The War of Southern Aggression

Discussion in 'Education' started by Rogue 9, Mar 22, 2010.

  1. Rogue 9
    Offline

    Rogue 9 The Anti-Confederate

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2008
    Messages:
    117
    Thanks Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +22
    “The War of Northern Aggression” is a popular phrase among Confederate apologists, referring to the supposed outrageous aggression shown by the Union to bring the otherwise peaceful Confederate States back under its rule. But how true is it?

    I have dealt at length in previous essays about the motivations of the Slave Power and with the constitutional issues of secession itself. Here, I will concentrate on what the states of the Deep South did in the decades leading up to the Civil War and their part in bringing war upon the United States.

    The Nullification Crisis and John C. Calhoun

    On November 24, 1832 a so-called Nullification Convention of South Carolina passed the Ordinance of Nullification, unilaterally declaring the federal tariffs of 1828 and 1832 unconstitutional and void within the boundaries of the state. Concurrently, Governor Robert Hayne began military preparations to resist federal enforcement, raising a volunteer minuteman army of 2,000 cavalry and 25,000 infantry. The famous Force Bill authorizing military action against South Carolina was passed by Congress in February 1833, but a compromise tariff acceptable to South Carolina was also passed at the same time, prompting the withdrawal of the Ordinance and defusing the military crisis. Although violence did not result, South Carolina's willingness to use force to resolve internal political disputes was well established.

    One of Nullification's chief architects was John C. Calhoun, a leading South Carolina politician and Andrew Jackson's vice president. The split with Jackson over nullification prompted Calhoun's resignation and run for the Senate in 1832, but his long career of political blackmail against Northern interests and particularly abolitionists extended back even into his days as a loyal vice president. In 1826, when confronted with the prospect of recognition of the independence of Haiti (which had recently undergone a revolution against French colonialism led by free blacks and the island's slaves), Calhoun had dire warnings for his government. To Secretary of the Navy Samuel Southard, he wrote:

    The implicit threat achieved the hoped-for result: The United States did not recognize Haiti until 1862, with the Civil War in full swing and its agitation of the Deep South long past relevant. Nor was this the last time Calhoun would use the tactic of predicting the destruction of the Union as a result of a proposed policy to thwart its implementation. On March 4, 1850, less than a month before his death, Calhoun prepared a speech for the Senate floor which was read by Senator James Mason of Alabama, due to Calhoun's failing health leaving him unable to speak. In it, he extensively laid the blame for Southern discontent directly at the feet of the North, speaking in broad terms of the sections as wholes and warning of disunion should the North not agree to Southern demands. In his conclusion, he stated:

    The speech was a rhetorical masterpiece, methodically (and intentionally) laying the North and South at odds with each other, alleging a crisis, and then laying all responsibility for solving it upon the North. Calhoun sent a copy of the speech to Henry W. Conner, accompanied by this letter:

    By this, if by nothing else he wrote, it is clear that Calhoun was intentionally engaging in political brinksmanship, aggressively gambling with the Union itself to achieve his political goal of spreading what he saw as the positive good of slavery. The “equal right” in California he referred to in his speech was the right to hold slaves, which he conflated with the rights of the Southern section in general as a rhetorical device; the point of contention was whether or not California should be admitted to the Union as a free state without a counterpart slave state to keep representation in the Senate equal. Far from the typical picture of a reluctant South seceding as a last resort to escape Northern oppression, Calhoun was quite willing and even eager to destroy the Union for political gain.

    Threats and Violence: California, Preston Brooks, and the House (Divided)

    Such tactics and sentiments were hardly unique to Calhoun, and not all those who agreed with him were so subtle. On the issue of California, Congressman Albert Brown of Mississippi said on the House floor:

    In response to Calhoun's speech, James Hammond, a fellow South Carolinian planter and slaveholder, wrote to the Senator two days later, saying:

    Of course, California was admitted and none of these things came to pass, but not for lack of concessions to the Slave Power. As part of the compromise for the admission of California (the aptly named Compromise of 1850) the remaining former Mexican territories (Utah and New Mexico) enacted slave codes, the infamous Fugitive Slave Act was strengthened (barring free states from requiring trials for alleged escaped slaves and requiring the assistance of their law enforcement in capturing fugitives, removing much of the nothern states' right to self-government), and California even sent one pro-slavery Senator to Washington to maintain “balance” in the Senate despite such views not representing the state's population.

