Lost Cause: What Were They Thinking?

[bigrebnc1775]

The north was serious from day 1. Since they led the aggression.

It was southern intransigence that hastened the nation into a war that was long-coming, and an act war on the part of traitors that cast the final die.

You're burping out the garbage they taught in school.
I have a question for you
If the states had not been recognized as individual countries with a central government why did each state have it's own state constitution? After all the U.S. Constitution trumps everything, right? why was their any need for a state constitution?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Wrong. The South didn't take an aggressive stance ove rsecession. They wanted to leave the "union" and many of the day believed they had to right to do so. The north made a peaceful departure from the union impossible. As the goal was to "preserve the union". The problem with this line of thinking is that there is no union under the pretense of being forced into it. It' becomes something entirely different at that point.

The north was the aggressor. Or the south would have departed and kept the constitution they created under Davis. That was made impossible because the federal government did not want to lose authority over the states. It's that simple.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This "The South didn't take an aggressive stance over secession" is contradicted by the events and the facts.

The South fired on Old Glory to force its way out of the Union and metaphorically peed on the graves of the patriots of our War of Independence.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This "The South didn't take an aggressive stance over secession" is contradicted by the events and the facts.

The South fired on Old Glory to force its way out of the Union and metaphorically peed on the graves of the patriots of our War of Independence.

You are really inaccurate and missed a few things drama queen.
Some states had already left the union lincoln sending troops to reinforce sumter was an act of war.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You can not teach history to those who do not want to learn and instead, cling to political propaganda. Fake fits this mold.

 

[paperview]

Before they ever fired on Fort Sumter, the South was firing on US Ships, captured one for their own use as Man of War, seizing other the forts and military instillations in the South -- and they even seized the Mint filled with Gold -- before Lincoln was even inaugurated. Aggressive Acts of War.

They were gung ho from the get go -- foolishly arrogant, and never stood a chance of winning. Damn shame they had to take so many lives to fight for a government whose goal was to protect and preserve slavery.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Before they ever fired on Fort Sumter, the South was firing on US Ships, captured one for their own use as Man of War, seizing other the forts and military instillations in the South -- and they even seized the Mint filled with Gold -- before Lincoln was even inaugurated. Aggressive Acts of War.

They were gung ho from the get go -- foolishly arrogant, and never stood a chance of winning. Damn shame they had to take so many lives to fight for a government whose goal was to protect and preserve slavery.

A deliberate omission of the historiical facts, doesn't change the facts.

The Sumter issue was attempted first with diplomacy. As it was ON confederate lands. Those delegates sent to washington to negotiate a settlement of the Fort were turned away immediately. Without given any respect to negotiate. This is how Northern Statists spin the case. They attempt to say that a seceding state is aggressive in trying to unassociate itself with the federal government. It has nothing to do with the actual fort, because had the North NOT wanted a war to keep the states in the union, it would have diplomatically dealt with issues such as military installations on Sovereign state soil. It wholesale refused. The north wanted war and the south knew it, so they acted accordingly by attempting to force federal installments out of the states.

Face it, the entire argument coming from Northern apologists is that the states had no sovereign right to leave. Period. That even attempting to leave was treason and that the north had both the legal and moral right to FORCE seceding states to stay in the union. In other words, the north acted aggressively against the south to force them to do what the federal govt. wanted. Which was obey their decrees without objection or question.

Statists love forcing people to do things. It's their number 1 Modus Operandi.

 

[paperview]

Before they ever fired on Fort Sumter, the South was firing on US Ships, captured one for their own use as Man of War, seizing other the forts and military instillations in the South -- and they even seized the Mint filled with Gold -- before Lincoln was even inaugurated. Aggressive Acts of War.

They were gung ho from the get go -- foolishly arrogant, and never stood a chance of winning. Damn shame they had to take so many lives to fight for a government whose goal was to protect and preserve slavery.

A deliberate omission of the historiical facts, doesn't change the facts.

