end to the rebellion and a return to their lawful status. Lincoln was doing his duty by attempting to resupply Fort Sumter. The fort had not fired on anybody.

No. Protectionism? See the Tariff of 1857, mentioned above. (If you are tempted to bring up the Morrill Tariff, that had no chance of passing Congress until the representatives from the seceding states departed.) The Southern economy was doing rather well, at the time, with cotton prices at an all time high. The latent vulnerabilities of the Southern economy (insufficient food production and processing, insufficient manufacturing capability, lack of infrastructure) were the result of their own choices over several decades, and not something that was rammed down their throats by outside forces. So again, no.

No. The "alternatives" had been present and available for many decades. Many individuals made their choices over what crops to grow, whether or not to engage in manufacturing, whether or not to invest in infrastructure, etc. Those same bankers that you cite above, would have been just as happy to make profits off of other enterprises. There was no need for the abolitionists to "offer alternatives".


Yours,

JohnT

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 526

Re: Petition to Designate All Civil War-Related Monuments as National Monum
Posted on: 9/13/2017 7:38:06 PM
JohnT,

If the South had caved all of the former Congressmen and Senators would have reoccupied their seats in Congress. And again you have to negotiate with the men who have the power to enforce any compromise reached during negotiations and men either in the Confederate government or appointed by the Confederate government have that power.

So what your saying is that if a legislature or Congress inact a law that is unconstitutional the Courts should step in and say so? So why didn't the federal government ask for a ruling?

Actually it would work that if Virginia had the right every other state also had the right. And you are quoting individuals not court cases and ruling from before the war.

There was no single greivence severe enough is my whole point. That it was a combination of many things over decades that brought the country to this point. That most of all it was political and economic power and that slavery was used as a tool and pretext by both sides.

So its perfectly fine for local representatives of the US government to recognize and negotiate with Confederate government representatives. No it isn't that the thought never entered the minds its that its ludacris to allow resupply when the whole point of a siege is to deprive the garrison of resupply and make them surrender without a major fight. Why basically shut down the busiest harbor in the South because a foreign force is sitting in a fort in the middle of the harbor threatening every ship that tries to enter or leave?
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


jthlmnn
Milwaukee, WI, USA
top 40
E-4 Corporal


Posts: 168

Re: Petition to Designate All Civil War-Related Monuments as National Monum
Posted on: 9/14/2017 4:22:18 AM

Quote:
JohnT,

If the South had caved all of the former Congressmen and Senators would have reoccupied their seats in Congress. And again you have to negotiate with the men who have the power to enforce any compromise reached during negotiations and men either in the Confederate government or appointed by the Confederate government have that power.


Somebody would have occupied those seats, but not necessarily those same gentlemen. They had resigned. Likely elections would have been necessary.

This was not an attempt at negotiation. It was a ploy to gain recognition as a separate nation.


Quote:
So what your saying is that if a legislature or Congress inact a law that is unconstitutional the Courts should step in and say so? So why didn't the federal government ask for a ruling?


If a legislative body passes a law that some individual or group believes infringes on a constitutional right, then they sue that legislative body, and the appropriate courts decide the matter. If nobody "takes it to court", then that law stands until it is repealed or amended.

The same applies to an action by the administrative branch of government. If some individual or group believes that this action has infringed on their rights under the Constitution, they file suit, and the judicial branch decides. In this case, the federal government is enforcing the law by denying any right to secession. Any challenge to the government's action would have to come from an individual state or group of states, who would claim an infringement of their right to secede.

Since the actions of the states attempting to secede involve criminal acts, and not civil violations, the government would not initiate a suit, but would suppress the criminal activity and enforce federal authority.


Quote:
Actually it would work that if Virginia had the right every other state also had the right.


Not in the legal universe of the United States Constitution.


Quote:
And you are quoting individuals not court cases and ruling from before the war.


Since nobody had actually attempted secession before, there were no previous cases regarding secession. However, there are loads of cases involving contract law, and the principles applied to them. I have cited the pertinent principle before, but will repeat it for your convenience:
Without an exit clause that states conditions and/or processes where one party can be relieved of their obligations to the other party/parties, the only legal way to be relieved/absolved of the obligations is to gain the consent of the other party/parties.