    These tactics of threatening disunion and war if this or that policy was not acceded to by the free states continued throughout the 1850s. During the presidential race of 1856, the candidacy of Republican John C. Frémont was vehemently opposed in the South for his party's anti-slavery views, leading Senator James Mason of Virginia to write to Jefferson Davis, who would later become the president of the Confederate States and was then the Secretary of War under Franklin Pierce:

    Senator Mason directly requested the Secretary of War to arm the southern states for war against the United States, a full four years before any actual secession, based on the possibility of a Republican president. This did not come to pass, of course, because Frémont lost the election (in no small part due to the specter of the threat of war), but even the asking is telling.

    But that's child's play compared to the election of the Speaker of the House in 1859. In that year, a Republican representative from Ohio by the name of John Sherman was a candidate for the Speaker's gavel. That he was a Republican was bad enough for the delegations of the slave states, but the real rub was that Sherman had endorsed Hinton Helper's controversial (in the South) book, The Impending Crisis of the South: How to Meet It, in which Helper, a virulently racist North Carolinian, argued against slavery on the basis that it destroyed property values and otherwise retarded the economy of the South, to the detriment of non-slaveholding whites. Nevermind that Sherman had withdrawn his endorsement after learning the full extent of Helper's views, or that Helper was not a morally-motivated abolitionist; he was an abolitionist nonetheless, and no one who had ever endorsed his book would be Speaker if the Congressional delegation of South Carolina had anything to say about it.

    As it happens, they had quite a bit to say, and every word scathingly treasonous, even by secessionist standards. Because they did not propose secession, peaceful or otherwise, should Sherman win the seat; rather they were prepared to initiate a bloody coup on the House floor. Representative William Porcher Miles of South Carolina was prepared to do anything to prevent Sherman's taking of the Speakership, and asked Governor William Gist of South Carolina whether the legislature there would support the Congressional delegation's plotting. In response, on December 20, 1859 (one year to the day before South Carolina's secession) Gist posted a letter to Miles. While he cautioned against rashly provoking the free states, advising that a bloodless revolution would be preferable, he placed the matter in Miles' judgment, saying:

    To be clear, this wasn't a matter of national slavery policy, or even of lasting legislation at all; the government of South Carolina was prepared to use military force to influence the internal political workings of the federal Congress over what amounted to personal dislike of the candidate for an action the candidate had since disavowed. Once again, this crisis was defused by the free state delegations acceding to Southern demands; Sherman was withdrawn from consideration as a candidate for Speaker.

    Even when not threatening violence and rebellion, Calhoun's mode of threatening secession and disunion continued to be popular with slave state politicians throughout the 1850s. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, nullifying the Missouri Compromise by permitting the slavery question to be determined by popular sovereignty (and setting the stage for Bleeding Kansas, in which opposing sides attempting to gain a majority of the electorate simply by killing the other side's voters), was passed under such threats, and when popular sovereignty failed to deliver a slave state in Kansas, threats of secession were again made if the pro-slavery Lecompton Constitution was not accepted as the governing document of a new state of Kansas. “If Kansas is driven out of the Union for being a slave state, can any slave state remain in it with honor?” asked Senator Hammond of South Carolina (who, readers will no doubt recall, advocated burning down the Capitol if California was not made a slave state). These threats prompted President Buchanan to urge acceptance of the Lecompton document, saying that if he did not, the slave states would “secede from the Union or take up arms against us.” In the end, the Lecompton document was rejected and sent back for a new referendum, which failed; Kansas would not become a state, slave or free, for quite some time yet, removing the immediate crisis.

    But no account of 1850s slave state aggression would be complete without mentioning Preston Brooks, representative of South Carolina, and his armed assault against Senator Charles Sumner on the Senate floor on May 22, 1856. Senator Sumner had in the preceding days given a speech denouncing the slaughter in the Kansas territory over the slavery issue, and had scathing words for Senator Andrew Butler, a relative of Brooks. In response, Brooks, along with two companions, walked into the Senate chamber, briefly addressed Sumner, and then commenced beating him with a heavy cane, cudgeling the Senator until he broke his bolted down Senate desk from the floor, rendered Sumner unconscious, and continued beating the unfortunate Senator until he broke his cane.

    The incident was instantly infamous. Brooks was roundly censured by the House, but nearly unanimously reelected by his constituents. He received new canes from all over the South, including one bearing the inscription “Use Knock-Down Arguments” and another saying “Hit Him Again.”

