New Website on the American Civil War

[Quantrill]

Never did
Read the Supremacy Clause

Again, what does the 10th amendment say?

Quantrill

 

[rightwinger]

Again, what does the 10th amendment say?

Quantrill

HAS NOTHING to do with secession

 

[Robert W]

Never did
Read the Supremacy Clause

Minnesota needs to read that clause.

 

[Quantrill]

HAS NOTHING to do with secession

Again, what does it say? If it has nothing to do with secession, why are you scared to say what it says?

Quantrill

 

[mikegriffith1]

When you say 'playing into the hands of the Radical Republicans' you're speaking of Lincoln and Seward.

No, no, no. Not at all. Lincoln and Seward were not even close to being Radical Republicans. I'm talking about the likes of Benjamin Wade, Thaddeus Stevens, Henry Davis, George Julian, and Charles Sumner, all of whom were quite anxious to use secession as an excuse for an invasion, and all of whom already viewed Lincoln with growing suspicion.

Davis idiotically played right into the Radicals' hands by attacking Sumter. He cut the legs right out from under the Northern moderates who were trying to avoid war.

They were not looking for a peaceful accommodation.

You don't know what you're talking about. Lincoln and Seward wanted to avoid war. As even some leading Lincoln historians have noted, there is every indication that Lincoln was willing to allow the status quo to continue as long as the Confederacy did not attack Sumter or invade the North.

When you say 'playing into their hands', you admit the North started the War.

Uh, no, the Confederacy started the war by idiotically bombarding the federal garrison on Sumter, a garrison that was doing nothing to impede shipping in Charleston Harbor.

The South 'peacefully' seceded.

Yes, that's true, but the Deep South states had no valid reason to secede.

It was left up to Lincoln and the North to decide for war.

This is fantasy. Davis showed what a bumbling incompetent he was when he pleaded for peace after attacking Sumter. It is mind boggling that he did not comprehend that attacking Sumter would enrage Northern public opinion and give the war-hungry Radical Republicans the perfect excuse for demanding--and getting--an invasion.

Buchannan and Lincoln were not just sending food. They were sending food and arms and lying about it the whole time. Both were caught in their lies. What a presidential cabinet that was. And you believe their lies and now spread their lies.

The convoy that Lincoln sent was only going to deliver food. The convoy had express orders not to fire unless fired upon first.

Secession was justified.

How? Why? What was the justification? Lincoln posed no threat to Southern slavery. The South still controlled the Senate. The South's economy was doing fine. John Brown had been hung. Most of Lincoln's cabinet selections were conservative and moderates who had no interest in disturbing slavery where it already existed. The Morrill Tariff rates were not as high as some previous rates The issue of slavery in the territories was a bogus, phony issue--even when all the territories were open for slavery after the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, literally only a handful of slaves were taken there.

So what was the Deep South's justification for refusing to honor Lincoln's election?

Oh you like to preach 'constitutional duty' concerning the South. Yet the North didn't give a &^%^$ about their 'constitutional duty'.

Yes, the Southern states were required by the Constitution to honor the results of the 1860 election, but the seven Deep South states refused to do so. The North never refused to honor a presidential election.

In fact, the North branded the Constitution a 'covenant with death and hell'.

Oh, come on. Only the Radicals said those things about the Constitution.

The North resisted the Constitutional fugitive slave law. (Art. IV Sec. 2 Clause 3) And they resisted the fugitive slave act of 1850. And they resisted the Dred Scott decision.

Wrong. Most Northern states were still honoring the Fugitive Slave Act. And exactly how were any Northern states "resisting" the Dred Scott decision, other than condemning it? Plus, many Northerners had no problem with the Dred Scott ruling.

And they allowed John Brown to roam free in the North, as he prepared for his invasion of the South at Harpers Ferry. Which, by the way was the first shot fired in the War Between The States. And they supported John Browns invasion, helping him with freedom and funds.

Only a few people knew what Brown was planning. Brown's raid was loudly and roundly condemned by most Northerners.

Yet you say the South had a 'constitutional duty'. The South had a constitutional duty to its people to secede.

On what basis? What justification? They had none. Most of their excuses centered around slavery in the territories, which was hardly a valid reason to break up the Union.

Why do we need to keep in mind the secession of the lower and upper Southern States?

Because they seceded for very different reasons. When secession was clearly based largely on slavery, the four Upper South states solidly rejected it.

Because it shows that War was Lincoln's intention all along.