This is the legal principle applied by Madison and Jackson, prior to Lincoln, regarding secession. All consistently held that
since the Constitution is a much more serious agreement than a contract between individuals or businesses, and contains no language regarding conditions or processes regarding a departure from its governance (for any state), then the only legal, Constitutional method for a state to withdraw from its union with the other states is with their consent.


Quote:
There was no single greivence severe enough is my whole point. That it was a combination of many things over decades that brought the country to this point. That most of all it was political and economic power and that slavery was used as a tool and pretext by both sides.


As I pointed out above, and have stated previously, there were no single or accumulated grievances sufficient to justify the act of revolution by several of the Southern states. They acted out of anticipation that their peculiar institution would eventually be hampered or abolished.


Quote:
So its perfectly fine for local representatives of the US government to recognize and negotiate with Confederate government representatives. No it isn't that the thought never entered the minds its that its ludacris to allow resupply when the whole point of a siege is to deprive the garrison of resupply and make them surrender without a major fight. Why basically shut down the busiest harbor in the South because a foreign force is sitting in a fort in the middle of the harbor threatening every ship that tries to enter or leave?
--John R. Price


Lower levels of officials deal with all kinds of people all the time, back then and still today, without those dealings implying recognition of a nation or a government. Presidents and cabinet officials are a whole different kettle of fish.

Well, that's the corner you paint yourself into when you don't think through the whole secession thing. Either somebody had been counting on Major Anderson's southern sympathies to clear the harbor of federal forces, or they had not thought to immediately seize the only defensible piece of real estate, thereby eliminating it as an option for Anderson. Whatever the case, they miscalculated, and it cost them.

Yours,
John T



Michigan Dave
Muskegon, Michigan, MI, USA
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 2861

Re: Petition to Designate All Civil War-Related Monuments as National Monum
Posted on: 9/14/2017 8:33:51 AM
JT,

You make a lot of sense, btw if in today's world a part of a state wanted to break away and become it's own state is there a procedure for this?? At times the Upper Peninsula of Michigan has talked about being their own state, calling themselves Superior, after Lake Superior. BTW I don't mean to take away from the current debate, a quick answer will suffice, just trying to see how modern times are effected?

Thanks
Dave
---------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."

jthlmnn
Milwaukee, WI, USA
top 40
E-4 Corporal


Posts: 168

Re: Petition to Designate All Civil War-Related Monuments as National Monum
Posted on: 9/14/2017 11:39:12 AM

Quote:
JT,

You make a lot of sense, btw if in today's world a part of a state wanted to break away and become it's own state is there a procedure for this?? At times the Upper Peninsula of Michigan has talked about being their own state, calling themselves Superior, after Lake Superior. BTW I don't mean to take away from the current debate, a quick answer will suffice, just trying to see how modern times are effected?

Thanks
Dave
--Michigan Dave


Ah yeah. Da Yoop seceding from Da Mitten. No difference today. War and the Supreme Court have nailed that coffin shut.

The U.P. should have been part of Wisconsin, instead of a consolation prize to Michigan.

Curious readers should see Toledo War [Read More]

For the modern discontent between "Yoopers" and "Trolls", and the periodic secession movement, have a listen: [Read More]

Yours,
JohnT



John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 526

Re: Petition to Designate All Civil War-Related Monuments as National Monum
Posted on: 9/14/2017 12:08:33 PM
JohnT,

What tariff did the Republican Party campaign on and enact in Jan 61? And yes it did have a chance of passing Congress because the Democratic Party wasn't solidly anti-tariff. Republican propaganda in the North painted anyone for a low tariff as being against the best interest of the North usually being bought of by the "slavocray." And with respect the effects of a protectionist tariff weren't only negative to the people of the South, every consumer paid for it by higher prices for everything domestically while getting a lower price for any exports. You aren't factoring in how well the Republicans were at propaganda and the greed of individuals to vote what they believe is personally best for themselves. The Republican party was seen as the Party of Northern Labor and business and the relationship between labor and business wasn't as adversarial. Ownership wasn't the enemy slavery and the slavocracy was the reason wages were low and hours long. That is part of what I mean by slavery as a tool because the fact was wages were low and hours long because of immigration and the fact that there was always some immigrant ready to do your job for less pay.

