The Origins and Causes of the U.S. Civil War

[Rogue 9]

What law was Lincoln enforcing? Cite that law!
What rebellion was there by the Southern States? Cite the law !!
Your position is DEAD in the water, you are adrift without rudder or direction. Cite the law!!!!!!!!

In order, the tariff (in the particular example he brought up) and the war of rebellion they fought against the lawful authority of the United States. We've already long since established that state-level secession without the consent of Congress or a constitutional amendment is unlawful under the Constitution; that you refuse to read the words of Article IV is not my problem.

 

[James Everett]

What law was Lincoln enforcing? Cite that law!
What rebellion was there by the Southern States? Cite the law !!
Your position is DEAD in the water, you are adrift without rudder or direction. Cite the law!!!!!!!!

In order, the tariff (in the particular example he brought up) and the war of rebellion they fought against the lawful authority of the United States. We've already long since established that state-level secession without the consent of Congress or a constitutional amendment is unlawful under the Constitution; that you refuse to read the words of Article IV is not my problem.

What law was Lincoln enforcing? Cite that law!
What rebellion was there by the Southern States? Cite the law !!
Your position is DEAD in the water, you are adrift without rudder or direction. Cite the law!!!!!!!!

In order, the tariff (in the particular example he brought up) and the war of rebellion they fought against the lawful authority of the United States. We've already long since established that state-level secession without the consent of Congress or a constitutional amendment is unlawful under the Constitution; that you refuse to read the words of Article IV is not my problem.

Rogue9. I must apologize for my inability to educate you, it is indeed I and I alone who have failed you. I simply cannot seem to find a way to help you understand YOUR own 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution. If this is the case, then I truly do apologize, however, if it is simply that you do understand but are to stubborn to admit your error, then you are only continuing to make a bigger fool of yourself. You have my word that I would never make fun of someone for admitting their error. WE ALL MAKE MISTAKES FROM TIME TO TIME, yet one must be man enough to admit such. Again Article IV section 3 only applies to territories, NOT States. The United States government DOES NOT OWN THE LAND WITHIN A STATE< NOR DOES IT HAVE MUNICIPAL JURISDICTION. Are you stating that you understand the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution better thatn YOUR SCOTUS?
Here in YOUR own SCOTUS OPINION ONCE AGAIN FROM.....
U.S. Supreme Court
POLLARD v. HAGAN, 44 U.S. 212 (1845)
44 U.S. 212 (How.)

JOHN POLLARD ET AL., LESSEE, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
JOHN HAGAN ET AL., DEFENDANTS IN ERROR.

January Term, 1845

"The shores of navigable waters, and the soils under them, were not granted by the Constitution to the United States, but were reserved to the States respectively, and the new States have the same rights, sovereignty, and jurisdiction over this subject as the original States.

In case you are somehow unaware of the definition of respectively, it means..."INDIVIDUALLY".

The United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a state or elsewhere. Such a power is not only repugnant to the Constitution, but it is inconsistent with the spirit and intention of the deeds of cession."

The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures.

By the 16th clause of the 8th section of the 1st article of the Constitution, power is given to Congress
"to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased, by the consent of the legislature of the State in which the same may be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings."



Within the District of Columbia, and the other places purchased and used for the purposes above mentioned, the national and municipal powers of government, of every description, are united in the Government of the Union. And these are the only cases within the United States in which all the powers of government are united in a single government, except in the cases already
Page 44 U. S. 224

mentioned of the temporary territorial governments, and there a local government exists.

Lincoln, and the Northern States fought in REBELLION against the lawful authority of the tenth amendment and the Constitutional limitation on its domain in the 16th clause of the 8th section of the 1st article of the Constitution, power is given to Congress "to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square)"


Please for the sake of your YANKEE brethren, STOP MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF BY DISMISSING THE FACTS!!!

You have failed once again at citing the law that states that it is unlawful, or illegal for a State to secede from the union.
The 9pm Friday deadline draws nigh......

 

[James Everett]

Also, Rogue9, Since there was, nor is a law that states that a State cannot secede from the union, as you have clearly been unable to produce, Lincoln had NO authority to impose a tariff on a foreign country, which is what each State that seceded became at the point of their LEGAL secessions. You must always return to the first cause of the issue.....There was NO LAW that States that a State cannot secede from the union.A law that does NOT exist cannot be violated.