This is erroneous. You need to read some serious Lincoln scholarship and not just neo-Confederate sources. Lincoln most assuredly did not want war and did all he reasonably could to avoid it.

Lincoln didn't come down to free any damn slave. He came down to destroy the South, set up a new Constitution, whereby the New England Yankee was in control of all States and the westward expansion.

This is also erroneous. Look at the lenient, mild, reasonable reconstruction terms that Lincoln established in Louisiana and Arkansas, even well before the war ended. The Radicals screamed bloody murder against those terms. When the Radicals tried to impose harsher reconstruction terms via the Wade-Davis bill, Lincoln vetoed the bill.

I don't think you understand just how much the Radicals hated Lincoln and Seward and anyone else who was not determined to savage the South.

 

[Quantrill]

No, no, no. Not at all. Lincoln and Seward were not even close to being Radical Republicans. I'm talking about the likes of Benjamin Wade, Thaddeus Stevens, Henry Davis, George Julian, and Charles Sumner, all of whom were quite anxious to use secession as an excuse for an invasion, and all of whom already viewed Lincoln with growing suspicion.

Davis idiotically played right into the Radicals' hands by attacking Sumter. He cut the legs right out from under the Northern moderates who were trying to avoid war.


You don't know what you're talking about. Lincoln and Seward wanted to avoid war. As even some leading Lincoln historians have noted, there is every indication that Lincoln was willing to allow the status quo to continue as long as the Confederacy did not attack Sumter or invade the North.


Uh, no, the Confederacy started the war by idiotically bombarding the federal garrison on Sumter, a garrison that was doing nothing to impede shipping in Charleston Harbor.


Yes, that's true, but the Deep South states had no valid reason to secede.


This is fantasy. Davis showed what a bumbling incompetent he was when he pleaded for peace after attacking Sumter. It is mind boggling that he did not comprehend that attacking Sumter would enrage Northern public opinion and give the war-hungry Radical Republicans the perfect excuse for demanding--and getting--an invasion.


The convoy that Lincoln sent was only going to deliver food. The convoy had express orders not to fire unless fired upon first.


How? Why? What was the justification? Lincoln posed no threat to Southern slavery. The South still controlled the Senate. The South's economy was doing fine. John Brown had been hung. Most of Lincoln's cabinet selections were conservative and moderates who had no interest in disturbing slavery where it already existed. The Morrill Tariff rates were not as high as some previous rates The issue of slavery in the territories was a bogus, phony issue--even when all the territories were open for slavery after the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, literally only a handful of slaves were taken there.

So what was the Deep South's justification for refusing to honor Lincoln's election?


Yes, the Southern states were required by the Constitution to honor the results of the 1860 election, but the seven Deep South states refused to do so. The North never refused to honor a presidential election.


Oh, come on. Only the Radicals said those things about the Constitution.


Wrong. Most Northern states were still honoring the Fugitive Slave Act. And exactly how were any Northern states "resisting" the Dred Scott decision, other than condemning it? Plus, many Northerners had no problem with the Dred Scott ruling.


Only a few people knew what Brown was planning. Brown's raid was loudly and roundly condemned by most Northerners.


On what basis? What justification? They had none. Most of their excuses centered around slavery in the territories, which was hardly a valid reason to break up the Union.


Because they seceded for very different reasons. When secession was clearly based largely on slavery, the four Upper South states solidly rejected it.


This is erroneous. You need to read some serious Lincoln scholarship and not just neo-Confederate sources. Lincoln most assuredly did not want war and did all he reasonably could to avoid it.


This is also erroneous. Look at the lenient, mild, reasonable reconstruction terms that Lincoln established in Louisiana and Arkansas, even well before the war ended. The Radicals screamed bloody murder against those terms. When the Radicals tried to impose harsher reconstruction terms via the Wade-Davis bill, Lincoln vetoed the bill.

I don't think you understand just how much the Radicals hated Lincoln and Seward and anyone else who was not determined to savage the South.

Such a long and lengthy opinion based on bullshit. Why is it bullshit? It is nothing but you. Like your opinion matters.

I gave a long and lengthy opinion based on historical facts, credited with historical sources and footnotes for any to check out and hopefully obtain.

You on the other hand expect everyone to believe your bullshit. As you offer no credit to your source of information.

In other words...you're a phony. You like to present yourself as a middle of the road peacemaker. But in reality, you're just full of shit. Your opinion is shit except to those who love shit.

Quantrill

 

[mikegriffith1]

It is worth mentioning that under the Crittenden Compromise, as well as under the Corwin Amendment, the states still would have retained the absolute right to abolish slavery within their territory.