But the banker only made loans to the South based on the value of their slaves as collateral, at higher rates and shorter terms while adding surcharges on payment through Southern owned banks. Land and other property was deliberately undervalued. Plus given that most of the bankers were also part or full owners in industry and especially the railroads any loans made to the South for those enterprises would take away profits from them personally.

Yes there was need for the Abolitionists to offer Viable alternatives because so much of the wealth of the South and basically 90% of the borrowing power of the South was the value of the slaves. You may say that is a despicable amoral thing and based on our morals and definitions I would agree but then our morals and definitions are much more evolved and slavery has been outlawed for 150 years. But then theirs weren't as evolved and slavery had been legal and a big part of the worlds economy for thousands of years and even when the North abolish slavery many did it gradually so as to offset the economic impact. And no the government buying their freedom wasn't a viable alternative.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


morris crumley
Lawrenceville, GA, USA
top 10
E-9 Sergeant Major
Posts: 1239

Re: Petition to Designate All Civil War-Related Monuments as National Monum
Posted on: 9/14/2017 12:33:45 PM

Quote:
Anderson was born and raised near Louisville, Kentucky. I am not sure where his wife and children resided while he was in service. I have read that they owned a few slaves, who were sold before he reported to Fort Sumter. (No citation or documentation noted, however.)

Interesting trivia:

During the Black Hawk War (1832), then Lieutenant Anderson (based at Fort Crawford, near Prairie du Chien, WI) mustered a young Abraham Lincoln into and out of federal service.

Also assigned to Fort Crawford, but on furlough during most of the war, was one Lt. Jefferson Davis.

Col. Zachary Taylor was commanding officer at Fort Crawford. Jefferson Davis met and fell in love with the Colonel's daughter, Sarah. The future U.S. president disapproved, and the young couple eventually had to elope to Kentucky.

Yours,
JohnT

--jthlmnn



Great trivia JohnT. But then, that war was full of such things!

Respects, Morris
---------------
"You are a $70, red-wool, pure quill military genius, or the biggest damn fool in northern Mexico."

jthlmnn
Milwaukee, WI, USA
top 40
E-4 Corporal


Posts: 168

Re: Petition to Designate All Civil War-Related Monuments as National Monum
Posted on: 9/14/2017 2:39:09 PM

Quote:
JohnT,

What tariff did the Republican Party campaign on and enact in Jan 61? And yes it did have a chance of passing Congress because the Democratic Party wasn't solidly anti-tariff. Republican propaganda in the North painted anyone for a low tariff as being against the best interest of the North usually being bought of by the "slavocray." And with respect the effects of a protectionist tariff weren't only negative to the people of the South, every consumer paid for it by higher prices for everything domestically while getting a lower price for any exports. You aren't factoring in how well the Republicans were at propaganda and the greed of individuals to vote what they believe is personally best for themselves. The Republican party was seen as the Party of Northern Labor and business and the relationship between labor and business wasn't as adversarial. Ownership wasn't the enemy slavery and the slavocracy was the reason wages were low and hours long. That is part of what I mean by slavery as a tool because the fact was wages were low and hours long because of immigration and the fact that there was always some immigrant ready to do your job for less pay.

But the banker only made loans to the South based on the value of their slaves as collateral, at higher rates and shorter terms while adding surcharges on payment through Southern owned banks. Land and other property was deliberately undervalued. Plus given that most of the bankers were also part or full owners in industry and especially the railroads any loans made to the South for those enterprises would take away profits from them personally.

Yes there was need for the Abolitionists to offer Viable alternatives because so much of the wealth of the South and basically 90% of the borrowing power of the South was the value of the slaves. You may say that is a despicable amoral thing and based on our morals and definitions I would agree but then our morals and definitions are much more evolved and slavery has been outlawed for 150 years. But then theirs weren't as evolved and slavery had been legal and a big part of the worlds economy for thousands of years and even when the North abolish slavery many did it gradually so as to offset the economic impact. And no the government buying their freedom wasn't a viable alternative.

--John R. Price


None of the above qualifies as a justification for revolution. Over the decades, Southerners chose their business models, which were based on a slave-powered economy. That they did not diversify their economic foundation, foster their own bankers, etc. was due their own short-sighted choices.