    The Crisis Comes: 1860-61

    By the close of the 1850s, the long string of Southern aggressions had long since begun to wear thin on the patience of the free states, and especially the Republican Party. Abraham Lincoln, by now a candidate for President, said in an address to the Cooper Institute in New York, intended to be read by Southerners:

    Of course, Lincoln's candidacy was successful. This was the first time anyone since Andrew Jackson who had shown any backbone in standing up to their threats had taken high office. The Deep South's secessions were swift. South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas all seceded before Lincoln even took office. I have extensively covered their stated reasons for doing so elsewhere, but preemptive secession (and accompanying seizure of federal property, notably forts and armories) is not a passive act, to put it mildly. On January 11, 1861, the day of Alabama's secession, Lincoln wrote to a Republican congressman who proposed an emergency compromise to forestall and reverse the secessions:

    Compromise at this stage was impossible. Lincoln saw, with more clarity than his predecessor, that the South would never cease holding threats over the heads of the free states until the question was solved. “The tug has to come, and better now than later,” he wrote in December, 1860. All that remained now was the tug itself.

    That came at Fort Sumter. The fort was a federal installation, manned by federal troops, which the state of South Carolina had by statute voluntarily surrendered all claim to in 1836. In short, it was thoroughly the property of the United States, even if one is so generous as to presume the legitimacy of secession through the means used by South Carolina. As every high school student in the United States knows, South Carolinian forces fired on Fort Sumter from the batteries of Fort Johnson, Fort Moultrie, and Cummings Point starting at 4:30 am on April 12, 1861.

    This was, of course, the ultimate aggression of the South: Southern partisans bombarded and captured a manned United States military fortification, touching off a war that killed more Americans than any other war in history, almost as many as all other American wars combined.

    Conclusion

    The American Civil War was thoroughly of Southern construction. Between the administrations of Jackson and Lincoln, the federal government and free states had bent over backwards at every threat of the slaveholding South to prevent disunion; every single threat of secession and war was met with compromise and backing down. The so-called War of Northern Aggression is a fictional construct by the defenders of the fictional country known as the Confederate States of America, a thorough distortion of well-documented historical fact.

    Author's Note: This essay's title, “The War of Southern Aggression,” is shared by an essay by James M. McPherson, a fact I discovered while conducting research for this article. Dr. McPherson's work is extremely well-written, and I recommend it to anyone with an interest in this subject. His book of essays containing his work by this title may be found on Google Books here, but I recommend purchasing the book, as I did after discovering it. No infringement is intended.
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. Rogue 9
    Offline

    Rogue 9 The Anti-Confederate

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2008
    Messages:
    117
    Thanks Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +22
    Well, since the Civil War seems to be a more popular topic of conversation lately, maybe this needs to be back up top. :razz: So I'm not simply bumping without adding content, here's one of the previous essays I referenced at the beginning of the OP, which I include because of the multiple disingenuous attempts lately to say I claim the Union went to war against slavery, rather than the Confederacy going to war for it. This was from another board some time ago. Note: I refer to the Confederate States as the "Slave Power" because that was the name given to it, and before it the political power of Southern slaveholders, by the abolitionist movement, and I will continue to refer to it as such until I no longer hear the American Civil War referred to as the "War of Northern Aggression."

    Names and identifying links have been removed to protect the guilty. All content following this paragraph is copied from the post I made.

    This post stems from [subject]'s recent blog entry, [redacted]. I am not here to argue about Abraham Lincoln's behavior in office; my objection stems from the implicit and explicit positions taken in some of the comments following the original post, to wit, that not only was Lincoln imperfect, but the Confederate States, hereinafter referred to as the Slave Power, its far more accurate nom de guerre of the period, were in the right to behave as they did.

    Nothing could be further from the historical truth. Having had this discussion before, I know that this is the point where Confederate apologists will start accusing me of being brainwashed by the history of the victors, so let me squelch that now: My argument is based solely on primary-source documents of the Civil War, not historical accounts written after the fact.

    To specify, my argument is this: That the Slave Power had absolutely no interest in states' rights as a principle, but rather used it as a fig leaf to cover their true interest, the perpetuation of chattel slavery. That the Union was not at war to end slavery affects this not at all; the political tides of the Union were moving in such a way that the end of slavery was inevitable, and this is primarily why the states of the Slave Power seceded.