 

[James Everett]

AGAIN.....16th clause of the 8th section of the 1st article of the Constitution, power is given to Congress "to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square)"
"The United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a state or elsewhere. Such a power is not only repugnant to the Constitution, but it is inconsistent with the spirit and intention of the deeds of cession."

 

[Discombobulated]

Slavery was obviously the primary cause of the Civil War. Had there been no slavery in this country there would have been no Civil War.

 

[Discombobulated]

Politicians in Confederate states thought they had the right to secede.......turns out they were wrong about that.

 

[James Everett]

Slavery was obviously the primary cause of the Civil War. Had there been no slavery in this country there would have been no Civil War.

Mute point when it comes to the legality of secession. Who is responsible for legalized slavery in America? I know, do you?

 

[James Everett]

Disc

Politicians in Confederate states thought they had the right to secede.......turns out they were wrong about that.

ombobulated, please cite the law that states that secession from the union is unlawful or illegal. You must do so to prove that they were wrong.

 

[Discombobulated]

Slavery was obviously the primary cause of the Civil War. Had there been no slavery in this country there would have been no Civil War.

Mute point when it comes to the legality of secession. Who is responsible for legalized slavery in America? I know, do you?

Perhaps moot but very instructive in dispensing with any superficial diversionary nonsense about tariffs or some other irrelevant horse shit.

 

[Discombobulated]

Disc

Politicians in Confederate states thought they had the right to secede.......turns out they were wrong about that.

ombobulated, please cite the law that states that secession from the union is unlawful or illegal. You must do so to prove that they were wrong.

Please feel free to cite the Constitutional mechanisms for secession.

 

[James Everett]

The reasons are irrelevant to the legality. The issue of slavery is complicated, and the Yankee seems to feel he holds some moral high ground, he does not. One only need look at what the U.S. Was doing to the Native American Indian while he was supposedly fighting to free the slaves. All had a part in slavery including the black man himself, as census records show black men who owned black men was increasing almost by double when the census was taken.

 

[James Everett]

The reasons are irrelevant to the legality. The issue of slavery is complicated, and the Yankee seems to feel he holds some moral high ground, he does not. One only need look at what the U.S. Was doing to the Native American Indian while he was supposedly fighting to free the slaves. All had a part in slavery including the black man himself, as census records show black men who owned black men was increasing almost by double when the census was taken.

There need not exist a mechanism for secession listed in the 1787/1789 U.s. CONstitution, as the tenth amendment states, that the powers not delegated by the States to the collective are reserved to each individual State, therefore the mechanism is reserved by each State individually.

 

[Discombobulated]

The reasons are irrelevant to the legality. The issue of slavery is complicated, and the Yankee seems to feel he holds some moral high ground, he does not. One only need look at what the U.S. Was doing to the Native American Indian while he was supposedly fighting to free the slaves. All had a part in slavery including the black man himself, as census records show black men who owned black men was increasing almost by double when the census was taken.

There need not exist a mechanism for secession listed in the 1787/1789 U.s. CONstitution, as the tenth amendment states, that the powers not delegated by the States to the collective are reserved to each individual State, therefore the mechanism is reserved by each State individually.

Which in no way justifies secession. A mutual agreement between all states would be required to create a formalized legal process for secession from the nation.

 

[Discombobulated]

The reasons are irrelevant to the legality. The issue of slavery is complicated, and the Yankee seems to feel he holds some moral high ground, he does not. One only need look at what the U.S. Was doing to the Native American Indian while he was supposedly fighting to free the slaves. All had a part in slavery including the black man himself, as census records show black men who owned black men was increasing almost by double when the census was taken.

Another diversionary argument of moral equivalency.

 

[James Everett]

Again,, that was left to each State individually, not the collective, again see the tenth. If the power to prevent secession was not delegated by the States, they retained it by the agreement itself to themselves individually. That was the agreement.
As for moral equivelancy, all are equally guilty. Is it your assertion that Southern people are less moral than Northern people? Or one color less than another?