Thanks to the 3/5s clause, the choice of a slave-based economy provided them with significant political power in the early decades of this nation's existence. That power was now being offset by a surge of immigrants, 95% of whom chose to settle in the Northern free states. Why did so many choose the North? Some because of an aversion to slavery, in principle. Some because of a pragmatic aversion to competing against slave labor. Some because the more diverse economy of the North provided a wider range of opportunities. In other words, one of the consequences of the choices made by Southerners to rely on a slave-based economy was that it made the region unattractive to most immigrants: immigrants whose ideas, labor, and capital helped fuel the Northern economy.

In order for me to accept the victimhood of the slave states (a victimhood so grievous as to justify revolution), particularly those in the deep south, I would have to believe one or more of statements below:

-They were coerced into accepting a slave-based economy

-The South was deprived of the knowledge of the benefits of diversification of crops/industry/commercial activity

-Somehow, they were unfairly deprived of their rightful representation in federal government

-That the federal government had consistently and illegally infringed upon the constitutional rights of slave owners

I'm sorry, but if someone is standing in a corner surrounded by wet paint, holding a bucket of paint and a brush, it's hard for me to believe the predicament is someone else's fault.

Yours,

JohnT

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 526

Re: Petition to Designate All Civil War-Related Monuments as National Monum
Posted on: 9/14/2017 7:00:13 PM
JohnT,

How about the fact that many immigrants had little choice in where they settled because they didn't have the economic ability to pick and choose and had to take the cheapest passage and didn't have the money to get that far from their port of entry. The shortest/quickest passage was to ports in the North because of currents and weather patterns. And the immigration patterns also had a effect on infrastructure and industrial development. You also have to factor in the availability of land and the shortest/quickest/cheepest route to available land. In many ways the overcrowding that new immigrations brought created available land because the new immigrants willingness to work for less kept putting existing citizen out of work and looking for that new frontier and selling their current farms and homesteads.

I'd also say that the choices made were those of the generations of the Founding Fathers and before because by the time of the Revolution the number of slaves in the South had already dictated the economic path although British laws against and form of industrialization in the colonies also factor in. I'd also add that generation a major factor in developing the national banking industry.

There is a very good description of these immigration patterns in "Irish Soldiers of Mexico" and in a book on the Know Nothings whose title escapes me right now. We respect you are talking the middle class and if you look at the numbers of this economic class of immigration its a lot more even split North and South and I really question your 95% split anyway. From everything I've read its more like 70%/30%.

EDIT My Great Grandparent, the parents of my Grandmother, both came over from Ireland in the late 1800 one through New York and the other through Philly and both had to take jobs in the port cities of their landing because they didn't have the money to get any farther and still eat for a few days.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


jthlmnn
Milwaukee, WI, USA
top 40
E-4 Corporal


Posts: 168

Re: Petition to Designate All Civil War-Related Monuments as National Monum
Posted on: 9/14/2017 11:14:30 PM
1860 census-Foreign Born, total of 4,138,697:

Northeast and Midwest = 3,567,263, or 86%.
West (Mountain and Pacific) = 179,002, or 4%
South = 392,432 or 9.5%

1850 census shows roughly the same 90%/10% split.
[Read More]

Yours,

JohnT

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 526

Re: Petition to Designate All Civil War-Related Monuments as National Monum
Posted on: 9/15/2017 1:14:25 AM
JohnT,

I wasn't counting the West, Mountain/Pacific, Mizzu I was putting in the South's category and I wasn't counting S Dakota either. So that would make it what about 85% to 15% so both of us are wrong. But the reality is that only in Tex, Ark and Mizzu is there available land. Look at the percentages in Wisc, Ill, Iowa, Minn, Mich, Neb and Kan all with available land. Then look at the major ports of the North and South for that matter, New York, PA, Mass, RI, NJ, Maryland and LA and notice high percentages. With respect your not taking into consideration all the facts when coming to your conclusion on immigration patterns and what caused them. Providence, Boston New York and Philly have to develop industrially to provide some form of employment to the mostly poorer immigration coming through those ports because there is no available land nearby and the immigrant doesn't have the money to get to the frontier where there is.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


 Civil War - General    
Page 2 of 2 (Page: 1  2) 
 Forum Ads from Google