[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Historical Title: Lincoln Starts a War
Lincoln Starts a War by nolu chan There can be no doubt that Lincoln waited for the Senate to adjourn and began a war as soon as it was out of session. He did not call them back into session until July 4, 1861 when the war was a fait accompli. He then delivered a message to the special session of congress where he lied his ass off. Within 8 days of taking office, orders of March 12, 1861 issued from the Lincoln administration to reinforce Fort Pickens and thereby violate the armistice that was in effect. These orders to Army Captain Vogdes were delayed until after the Senate adjourned on March 28, 1861 and then delivered by USS Crusader on March 31, 1861. Capt. Vogdes delivered them to Navy Captain Adams on April 1, 1861. Capt. Adams refused to comply with the orders. There is an interesting sequence of events.
SOURCES:Courtesy of Cornell University Library, Making of America Digital Collection. [1] Title: Official records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion; Series I - Volume 4: Operations in the Gulf of Mexico (November 15, 1860 - June 7, 1861); Operations on the Atlantic Coast (January 1, 1861 - May 13, 1861); Operations on the Potamac and Rappahannock Rivers (January 5, 1861 - December 7, 1861) [2] Title: The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies; Series 1 - Volume 1 [3] A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774-1875
BREAKING THE ARMISTICE -- MARCH 12, 1861One Month Before Events at Fort Sumter
Official Records, Army, Series 1, Vol 1, Chap. 4, p. 360 [2]
HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY,
Delivery of these orders was delayed until after the Senate adjourned on March 28, 1861. They were delivered via USS Crusader to Capt. Vogdes, off Pensacola, on March 31, 1861, and by Capt. Vogdes to Navy Capt. Adams on April 1, 1861. Capt. Adams refused to comply with the orders issued by General Scott, asserting it would violate a binding agreement and "would be considered not only a declaration but an act of war."
THE SENATE ADJOURNEDMarch 28, 1861
SENATE JOURNAL, March 25, 1861 [3]
Resolved, That the President be requested, if, in his opinion, not incompatible with the public interest, to communicate to the Senate the dispatches of Major Robert Anderson to the War Department during the time he has been in command at Fort Sumter.
SENATE JOURNAL, March 27, 1861
The following message was received from the President of the United States, by Mr. Nicolay, his Secretary:
END of the Senate Journal for March 28, 1861:
Mr. Powell, from the committee appointed to wait on the President of the United States and inform him that, unless he may have any further communication to make, the Senate is now ready to close the present session by an adjournment, reported that they had performed the duty assigned them, and that the President replied that he had no further communication to make.
THE NEXT DAY LINCOLN GOT BUSY INITIATING WAR.
Lincoln did not fail to obtain Congressional approval because Congress was not in session, he waited until Congress adjourned and commenced to initiate a war.
Official Records, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 227
Order from the President of the United States to the Secretary of the Navy, regarding cooperation with the War Department for active service.
The memorandum attached called for: From the Navy, three ships of war, the Pocahontas, the Pawnee and the Harriet Lane; and 300 seamen, and one month's stores. From the War Department, 200 men, ready to leave garrison; and one year's stores.
Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 107-8
April 1, 1861 by General Scott
Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 232
Letter from Secretary of War to G. V. Fox, esq., assigning him to command expedition for the relief of Fort Sumter.
Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 232-3
Instructions from Lieutenant-General Scott, U. S. Army, to Lieutenant-Colonel Scott, U. S. Army, regarding expedition for reenforcement of Fort Sumter.
Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 110
April 1, 1861
Capt Adams report (Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 109-10) [1] Captain Adams REFUSED TO OBEY THE ORDER and reported to the Secretary of the Navy as follows:
The instructions from General Scott to Captain Vogdes are of old date (March 12) and may have been given without a full knowledge of the condition of affairs here.
Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 110-11 The Secretary of the Navy issued a CLASSIFIED response to Capt. Adams:
April 6, 1861 April 11, 1861 - USS Supply -- Ships Log (Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 210)
"April 11th at 9 P.M. the Brooklyn got under way and stood in toward the harbor; and during the night landed troops and marines on board, to reinforce Fort Pickens."
Lincoln relieved Captain Mercer of command of the USS Powhatan. This was coordinated with Secretary of State Seward. Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles was not informed. Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 109
Order of the President of the United States to Captain Mereer, U. S. Navy, detaching him from the command of U S. S. Powhatan.
Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 108
April 1, 1861
Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 108
April 1, 1861
Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 109
April 1, 1861
April 5, 1861 - Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles sends orders to Captain Mercer of the USS Powhatan, not knowing about the secret orders of Seward/Lincoln. Lincoln relieved Captain Mercer four days before, on April Fool's Day. Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 235
Confidential instructions from the Secretary of the Navy to Captain Mercer, U. S. Navy, commanding U. S. S. Powhatan, regarding expedition to Fort Sumter.
April 6, 1861 - Lt. Porter took the Powhatan and sailed, pursuant to secret orders of Seward/Lincoln. Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles found out and had a fit. The Powhatan was the flagship for the Navy operation going to Fort Sumter. Seward/Lincoln took the flagship, and the troops intended to reinforce Fort Sumter, and sent them off on an Atlantic cruise, eventually showing up near Pensacola, Florida.
Seward sent a telegram to Porter: Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 112
"Give the Powhatan up to Captain Mercer. Seward."
A dispatch boat caught up with Powhatan and delivered Seward's message.
Lt. Porter responded to Seward: Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 112
"I received my orders from the President, and shall proceed and execute them."
Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 112
Before leaving, Lt. Porter instructed the Navy Yard officials,
"Detain all letters for five days."
Storms and boiler problems delayed Powhatan, but she arrived disguised and flying English colors. When the Powhatan, sort of detached from the Navy and under the State Department, arrived off Florida, it was stopped dead in its tracks by the U.S. Navy which stood in her way and refused to permit her to proceed. Lt. Porter filed this report, April 21, 1861:
Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 122
Report of Lieutenant Porter, U. S. Navy, commanding U. S. S. Powhatan, of the arrival of that vessel off Pensacola, and giving reasons for not having entered that harbor.
Official Records, Army, Series 1, Vol 1, Chap 4, page 368-70 [2]
APRIL 3, 1861.
Official Records, Army, Series 1, Vol. 1, page 368
U. S. TRANSPORT ATLANTIC,
See also the ship's log of the USS Supply. The link goes to the official records. The Union forces started landing near Fort Pickens during the night of April 11, 1861 before shots were fired at Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861. USS SUPPLY -- SHIPS LOG - APRIL 11, 1861 (Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 210 [1]
April 7. -- Came to anchor in the harbor of Pensacola.
Official Records, Army, Series 1, Vol. 1, page 191 [2]
CHAP. I.] CORRESPONDENCE, ETC.—UNION. 191
Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 90
Order from Lieutenant-General Scott, U. S. Army, to Captain Vodges,
Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 107-8 [1]
Order of General Scott, U. S. Army, to Colonel Brown, U. S. Army, appointed to command Department of Florida, regarding reenforcement of Fort Pickens.
Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Vol. 4, page 109-110 [1]
Report of Captain Adams, U. S. Navy, senior officer present off Pensacola, transmitting communication from Captain Vogdes, U. S. Army, regarding cooperation for the protection of Fort Pickens.
Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Volume 4, page 117
Letter from Captain Vogdes, U. S. Army, commanding Fort Pickens, Fla., to Captain Adams, U. S. Navy, senior officer present off Pensacola, regarding violation of armistice.
Official Records, Navy, Series 1, Volume 4, page 117
Letter from Brigadier-General Bragg, C. S. Army, commanding Confederate troops near Pensacola, to Captain Adams, U. S. Navy, senior officer present off Pensacola, regarding violation of armistice. - - - - - Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Comments (1-10) not displayed.
If you enjoy dead and maimed people. Yeah, I see what mean:
Of course a society that holds millions in chains deserves to be destroyed with hideous slaughter. The Germans deserved to be firebombed. The Japanese deserved to be nuked. And the Southern slavers deserved to be burnt out and blown to pieces on the battlefield. ... You sound like you constantly have a refrain from Alice's Restaurant Massacree running through your mind:
We walked in, sat down, Obie came in with the twenty seven eight-by-ten color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one, sat down. Man came in said, "All rise." We all stood up, and Obie stood up with the twenty seven eight-by-ten color glossy pictures, and the judge walked in sat down with a seeing eye dog, and he sat down, we sat down. Obie looked at the seeing eye dog, and then at the twenty seven eight-by-ten color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one, and looked at the seeing eye dog. And then at twenty seven eight-by-ten color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one and began to cry, 'cause Obie came to the realization that it was a typical case of American blind justice, and there wasn't nothing he could do about it, and the judge wasn't going to look at the twenty seven eight-by-ten color glossy pictures with the circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was to be used as evidence against us. And we was fined fifty dollars and had to pick up the garbage in the snow, but that's not what I came to tell you about. All in the cause of a good, and moral, and utmost Christian reason, of course. - - - - - - - - - -
but that was the price of secession to protect a slave culture. Actually, slavery was constitutional, and every single state of the Union agreed to it when they signed up of their own free will. They did not have to sign up, and they could have left.