The Sumter issue was attempted first with diplomacy. As it was ON confederate lands. Those delegates sent to washington to negotiate a settlement of the Fort were turned away immediately. Without given any respect to negotiate. This is how Northern Statists spin the case. They attempt to say that a seceding state is aggressive in trying to unassociate itself with the federal government. It has nothing to do with the actual fort, because had the North NOT wanted a war to keep the states in the union, it would have diplomatically dealt with issues such as military installations on Sovereign state soil. It wholesale refused. The north wanted war and the south knew it, so they acted accordingly by attempting to force federal installments out of the states.

Face it, the entire argument coming from Northern apologists is that the states had no sovereign right to leave. Period. That even attempting to leave was treason and that the north had both the legal and moral right to FORCE seceding states to stay in the union. In other words, the north acted aggressively against the south to force them to do what the federal govt. wanted. Which was obey their decrees without objection or question.

Statists love forcing people to do things. It's their number 1 Modus Operandi.

1. January 1861, when they fired on US Ships and seized those forts and took that gold happened before Sumter. Acts of War.

2. SC ceded all rights to Fort Sumter in 1836. It was not theirs to take.

3. Crittenden Compromise, The Secession Commisioners,etc. etc. Short time-line for ya: Chronology of the Secession Crisis.

4. The south was itching to secede and nothing was going to stop them. Nothing unless the Union guaranteed them Slavery could remain and expand to all those future territories / states. The rebels weren't dumb in this respect: knew how to read a map.

And count.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

1. Back up your claim.

2. delegates were sent to settle this ispute through paying retribution for the fort. The north wholesale refues.

3. OK, totally irrelevant.

4. Thats right. They believed tey had the right to leave the union. And even in the face of SCOTUS ruling to the contrary, many still believe that without sucha right, a state is not sovereigna nd take issue with such consolidated authority. The Union didn't have to guarantee them anything. They rightfully believed that slavery and its institution was a state issue, not a federal authorty issue. Rightly so. The north should have peacefully facilitated a secession. Instead they wanted hot war for several reason. One being a warning to any additional states that may decide thata federal authoirty was a bad idea over the states. So, an example of the depth of violence in which the northern federal government would go to secure its authority over others.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Before they ever fired on Fort Sumter, the South was firing on US Ships, captured one for their own use as Man of War, seizing other the forts and military instillations in the South -- and they even seized the Mint filled with Gold -- before Lincoln was even inaugurated. Aggressive Acts of War.

They were gung ho from the get go -- foolishly arrogant, and never stood a chance of winning. Damn shame they had to take so many lives to fight for a government whose goal was to protect and preserve slavery.

A deliberate omission of the historiical facts, doesn't change the facts.

The Sumter issue was attempted first with diplomacy. As it was ON confederate lands. Those delegates sent to washington to negotiate a settlement of the Fort were turned away immediately. Without given any respect to negotiate. This is how Northern Statists spin the case. They attempt to say that a seceding state is aggressive in trying to unassociate itself with the federal government. It has nothing to do with the actual fort, because had the North NOT wanted a war to keep the states in the union, it would have diplomatically dealt with issues such as military installations on Sovereign state soil. It wholesale refused. The north wanted war and the south knew it, so they acted accordingly by attempting to force federal installments out of the states.

Face it, the entire argument coming from Northern apologists is that the states had no sovereign right to leave. Period. That even attempting to leave was treason and that the north had both the legal and moral right to FORCE seceding states to stay in the union. In other words, the north acted aggressively against the south to force them to do what the federal govt. wanted. Which was obey their decrees without objection or question.

Statists love forcing people to do things. It's their number 1 Modus Operandi.

1. January 1861, when they fired on US Ships and seized those forts and took that gold happened before Sumter. Acts of War.

2. SC ceded all rights to Fort Sumter in 1836. It was not theirs to take.

3. Crittenden Compromise, The Secession Commisioners,etc. etc. Short time-line for ya: Chronology of the Secession Crisis.

4. The south was itching to secede and nothing was going to stop them. Nothing unless the Union guaranteed them Slavery could remain and expand to all those future territories / states. The rebels weren't dumb in this respect: knew how to read a map.