The federal government had nothing to do with ending slavery in Northern states. The Northern states that ended slavery did so on their own, and all but one of them did so gradually and gave slaveholders plenty of time to recover the cost of their slaves.

Slavery in the North

 

[mikegriffith1]

Those who don't believe Lincoln wanted to avoid war and who think he sent the naval convoy to Sumter in order to provoke war should read chapter 2 in Otto Eisenschiml's book Why the Civil War? The chapter is 28 pages long and titled "Lincoln Maneuvers for Peace."

The book is available for free online at the Internet Archive:

Why the Civil War? : Otto Eisenschiml : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

archive.org

FYI, Eisenschiml was fiercely critical of the Radical Republicans and was fair and balanced in discussing the Confederacy. His position was very similar to mine.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Those who don't believe Lincoln wanted to avoid war and who think he sent the naval convoy to Sumter in order to provoke war should read chapter 2 in Otto Eisenschiml's book Why the Civil War? The chapter is 28 pages long and titled "Lincoln Maneuvers for Peace."

The book is available for free online at the Internet Archive:

Why the Civil War? : Otto Eisenschiml : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

archive.org

FYI, Eisenschiml was fiercely critical of the Radical Republicans and was fair and balanced in discussing the Confederacy. His position was very similar to mine.

I've copied chapters 2 and 3 from Eisenschiml's book and have placed them in a single file for those who find it hard to navigate the Internet Archive website. I've uploaded the file to my Civil War website. The file is titled "Lincoln Tried to Avoid War." Eisenschiml made a plausible, credible case that Lincoln was prepared to evacuate Fort Sumter in exchange for reinforcing Fort Pickens, and that he did not send the naval convoy to Fort Sumter in order to provoke war.

Here's the direct link to the file:

Lincoln Tried to Avoid War

 

[mikegriffith1]

One of the biggest problems with Southern heritage defenders is their strident, erroneous attacks on Lincoln. They falsely paint him as an enemy of the South who wanted war with the South, and as an advocate of big government and unlimited federal power. Here's what Lincoln's secretary of the Navy, Gideon Welles, who opposed Radical Reconstruction and who knew Lincoln well, had to say about Lincoln's political views:

Mr. Lincoln in his later years retained but little zeal for Whig doctrines. When elected, and during his administration, he was sincerely and conscientiously, in feeling and principle, a constitutionalist, a Federal republican, a friend of State rights, and in his general views an opponent of consolidation. (LINK, p. 1)

Lincoln proved this with his generous surrender terms for the Confederate army and with his mild, reasonable, and merciful terms for reconstruction.

 

[mikegriffith1]

It is worth noting that the Morrill Tariff, which Southern heritage defenders condemn, only passed because enough Southern senators resigned from the Senate to give the Republicans a majority. Until then, the tariff bill was going nowhere because Senate Democrats were able to keep it bottled up in committee. It had never once even reached the Senate floor for a vote. Democrats still controlled the Senate after the 1860 election, but the Deep South states foolishly gave up that control when they began to secede.

 

[mikegriffith1]

They were resupplying the fort with guns and ammo.

No, Lincoln himself sent a personal envoy to advise SC's governor that the convoy would only deliver food and would not offload any weapons or troops unless it or the fort was fired upon. Furthermore, we know this is true from Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles' execution orders to the convoy, which specified that if no resistance was encountered, the ships were merely to deliver food to the Sumter garrison and then leave.

These facts have been known and documented for many decades. They are a matter of easily verifiable record. But, Southern heritage defenders still repeat the falsehood that the convoy was going to deliver arms and troops to the Sumter garrison.

And, again, if Jefferson Davis had not foolishly cut off the garrison's food supply, the Republicans would have had no excuse for sending the convoy.

As even eminent Civil War historian James G. Randall noted, the record shows that Lincoln was prepared to evacuate Fort Sumter in exchange for fortifying Fort Pickens. No one gave a hoot about Pickens, which is why the reenforcement of Pickens was done without incident. If only the hotheaded Davis had just allowed the provision of food to the Sumter garrison to continue or had at least allowed the federal convoy to deliver food to the garrison after he idiotically cut off the food supply.

 

[Quantrill]

No, Lincoln himself sent a personal envoy to advise SC's governor that the convoy would only deliver food and would not offload any weapons or troops unless it or the fort was fired upon. Furthermore, we know this is true from Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles' execution orders to the convoy, which specified that if no resistance was encountered, the ships were merely to deliver food to the Sumter garrison and then leave.