The dead and the maimed in that war had it coming. Well, you said it again. I will remind you again that most of the dead and maimed were Union casualties. As Yogi Berra would say, you can look it up. If you say they had it coming, who am I to argue?
#12. To: nolu chan (#11) Actually, slavery was constitutional, and every single state of the Union agreed to it when they signed up of their own free will. They did not have to sign up, and they could have left. Which is why the United States deserved about a million deaths, total, on BOTH sides. The North had the burden of the attack, in an era when defensive weapons had the advantage, so they suffered more combat casualties. But the North had more numbers, so as a proportion of the male population, the Southern military deaths were a greater percentage of the population of the Confederacy than the Northern losses were of the North. Southern civilian deaths, from disease and starvation, were much higher because of the destruction of the Southern economy and cities and property, There was none of that in the North. The North had indeed connived at slavery, as you pointed out. So it was also due to pay the price in blood also. Because America built slavery into its Constitution, it was an evil country that had to be destroyed. The Constitution failed and the country came apart. The issue of slavery was resolved by breaking the Constitution and stripping the conquered pro-slavery side of the vote until the Constitution was changed, after the fact, to contain the new reality, imposed by force. Because the Constitution was wrong and the country was evil, might had to make right. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord. He hath trampled out the vintage where the grapes of wrath were stored. He hath loosed the fateful lightning of his terrible swift sword. His Truth is marching on.
#13. To: Vicomte13 (#12)
Which is why the United States deserved about a million deaths, total, on BOTH sides. Yes, they all had it coming.
The dead and the maimed in that war had it coming. The poor Irish immigrants who got off the boat with no money and took a bonus to sign up with one side or the other, they had it coming. The only ones who did not have it coming were those with the means to hire a substitute and avoid the draft. Like Robert Lincoln.
Because America built slavery into its Constitution, it was an evil country that had to be destroyed. Well, at least we have progressed to the point of admitting that the holy mission of Lincoln and the Radicals was to destroy the country, not save the Union as it existed pursuant to the agreed upon Constitution.
#14. To: nolu chan (#13) Americans agreed in the Constitution to protect and preserve slavery. Americans had no right, under God, to HAVE slavery. One cannot "agree" as a people to do evil without consequences. The country was evil, the Constitution was evil, and a sixth of the population was held in chains, from generation to generation on account of it. THAT country had to be destroyed, THAT Constitution, torn apart. Ending slavery was more important then preserving the peace, wealth or rule of law of the nation. It was more important than preserving the lives of the rest of the Americans, who were content to let a sixth of their number be in chains. I don't care about Lincoln's MOTIVES. He too was a pawn, or perhaps a bishop, on a chessboard where good and evil, God and Satan, battled it out. The American Constitution and political system stood on the side of Satan, and the people who supported it, and who believed that slavery was just a political issue, and ultimately nobody's business, were pawns of Satan. Because they would not let go of their belief in their slavery system, they were active agents of evil, and they all deserved to die as the penalty for that. America as it existed WAS destroyed, forever, thank God! The Constitution was shredded and had to be rewritten to completely extirpate the notion that men could own men, and that states had any say at all in that matter. Human liberty is more important than the rule of law, when the law is evil. and far more important than the dignity of any constitution. The Irish immigrants chose to come here, to a nation at war. They could have gone to Canada. They could have gone to Argentina. They could have tried to make the best of it in Ireland. They CHOSE to come here. And then, on arrival, some CHOSE to be hired to go off to war and kill. Soldiers die. They signed up to die. Did they know what they were fighting for? Were they fighting for a "cause" (both sides had Irish soldiers) or were they fighting for money, mercenaries. They didn't HAVE to fight, they CHOSE to fight. When you choose to pick up a gun and march out to kill other men for hire, you expose yourself to death and crippling. It was their choice. They were not rounded up and drafted. The Union that existed under the agreed Constitution was evil and not worth preserving. It's too bad the slavers were so evil that they refused to let go of the evil and chose instead to bring justice down upon their head and their people. It's too bad the Northerners were weak and vacillating and did not care about slavery, as opposed to strongly saying: the time of slavery is over, end it or we will march down there and burn you out to end it. It's too bad that those things were not the motivations of war, but that instead the country sleepwalked into a war over slavery, pretending that it was about petty political things, and refusing the admit what it really WAS about until the issue was so deeply engaged that there was no way out. It would have been nice to have been able to