    To prove this assertion, I shall quote from certain documents produced by some of the Confederate states, the appropriately named Declarations of the Causes of Secession. I will start with Mississippi. The remainder of the documents may be found at the links I provide, so that all necessary context is available.
    The remainder of the document lists specific grievances, most of which are directly related to slavery. None of them have anything to do with state sovereignty except insofar as the issue affects slavery, and in fact, rails against states' rights in one case where it is inconvenient to slavery, to wit:
    Yet according to popular Confederate doctrine, nullification is a right of the states. I suppose it only counts when it's used in furtherance of slavery.

    The rest of the whole damning document may be read at the reference link at the top of the first quote box. Now on to the Declaration of Causes for the state of Georgia, where we get our first glimpse of Lincoln's role in the secessionists' motives. The Georgia legislature was apparently fond of giant walls-o'-text with no paragraphs, making it harder to extract discrete quotes since the document is poorly organized, but the link is provided and I will extract the relevant parts as best I can.
    Well, they certainly got right to the point. You'll find that that's a theme in these documents. Now, I promised Lincoln's role, and now I give it to you. Keep in mind that this was published before Lincoln's inauguration, during the end of the Buchanan administration.
    You'll have to forgive me if I don't take their rantings about waste and corruption completely at face value, since it serves their purposes to trash the Republican Party at this juncture, but note that even with all that, their primary complaint is that Lincoln and the Republicans oppose slavery. The rest of the document is, as I said, a one-paragraph wall of text, so I will not quote the remainder, but anyone who cares to read it will find that the complaints continue in the vain of railing about restrictions against slavery.

    Now for Texas. There are several interesting things to be found in this one. Unique among the states that declared their causes, they do not jump straight into slavery and list some other complaints, but it is clear that slavery is the driving force.
    The section in blue highlights a direct admission by Texas that it surrendered its separate national character, something commonly disputed by neo-Confederates. This issue did not specifically come up in the LiveJournal comments that sparked this thread, but I thought I might as well head it off at the pass as long as I was already quoting this document. As before, the red highlights references to slavery as a complaint. Moving on.
    I quote this paragraph mainly to point out that it is a bald-faced lie, as the territories were under Federal administration, not any sort of joint administration by the state governments. Here's an interesting tidbit, which has little to do with slavery, but does highlight just how little the Confederates respected the republican form of government, despite taking on it's trappings:
    This is a complaint? That's kind of what the majority does in a republic; if you want to get your way all the time, form a dictatorship. Moving on, at the end of the document the Texan legislature was kind enough to explicitly outline their views for posterity, to wit:
    Ouch. That one's got to sting. Particularly as a number of the "African race," as they so delicately put it, did in fact fight and die in the American Revolution to establish this country, which in my book would give them considerable agency in its establishment, if generational ties to the Revolutionaries actually mattered, which they don't. And I daresay they went straight through slavery and into heresy at the end there.

    And now, last but hardly least, we come to South Carolina, the state that, as usual, started all the trouble. They didn't get straight to the point at all, engaging in a long and largely inaccurate history lesson before getting down to business in their Declaration. But when they did get to the point, oh boy did they get to it.
    All. About. Slavery.

    I think we've heard enough, but there's one last thing on the founding subject, and unlike the Declarations, I shall quote it in full. That is a speech by Alexander Stephens, member of Georgia's secession convention (where he opposed secession) and Vice President of the Slave Power. The speech is commonly known as the Cornerstone Address.
    So, we continue to establish that the foundation of the Slave Power was in fact slavery; the name attached to it by the abolitionists was not idle political trash talk. Not only that, but apparently I'm insane to believe that the color of a person's skin does not make him inherently superior or inferior. :lol: Also, note: More heresy.

    And just to put the final nail in the coffin, we go to the Confederate Constitution, of which Stephens was speaking in the above address.
    Oh, and just for fun, from the constitution's preamble:
    "Permanent federal government." So they weren't any happier about secession from the Slave Power than the Union was about secession from itself. :lol: Which was amply demonstrated by Confederate treatment of the Unionists of eastern Tennessee, who wished to rejoin the Union; namely, eastern Tennessee was put down and occupied by military force, and pro-Union inhabitants conscripted into the Confederate armies, but that's peripheral to the point.