These facts have been known and documented for many decades. They are a matter of easily verifiable record. But, Southern heritage defenders still repeat the falsehood that the convoy was going to deliver arms and troops to the Sumter garrison.

And, again, if Jefferson Davis had not foolishly cut off the garrison's food supply, the Republicans would have had no excuse for sending the convoy.

As even eminent Civil War historian James G. Randall noted, the record shows that Lincoln was prepared to evacuate Fort Sumter in exchange for fortifying Fort Pickens. No one gave a hoot about Pickens, which is why the reenforcement of Pickens was done without incident. If only the hotheaded Davis had just allowed the provision of food to the Sumter garrison to continue or had at least allowed the federal convoy to deliver food to the garrison after he idiotically cut off the food supply.

Your record of the events is half/baked, meaning half/truths.

Lincoln was never prepared to evacuate Fort Pickens. He had a Naval force going to Pickens at the same time one was going to Sumter. And he was never going to evacuate Sumter.

All was done by deception from Lincoln and Seward. They lied from the get go as to their intentions. If Lincoln wanted to evacuate Sumter, all he had to do was evacuate. He didn't need to send any Naval fleet loaded with men and arms. Just evacuate. The South would have been glad to help with their evacuation and would have provided any food they needed.

Lincoln kept promising 'evacuation' keeping the Southern Commissioners waiting for an answer. But it was all a stall. Seward kept guaranteeing to the Commissioners, the Fort would be evacuated while all the while preparation was made to reinforce Sumter.

If Lincoln wanted to evacuate, why didn't his message to Gov. Pickens say he was going to evacuate?

Your account of what took place at Sumter is full of holes.

Quantrill

 

[gipper]

Your record of the events is half/baked, meaning half/truths.

Lincoln was never prepared to evacuate Fort Pickens. He had a Naval force going to Pickens at the same time one was going to Sumter. And he was never going to evacuate Sumter.

All was done by deception from Lincoln and Seward. They lied from the get go as to their intentions. If Lincoln wanted to evacuate Sumter, all he had to do was evacuate. He didn't need to send any Naval fleet loaded with men and arms. Just evacuate. The South would have been glad to help with their evacuation and would have provided any food they needed.

Lincoln kept promising 'evacuation' keeping the Southern Commissioners waiting for an answer. But it was all a stall. Seward kept guaranteeing to the Commissioners, the Fort would be evacuated while all the while preparation was made to reinforce Sumter.

If Lincoln wanted to evacuate, why didn't his message to Gov. Pickens say he was going to evacuate?

Your account of what took place at Sumter is full of holes.

Quantrill

Agreed. Dishonest Abe wanted desperately to maneuver the South into firing the first shot, so he could then be considered justified in invading the South. So, he purposely lied to SC about his intentions and delayed evacuation. The South saw through the deception and shelled the fort. Yet not one Union soldier was injured or killed.

Even today we have idiots who claim the South started the war and deserved destruction for doing so.

 

[Quantrill]

Agreed. Dishonest Abe wanted desperately to maneuver the South into firing the first shot, so he could then be considered justified in invading the South. So, he purposely lied to SC about his intentions and delayed evacuation. The South saw through the deception and shelled the fort. Yet not one Union soldier was injured or killed.

Even today we have idiots who claim the South started the war and deserved destruction for doing so.

So true. Our 'Reconstruction' has never ended. The lies must continually be hidden about what really was going on at Sumter, and in that whole war. And to hide those lies, more lies must be told. I have always said, never in history has a period been so misrepresented and lied about than that time.

As I pointed out in post #(390), (392), Yankee commander Anderson even admitted that Lincoln was starting the War. He admitted that not only was the South being lied to, but he had been lied to by his Superiors, as he was expecting evacuation.

You may already have thsese books, but if not, I highly recommend them. (Days Of Defiance, Maury Klein), (The Demon Of Unrest, Erik, Larson), and of course (The Rise And Fall OF The Confederate Govt., Jefferson Davis).

Concerning Jeff Davis books, just because he is pro-South and Confederate to the core doesn't make his work a lie, as is usually assumed. On this subject you can't get a more 'source material' than his works.

Concerning the other two books, by Klein and Larson, they are not 'lost cause' writings as has been claimed. In fact there are things there I disagree with in their opinion of the facts they present about Sumter. But they both do very well in presenting the whole facts and story. And I find no disagreement between them in their presentation of the facts.

Quantrill