 

[Discombobulated]

Again,, that was left to each State individually, not the collective, again see the tenth. If the power to prevent secession was not delegated by the States, they retained it by the agreement itself to themselves individually. That was the agreement.
As for moral equivelancy, all are equally guilty. Is it your assertion that Southern people are less moral than Northern people? Or one color less than another?

How is that possible when there is no mention of secession anywhere in the Constitution.....explicit or implicit.

 

[Rotagilla]

The south fired on the fort to repel the invasion.
If you'd bother to read history, rather than regurgitate public school nonsense you'd know...I hope others reading this WILL go look for themselves..you continue to rely on emotion and anti southern bias...

Do a search.. "why did lincoln send ships to charleston in 1861"

I do read history, and I ask again, what invasion? Major Anderson's troops were sitting in a federal fort and the ships (that never arrived, I might add) were bound for the same. No one invaded Charleston.

Here's what the newspapers and the letters and writings of the people actually involved said at the time. This is all researchable; Attempt to deny them at your own risk, son.


"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?" ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.

Okay, and? It's the duty of the President to enforce the laws of the Union.

"Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel"

.... Charles Dickens in a London periodical in December 1861

"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....". ..... London Times of 7 Nov 1861

Britain's government was eager for the United States to falter so that they could resume colonization of the Americas. That you cite British editorials shows a lot about your opinion of empire.

"Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation"

..... North American Review (Boston October 1862)

If slavery was what brought unanimity to the South so that they could have a rebellion, then slavery was the cause of the rebellion. Not to mention that the Confederate leaders all came right out and said that slavery was the cause of the rebellion (see the OP for numerous citations) and I think they know why they were doing what they did better than some dude in Boston.

"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union."

..... New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861

"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow." .... Chicago Daily Times December 1860

"At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States." ..... NY Times 22 March 1861

"the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...." .... Boston Transcript 18 March 1861

So? The people doing the seceding know their motives better than some dudes in the North.

"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. "

Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Gustavus Fox, May 1, 1861

"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." ~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861.

No one made the traitors open fire. Lincoln did not stand there at the cannons and lay match to powder hole.

"We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it."

~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.

Well, do the archives in Washington tell that tale? They didn't attack the Charleston batteries because it would have been suicidal; the batteries surrounding Charleston Harbor were designed to repel British battle fleets, which the flotilla of supply ships sent to Sumter were not. They'd have been sunk with all hands had they tried to enter the harbor.

The south fired on the fort to repel the invasion.
If you'd bother to read history, rather than regurgitate public school nonsense you'd know...I hope others reading this WILL go look for themselves..you continue to rely on emotion and anti southern bias...

Do a search.. "why did lincoln send ships to charleston in 1861"

I do read history, and I ask again, what invasion? Major Anderson's troops were sitting in a federal fort and the ships (that never arrived, I might add) were bound for the same. No one invaded Charleston.

Here's what the newspapers and the letters and writings of the people actually involved said at the time. This is all researchable; Attempt to deny them at your own risk, son.


"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?" ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.

Okay, and? It's the duty of the President to enforce the laws of the Union.

"Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel"

.... Charles Dickens in a London periodical in December 1861

"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....". ..... London Times of 7 Nov 1861

Britain's government was eager for the United States to falter so that they could resume colonization of the Americas. That you cite British editorials shows a lot about your opinion of empire.

"Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation"

..... North American Review (Boston October 1862)

If slavery was what brought unanimity to the South so that they could have a rebellion, then slavery was the cause of the rebellion. Not to mention that the Confederate leaders all came right out and said that slavery was the cause of the rebellion (see the OP for numerous citations) and I think they know why they were doing what they did better than some dude in Boston.

"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union."

..... New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861

"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow." .... Chicago Daily Times December 1860

"At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States." ..... NY Times 22 March 1861

"the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...." .... Boston Transcript 18 March 1861

So? The people doing the seceding know their motives better than some dudes in the North.

"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. "

Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Gustavus Fox, May 1, 1861

"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." ~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861.

No one made the traitors open fire. Lincoln did not stand there at the cannons and lay match to powder hole.

"We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it."

~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.

Well, do the archives in Washington tell that tale? They didn't attack the Charleston batteries because it would have been suicidal; the batteries surrounding Charleston Harbor were designed to repel British battle fleets, which the flotilla of supply ships sent to Sumter were not. They'd have been sunk with all hands had they tried to enter the harbor.