    Which brings me around to the other part of my assertion; not only did I claim that slavery was a primary motivator, but that the Slave Power did not value states' rights. I touched on this slightly above in some of the other quotes, but the one thing that most lays this to rest is the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. This law effectively removed the northern states' rights to regulate the enforcement of the law within their own borders, superseding and repealing at the federal level the personal liberty laws of the free states, which did such terrible things as requiring that those seeking fugitive slaves produce evidence that their captives were fugitives, and affording those accused of being fugitives from slavery the right to a jury trial. The Fugitive Slave Act, pushed by slave state delegations to Congress, ran roughshod over the rights of the free states because those rights were inconvenient to slavery. If states' rights were such a near and dear principle as is often claimed in the modern day, this would never have happened. The full text for the Act.

    I believe I have thoroughly established evidence for my assertion. Since there are apparently some here inclined to dispute it, I await their replies.
  3. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    16,550
    Thanks Received:
    1,447
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +1,554
    The roots of nullification go much deeper than just John C. Calhoun, to the days of Jefferson and Madison and the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798.

    And if the south was such a nuisance to the north it would seem like good policy to simply wish them well and let them go, rather than waging a war to force them to stay.
  4. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    34,769
    Thanks Received:
    4,394
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +4,553
    The South saw to it no peaceful resolution would occur. Lincoln REFUSED to act as the South rebelled, wanting to wait for the Congress to act. The South would have none of that resorting to armed rebellion, FORCING Lincoln to raise an Army in defense of the loyal States.
  5. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    16,550
    Thanks Received:
    1,447
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +1,554
    Right, the south saw to it that no peaceful resolution would occur. Because they didn't try to settle the issue peacefully by sending delegates to meet with Lincoln that Lincoln refused to meet with, right?
  6. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    34,769
    Thanks Received:
    4,394
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +4,553
    Who fired the first shot? Who forced the issue? Who was screaming for blood? Who raised armies while the other side did not?
  7. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    16,550
    Thanks Received:
    1,447
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +1,554
    Who ignored the peaceful delegates and belligerently forced the other side to fire because they fully intended to wage a war that was up to that point not politically popular?
  8. paperview
    Offline

    paperview Life is Good

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    9,644
    Thanks Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    90
    Location:
    the road less traveled
    Ratings:
    +1,861
    We've been here before Kevin.

    The South fired the first shots even before Lincoln was President.
  9. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    16,550
    Thanks Received:
    1,447
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +1,554
    Yes, in another act of belligerence by Lincoln's predecessor, at least he had the sense not to escalate the situation. This prior incident also shows that Lincoln knew what the consequences of his actions would be, and still went ahead and tried to resupply Fort Sumter. He knew the south would attack, and he knew he could use that to get public opinion on his side for a war with the south.
  10. paperview
    Offline

    paperview Life is Good

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    9,644
    Thanks Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    90
    Location:
    the road less traveled
    Ratings:
    +1,861
    Kevin - it was OUR Fort. It belonged to the Federal Government.

    South Carolina had no more right to its possession than Kentucky does to Fort Knox
  11. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,590
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,592
    The debate about history that will not die.

    Why not?

    Because some people revise history to make it a debate.

    Waste of time trying to convice those who believe lies, folks.

    Read your history.
  12. Big Black Dog
    Offline

    Big Black Dog Everybody's favorite doggie. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    22,286
    Thanks Received:
    4,412
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    Northwestern Illinois
    Ratings:
    +4,431
    I was just wondering... If the South had of won the Civil War, would there be a requirement for all eating establishments to have grits on the menu? Might not be such a bad thing - just saying.
  13. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,590
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,592
    The North won.

    Is scapple and baked beans for breakfast on every menu?
  14. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    16,550
    Thanks Received:
    1,447
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +1,554
    And the Colonies had no more right to anything than South Carolina did to Fort Sumter.
  15. rikules
    Offline

    rikules fighting thugs and cons

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    1,866
    Thanks Received:
    305
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +305

    you?
    tea baggers?
    conservative right wingers?
    conservative militia?
  16. Rogue 9
    Offline

    Rogue 9 The Anti-Confederate

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2008
    Messages:
    117
    Thanks Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +22
    Buchanan had the cowardice to refuse to execute the duties of his office. South Carolina had no claim to Fort Sumter. Want proof? Here you go:
    As the above bill passed by the South Carolina legislature twenty-five years before clearly states, all claim of the state to the site of the fort was extinguished, and it was wholly the property of the United States federal government. South Carolinian insurgents attacked the fort without first being fired upon (from batteries that had also been given over to the federal government in like manner, I might add), which is an act of war, and since they were citizens of the United States, an act of treason as well.
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  17. hortysir
    Offline

    hortysir In Memorial of 47

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2010
    Messages:
    15,593
    Thanks Received:
    2,883
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Lakeland, FL
    Ratings:
    +2,883
    Shit.