end the old evil and revise the country peacefully, without war. But the people who derived an advantage from enslaving other people were too hellbent on the practice to allow that - and indeed had worked slavery into the very legal fabric of the nation. And the people on the other side were, for the most part, just not willing to fight to end the enslavement of others. So the country rotted at the head, divided, and fought a bitter war. The country didn't survive it intact. The Constitution didn't. The nature of the people didn't. Everything changed. That was what it took to rip the threads of slavery out of the legal and social fabric. It would have been better - less hard on life and property - to have done that peacefully. But it was more important that it be done than that the country should survive as it was, or the Constitution be respected, or those Americans who were not slaves be allowed to continue to live their lives in peace and security. In the end, it was better to kill a million whites and destroy the country than to leave slavery be. It happened the way it had to. I would hope that the lesson to be drawn is that the Constitution is NOT the ultimate law. There is a law of good and evil above that, and that if good is not respected and evil is embedded because of the Constitution itself, that the Constitution has to go down. This is not an incentive to revolution, but rather, an incentive for people to not accept evil in the belief that the Constitution will be able to simply allow the evil to be unchecked and unchallenged - the belief that as long as you get your evil enacted into law, you're good to go and there's nothing anybody can do about it. The rule of law cannot itself hold when the law is devoted to evil. That's the lesson of the Civil War. America got what it deserved. We should accept that, sorrowfully, and see to it that we don't make the same mistake again.
#15. To: civilwarbuff (#8) Why would an agreement, which is most certainly under the table not being known to the general public and most certainly not to Congress, be considered even remotely binding on the next administration? It is 'binding', if even that, only so long as the Buchanan administration is in power and imposes no restrictions on the Lincoln administration. Lincoln had every right to resupply and reinforce any military installation in the hands of the Federal government such as Fort Pickens. Nothing one administration does on it's own is binding on a subsequent administration. When it comes in treaties and international agreements (to the extent this armistice qualifies), the only enforcement mechanism in place is the political will of both parties. Two international entities could make an agreement one day and the next, one of them could completely violate it and it is not any crime at all. The only consequence would be the opposing party exacting retribution in whatever way it has the practical means to do so. Absent any such ability, there's no penalty, legal or otherwise, for the offending party.
#16. To: nolu chan (#0) This is very interesting Nolu. I don't have time to read the whole thing but I have skimmed it. Certainly the CW was a tragedy. If the south had been permitted to peaceably secede, it's possible though perhaps unlikely reunification might have happened at some point, maybe 25-60 years later. Obviously social sentiment for southern independence and identity exists even today, but if there had been no civil war, perhaps that sentiment never would have taken root in the south, as it doesn't really exist anywhere else in the USA, except for Texas to a small degree. Germany reuinited, though admittedly the East/West split of Germany was not internally instigated by the German people, but by their conquerors.
#17. To: Pinguinite, civilwarbuff (#15) Nothing one administration does on it's own is binding on a subsequent administration. This is true, but consider the Executive Agreement that Obama entered into with the head of Iran. It will not be binding on Trump, but it will be considered in effect until Trump decides to withdraw from it. So with Buchanan and Lincoln. You generally give notification of withdrawal from an agreement before violating it with an act of war.
#18. To: Pinguinite (#16) If the south had been permitted to peaceably secede, it's possible though perhaps unlikely reunification might have happened at some point, maybe 25-60 years later. Or, if the North wanted to dissociate from the degenrate slavers, the could have outlawed slavery in the North and themselves seceded. Slavery was not legally extinguished in the North until after the war with the ratification of the 13th Amendment. Slaves were expensive. It was only about 6% of the southerners who owned slaves. They were just labor competition for southern whites. Slavery would not have survived the industrial revolution. The cotton gin was there already. Steam driven tractors were coming. Up in Massachusetts, they proved hat labor was cheaper if paid little, worked to the bone, and disposed of when no longer productive. Slavery died for economic reasons. But what to do with millions of freed slaves? The southerners were not ready free slaves and say howdy neighbor. The territories were envisioned to be all White and the slaves could not be exported there. And when Lincoln spoke of freeing the slaves, he indicated that the northern states would not have to accept them. There's a pressure cooker building. Lincoln was an officer in the African Colonization Society which wanted to send Blacks back to Africa. He never quite worked out the logistics. He tried to offload them wherever he could.