And count.

confederate heritage

 

[Unkotare]

If the states had not been recognized as individual countries with a central government why did each state have it's own state constitution? After all the U.S. Constitution trumps everything, right? why was their any need for a state constitution?

Once again you fail at even basic logic. State governments never indicated that each state was a separate country (this wasn't the case even under the Articles) any more than local charters 'prove' that every little town is a nation unto itself.

Let's see: History, Logic, Political Science...is there any subject you do know anything about besides playing dress-up?

 

[Meathead]

Preamble to the Constitution:

The Declaration of Independence states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Preamble to the Constitution:

The Declaration of Independence states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

Northern apologists will simply state that the south had no basis for secession, and even still had no legal or moral authority to disassociate from teh federal government. You can not really argue with that type of Authoritarian logic diplomatically. it's either bow and obey or fight. That was what happened over the "civil war" (the biggest oximoron of all time....

 

[paperview]

1. Back up your claim.

...

*sigh*

I'll keep reposting as many times as it takes to get through.

The first shots were fired in January of 1861.

Buchanan was President and he was trying to resupply Sumter.


Click to enlarge

The South fired upon the Union Steamship Star of the West

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

Then converted her to a Man of War ship.
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.

==============


Further, another Timeline for you, from the SC Convention forward:

December 20, 1860: South Carolina convention passes ordinance of secession.
December 24, 1860: Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis introduces a "compromise" proposal which would effectively make slavery a national institution.
December 26, 1860: Major Anderson moves Federal garrison in Charleston, SC, from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter.
January 3, 1861: Georgia seizes Fort Pulaski. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.
January 4, 1861: Alabama seizes U.S. arsenal at Mount Vernon. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.
January 5, 1861: Alabama seizes Forts Morgan and Gaines. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.
January 6, 1861: Florida seizes Apalachicola arsenal. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE ARSENAL BEFORE THEY SECEDED.
January 7, 1861: Florida seizes Fort Marion. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.
January 8, 1861: Floridians try to seize Fort Barrancas but are chased off.
January 9, 1861: Mississippi secedes.

Star of the West fired on in Charleston Harbor <-- FIRING ON A SHIP - A CLEAR ACT OF WAR
THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR.
January 10, 1861: Florida secedes.

Louisiana seizes U.S. arsenal at Baton Rouge, as well as Forts Jackson and St. Philip.
January 11, 1861: Alabama secedes.

Louisiana seizes U.S. Marine Hospital.
January 14, 1861: Louisiana seizes Fort Pike. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.
January 19, 1861: Georgia secedes.
January 26, 1861: Louisiana secedes.
January 28, 1861: Tennessee Resolutions in favor of Crittenden Compromise offered in Congress.
February 1, 1861: Texas secedes.
February 8, 1861: Provisional Constitution of the Confederacy adopted in Montgomery, AL.

Arkansas seizes U.S. Arsenal at Little Rock.
February 12, 1861: Arkansas seizes U.S. ordnance stores at Napoleon.
February 18, 1861: Jefferson Davis inaugurated as President of the Confederacy.
March 4, 1861: Abraham Lincoln inaugurated as 16th President of the United States.
March 21, 1861: "Cornerstone speech" delivered by Alexander Stephens. (This is where the Confederate V President lays it out clearly: Slavery is the Cornerstone of the Confederacy.)

April 12, 1861: Fort Sumter fired upon by Confederates.
THE WAR OFFICIALLY BEGINS.

 

[paperview]

2. delegates were sent to settle this ispute through paying retribution for the fort. The north wholesale refues.

Retribution? Punishment for the fort?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If the states had not been recognized as individual countries with a central government why did each state have it's own state constitution? After all the U.S. Constitution trumps everything, right? why was their any need for a state constitution?

Once again you fail at even basic logic. State governments never indicated that each state was a separate country (this wasn't the case even under the Articles) any more than local charters 'prove' that every little town is a nation unto itself.