LMAO...Nice try but no one is fooled.

I give the actual quotes, date and publication by people actually involved in the situation...and your best response is "So?"..or outright denial of proven, established facts...

Those people's words aren't open to your revisionist reinterpretation. You have no standing to deny any of them or parse words or attempt semantic distortions. You refuse to address them honestly and instead try to use them as props and excuses to demean or diminish the truth.
I doubt any honest people who have read this were fooled or impressed by your misrepresentations and attempts to deceive.

Those words and articles are HISTORICAL ACCOUNTS of events...You, on the other hand, offer NOTHING other than "nuh uh"..or "they deserved it"..


I made my points and supported them.
It's clear that your only purpose here is to display your anti southern bias and prejudices....so this discussion is over due to gross, overt dishonesty on your part.

 

[James Everett]

Again,, that was left to each State individually, not the collective, again see the tenth. If the power to prevent secession was not delegated by the States, they retained it by the agreement itself to themselves individually. That was the agreement.
As for moral equivelancy, all are equally guilty. Is it your assertion that Southern people are less moral than Northern people? Or one color less than another?

How is that possible when there is no mention of secession anywhere in the Constitution.....explicit or implicit.

Discombobulated,
That is the very purpose of the tenth amendment, Again.....
Amendment X
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
It is impossible to enumerate every single power that is reserved to each State individually, or to enumerate every power that the United States, (the collective) could hold, therefore all power not delegated is retained by each State individually.
That is all the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution is, is an agreement in which the States have come together to establish among themselves, a central body to handle certain explicit duties in union, all other duties, and powers are their own business, and none of that of the collective together in union. Its called sovereignty, and every sovereign power other than the explicit powers delegated and enumerated are reserved to each State individually.
"To the States, respectively, or to the people" have been reserved "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States." Each State is a complete sovereignty within the sphere of its reserved powers. The Government of the Union, acting within the sphere of its delegated authority, is also a complete sovereignty.
To the Government of the United States has been intrusted the exclusive management of our foreign affairs. Beyond that it wields a few general enumerated powers. It does not force reform on the States. It leaves individuals, over whom it casts its protecting influence, entirely free to improve their own condition by the legitimate exercise of all their mental and physical powers.

 

[James Everett]

The south fired on the fort to repel the invasion.
If you'd bother to read history, rather than regurgitate public school nonsense you'd know...I hope others reading this WILL go look for themselves..you continue to rely on emotion and anti southern bias...

Do a search.. "why did lincoln send ships to charleston in 1861"

I do read history, and I ask again, what invasion? Major Anderson's troops were sitting in a federal fort and the ships (that never arrived, I might add) were bound for the same. No one invaded Charleston.

Here's what the newspapers and the letters and writings of the people actually involved said at the time. This is all researchable; Attempt to deny them at your own risk, son.


"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?" ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.

Okay, and? It's the duty of the President to enforce the laws of the Union.

"Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel"

.... Charles Dickens in a London periodical in December 1861

"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....". ..... London Times of 7 Nov 1861

Britain's government was eager for the United States to falter so that they could resume colonization of the Americas. That you cite British editorials shows a lot about your opinion of empire.

"Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation"

..... North American Review (Boston October 1862)

If slavery was what brought unanimity to the South so that they could have a rebellion, then slavery was the cause of the rebellion. Not to mention that the Confederate leaders all came right out and said that slavery was the cause of the rebellion (see the OP for numerous citations) and I think they know why they were doing what they did better than some dude in Boston.

"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union."

..... New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861

"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow." .... Chicago Daily Times December 1860

"At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States." ..... NY Times 22 March 1861

"the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...." .... Boston Transcript 18 March 1861

So? The people doing the seceding know their motives better than some dudes in the North.

"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. "

Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Gustavus Fox, May 1, 1861

"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." ~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861.

No one made the traitors open fire. Lincoln did not stand there at the cannons and lay match to powder hole.

"We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it."

~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.

Well, do the archives in Washington tell that tale? They didn't attack the Charleston batteries because it would have been suicidal; the batteries surrounding Charleston Harbor were designed to repel British battle fleets, which the flotilla of supply ships sent to Sumter were not. They'd have been sunk with all hands had they tried to enter the harbor.