    You could have just given us the link to the audio book....
  18. Rogue 9
    Offline

    Rogue 9 The Anti-Confederate

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2008
    Messages:
    117
    Thanks Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +22
    :lol: Really? You'd rather I just said "ZOMG, t3h South suxxors!!1!" rather than supporting my position? Discussing history in a meaningful way requires documentation, and I'm not here to engage in meaningless drivel.
  19. rdean
    Offline

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    42,217
    Thanks Received:
    3,959
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +4,162
    Conclusion

    The American Civil War was thoroughly of Southern construction. Between the administrations of Jackson and Lincoln, the federal government and free states had bent over backwards at every threat of the slaveholding South to prevent disunion; every single threat of secession and war was met with compromise and backing down. The so-called War of Northern Aggression is a fictional construct by the defenders of the fictional country known as the Confederate States of America, a thorough distortion of well-documented historical fact.

    Well, you know what they say, "History repeats itself".

    Right wing Confederate Republicans have refused to negotiate with this president on anything. They have publicly announced they want him to fail and time after time have hoped for an Obama "Waterloo".

    You have right wing conservatives screaming "socialism" and "government medicine" while collecting Social Security and Medicare.

    Obama expands "gun rights" and right wingers say he will only take their guns, "barrel first".

    We are paying the lowest tax rate in 50 years and right wingers are screaming, "Stop Taxes", giving the impression they have no idea where Medicaid and Medicare come from.

    Even while they shout "boy" and "thug", they insist there is "nothing racist" in their rhetoric.

    The amazing thing is the "restraint" Obama has shown with these White Wing Morons.

    Check out the new GOP Platform of "Maine" which was replaced by the Tea bag Platform. It's a "hoot".

    And after all the damage Republicans did for 8 years, they insist, this time, they will get it "right".

    Get what right? The total destruction of the United States of America? Maybe it's their way of finally "winning" the Civil War? You think that's what it could be? The Destruction of the United States is the Confederate South finally "winning".
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2010
  20. paperview
    Offline

    paperview Life is Good

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    9,644
    Thanks Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    90
    Location:
    the road less traveled
    Ratings:
    +1,861
    Excellent citation.

    :clap2:

    The earlier Act of War from the South not many seem to know about,
    before Lincoln was president:

    [​IMG]


    They took a ship and seized it: "The Marion."

    Then converted her to a Man of War ship.

    [​IMG]
    THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." ; SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR.


    Star of the West

    Note the date on the Harpers Weekly newspaper: January, 1861, linked above.

    THE FIRST OF THE WAR.

    WE publish herewith pictures of the United States steam-sloop Brooklyn, and of the steamship Star of the West, and of the steamship Marion, which three vessels figured so prominently in the movements of last week; and on page 37 we give a large plan of Charleston harbor, showing the forts, etc., together with a view of Fort Johnson. These pictures w ill enable our readers to realize what is going on in this most memorable contest of the present age.
    On Wednesday morning, January 9, 1861, the

    first shots were fired At daybreak on that morning at the steamship Star of the West, with 250 United States troops on board, attempted to enter the harbor of Charleston for the purpose of communicating with Fort Sumter. The people of Charleston had been warned of her coming and of her errand by telegraph. They determined to prevent her reaching Fort Sumter. Accordingly, as soon as she came within range, batteries on Morris Island and at Fort Moultrie opened on her. The first shot was fired across her bows ; whereupon she increased her speed, and hoisted the stars and stripes. Other shots were then fired in rapid

    succession from Morris Island, two or more of which hulled the steamer, and compelled her to put about and go to sea. The accompanying picture shows the Star of the West as she entered Charleston harbor; the plan will explain the situation of the forts, and the position of the steamer when she was fired upon. The channel through which she passed runs close by Morris Island for some distance.
    Fort Sumter made no demonstration, except at the port-holes, where guns were run out bearing on Morris Island.

    Seizing Federal ships I guess was something the South figured they could lay claim to as well. Never mind the property of the United States Fort, which SC released all claim to in 1836, as you noted above.

    Do "States Rights" give States the Rights to break legally binding Contracts / Resolutions they formally agreed to?

    SC: "Hey! we didn't really mean it when we agreed to it." :lol:

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

the war of southern aggression