Let's see: History, Logic, Political Science...is there any subject you do know anything about besides playing dress-up?

You're failing junior. ok I guess I'll have to talk down to you.
If the states were not considered individual sovereign nations why did they have state Constitutions? After all with the U.S. Constitution and it being the law of the law there would not be any need for another Constitution? Right?
They would have suspend the state Constitution wouldn't they have?

Of course they would have kept the state governments to maintain the everyday busniess of the states, but to have a state constitution seems kind of a waste wouldn't you agree?

 

[paperview]

As for the denial they weren't spoiling for a war, I bring you this little tidbit:

During the presidential race of 1856, John C. Fremont was the Republican candidate. Slavery was a hot hot hot topic during this election and the South was bitterly opposed to him because of the party's anti-slavery views.

The leading Senator of Virginia, James Mason wrote to Jefferson Davis, who would later become the president of the Confederate States and was then the Secretary of War under Franklin Pierce:

I have a letter from [Virginia Governor Henry] WISE, of the 27th, full of spirit. He says the Governments of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Louisiana, have already agreed to rendezvous at Raleigh, and others will—this in your most private ear. He says, further, that he had officially requested you to exchange with Virginia, on fair terms of difference, percussion for flint muskets. I don't know the usage or power of the Department in such cases, but if it can be done, even by liberal construction, I hope you will accede. Virginia probably has more arms than the other Southern States, and would divide in case of need. In a letter yesterday to a Committee in South Carolina. I gave it as my judgment, in the event of FREMONT's election, the South should not pause, but proceed at once to "immediate, absolute, and eternal separation."
​

The Century Illustrated Monthly Magazine - Google Books

There you have it. A leading Southern Senator directly requesting the Secretary of War to arm the southern states for war against the United States,

this was a full four years before any actual secession, based on what?
Yes, the possibility there might be a Republican president. Because a Republican president threatened their plans to expand slavery.

Well, Fremont lost, (owing much to these Southern threats of war) -- but can anyone deny the saber rattling and drum beating that existed for years before Lincoln? How?

And here a letter from the governor of Virginia to the governors of Maryland and other States:

----> "Richmond, Va., Sept. 15th, 1856.
"Dear Sir: Events are approaching which address themselves to your responsibilities and to mine as chief Executives of slave-holding States. Contingencies may soon happen which would require preparation for the worst of evils to the people. Ought we not to admonish ourselves by joint counsel of the extraordinary duties which may devolve upon us from the dangers which so palpably threaten our common peace and safety? When, how, or to what extent may we act, separately or unitedly, to ward off dangers if we can, to meet them most effectually if we must?

The Century Illustrated Monthly Magazine - Google Books

 

[paperview]

South Carolina had no claim to Fort Sumter. They ceded ALL right to it 25 years earlier.

Committee on Federal Relations
In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836

"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:

"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
"In Senate, December 21st, 1836

"Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:

Jacob Warly, C. S.

All claim to the site of the fort was extinguished then -- it was fully the property of the US Federal Government. That AFTER the CSA attacked and seized the fort they couldn't own and attempted to pay for it is meaningless.

Seizing Federal ships I guess was something the South figured they could lay claim to as well.

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."

 

[bigrebnc1775]

South Carolina had no claim to Fort Sumter. They ceded ALL right to it 25 years earlier.

Committee on Federal Relations
In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836

"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:

"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
"In Senate, December 21st, 1836

"Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:

Jacob Warly, C. S.

All claim to the site of the fort was extinguished then -- it was fully the property of the US Federal Government. That AFTER the CSA attacked and seized the fort they couldn't own and attempted to pay for it is meaningless.

Seizing Federal ships I guess was something the South figured they could lay claim to as well.

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."

OH is that like thew government have a base in another country? Yes I think it is.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Paperview has those talking points on repeater. It's useless to bother debating their merit. Paperview will simply continnue to post them as "proof" that the south was looking to go to war. Even though paperview links to show that they were looking to LEAVE the unioin upon the election of Fremont.