The south fired on the fort to repel the invasion.
If you'd bother to read history, rather than regurgitate public school nonsense you'd know...I hope others reading this WILL go look for themselves..you continue to rely on emotion and anti southern bias...

Do a search.. "why did lincoln send ships to charleston in 1861"

I do read history, and I ask again, what invasion? Major Anderson's troops were sitting in a federal fort and the ships (that never arrived, I might add) were bound for the same. No one invaded Charleston.

Here's what the newspapers and the letters and writings of the people actually involved said at the time. This is all researchable; Attempt to deny them at your own risk, son.


"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?" ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.

Okay, and? It's the duty of the President to enforce the laws of the Union.

"Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel"

.... Charles Dickens in a London periodical in December 1861

"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....". ..... London Times of 7 Nov 1861

Britain's government was eager for the United States to falter so that they could resume colonization of the Americas. That you cite British editorials shows a lot about your opinion of empire.

"Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation"

..... North American Review (Boston October 1862)

If slavery was what brought unanimity to the South so that they could have a rebellion, then slavery was the cause of the rebellion. Not to mention that the Confederate leaders all came right out and said that slavery was the cause of the rebellion (see the OP for numerous citations) and I think they know why they were doing what they did better than some dude in Boston.

"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union."

..... New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861

"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow." .... Chicago Daily Times December 1860

"At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States." ..... NY Times 22 March 1861

"the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...." .... Boston Transcript 18 March 1861

So? The people doing the seceding know their motives better than some dudes in the North.

"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. "

Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Gustavus Fox, May 1, 1861

"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." ~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861.

No one made the traitors open fire. Lincoln did not stand there at the cannons and lay match to powder hole.

"We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it."

~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.

Well, do the archives in Washington tell that tale? They didn't attack the Charleston batteries because it would have been suicidal; the batteries surrounding Charleston Harbor were designed to repel British battle fleets, which the flotilla of supply ships sent to Sumter were not. They'd have been sunk with all hands had they tried to enter the harbor.

LMAO...Nice try but no one is fooled.

I give the actual quotes, date and publication by people actually involved in the situation...and your best response is "So?"..or outright denial of proven, established facts...

Those people's words aren't open to your revisionist reinterpretation. You have no standing to deny any of them or parse words or attempt semantic distortions. You refuse to address them honestly and instead try to use them as props and excuses to demean or diminish the truth.
I doubt any honest people who have read this were fooled or impressed by your misrepresentations and attempts to deceive.

Those words and articles are HISTORICAL ACCOUNTS of events...You, on the other hand, offer NOTHING other than "nuh uh"..or "they deserved it"..


I made my points and supported them.
It's clear that your only purpose here is to display your anti southern bias and prejudices....so this discussion is over due to gross, overt dishonesty on your part.

 

[Discombobulated]

Again,, that was left to each State individually, not the collective, again see the tenth. If the power to prevent secession was not delegated by the States, they retained it by the agreement itself to themselves individually. That was the agreement.
As for moral equivelancy, all are equally guilty. Is it your assertion that Southern people are less moral than Northern people? Or one color less than another?

How is that possible when there is no mention of secession anywhere in the Constitution.....explicit or implicit.

Discombobulated,
That is the very purpose of the tenth amendment, Again.....
Amendment X
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
It is impossible to enumerate every single power that is reserved to each State individually, or to enumerate every power that the United States, (the collective) could hold, therefore all power not delegated is retained by each State individually.
That is all the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution is, is an agreement in which the States have come together to establish among themselves, a central body to handle certain explicit duties in union, all other duties, and powers are their own business, and none of that of the collective together in union. Its called sovereignty, and every sovereign power other than the explicit powers delegated and enumerated are reserved to each State individually.
"To the States, respectively, or to the people" have been reserved "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States." Each State is a complete sovereignty within the sphere of its reserved powers. The Government of the Union, acting within the sphere of its delegated authority, is also a complete sovereignty.
To the Government of the United States has been intrusted the exclusive management of our foreign affairs. Beyond that it wields a few general enumerated powers. It does not force reform on the States. It leaves individuals, over whom it casts its protecting influence, entirely free to improve their own condition by the legitimate exercise of all their mental and physical powers.

Not even a vague reference to secession.