#19. To: Vicomte13 (#14)
The country was evil, the Constitution was evil, and a sixth of the population was held in chains, from generation to generation on account of it. Oh, we are a country of New England moralism, and whatever those nutbags say relieves them of all duties to the Constitution and takes away all rights of anyone who disagrees, and they exercised their unilateral, God-given right to destroy the country. Got it. The great moralism did not stop Providence from being headquarters for the slave trade. There was money to be made. Indeed there was moral outrage. Just ask Prudence Crandall, see below.
The Constitution was shredded and had to be rewritten to completely extirpate the notion that men could own men, and that states had any say at all in that matter. As I recall, three Amendments were added, and the 14th Amendment was unable to get the support of 3/4ths of the Union states, so the Southern representatives were expelled from Congress and the Southern states were coerced to ratify the amendment that the Union states would not, as a condition of re-entry into Congress. There is nothing like those good old New England values at work, bringing democracy to the land. The should have just stuck to burning witches at the stake.
I would hope that the lesson to be drawn is that the Constitution is NOT the ultimate law. It is on planet Earth in the United States. Should we destroy the country, say nuke all the cities, to rid of abortion?
It's too bad the Northerners were weak and vacillating and did not care about slavery, as opposed to strongly saying: the time of slavery is over, end it or we will march down there and burn you out to end it. Oh, not to worry. Northerners were strong and did not let a little old Supreme Court opinion stop them when they were riled to action.
"In the Northern states, we are not slaves to individuals, not personal slaves, yet in many respects we are the slaves of the community." Aimed against an attempt to educate Black children in Connecticut, a law was enacted to shut down the school of Prudence Crandall.
"Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened, That no person shall set up or establish in this state any school, academy, or literary institution, for the instruction or education of coloured persons, who are not inhabitants of this state, nor instruct or teach in any school, academy, or other literary institution whatever in this state, or harbour or board, for the purpose of attending or being taught or instructed in any such school, academy, or literary institution, any coloured person who is not an inhabitant of any town in this state, without the consent in writing, first obtained of a majority of the civil authority, and also of the select-men of the town in which such school, academy, or literary institution is situated; and each and every person who shall knowingly do any act forbidden as aforesaid, or shall be aiding or assisting therein, shall, for the first offence, forfeit and pay to the treasurer of this state, a fine of one hundred dollars, and for the second offence, shall forfeit and pay a fine of two hundred dollars, and so double for every offence of which he or she shall be convicted. And all informing officers are required to make due presentment of all breaches of this act. Provided, That nothing in this act shall extend to any district school established in any school society under the laws of this state, or to any school established by any school society under the laws of this state, or to any incorporated academy or incorporated school for instruction in this state." In the case of State of Connecticut v. Crandall, at Brooklyn, October term, 1833, before David Daggett, Ch. J., the court instructed the jury as follows:
"This is an information filed by the attorney for the state, for an alleged violation of a statute law, passed by the General Assembly, at their last session, relating to inhabitants; the preamble to the act, embracing the reasons for the law. http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/twhp/wwwlps/lessons/crandall/CRfacts1.htm
On July 26, 1834, the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors dismissed the case against Crandall on a technical issue. The lower court decision that African Americans were not protected as citizens, however, remained standing. Although Crandall had won a technical legal victory and was free to return to her school, the townspeople of Canterbury would not accept the Supreme Court's decision. On the night of September 9, 1834, an angry mob broke in and ransacked the school building. With clubs and iron bars, the mob terrorized the students and broke more than 90 windows. What the Black Law and local ostracism had not been able to accomplish, this mob achieved. Fearing for the girls' safety, Crandall closed the school the following morning.
http://www.aaregistry.org/historic_events/view/educator-and-abolitionist-prudence-crandall
From Rhode Island, after being educated at a Society of Friends school in Plainfield, Connecticut, Crandall established her own private school for girls at Canterbury. The school was a great success until she decided to admit a Black girl. Crandall, a committed Quaker refused to change her policy of educating Black and white children. The result, White parents began taking their children away from the school. In March 1833 with the support of William Lloyd Garrison and the Anti-Slavery Society, Crandall opened a school for Black girls in Canterbury.
#20. To: nolu chan (#19) Should we destroy the country, say nuke all the cities, to rid of abortion? It's a thought.
#21. To: Vicomte13 (#20) Should we destroy the country, say nuke all the cities, to rid of abortion? Yes, because killing 100 million or so random people is the answer.
#22. To: nolu chan (#21) Yes, because killing 100 million or so random people is the answer. The better answer would be for the nation to stop murdering babies.
#23. To: nolu chan (#18) Slavery would not have survived the industrial revolution. The cotton gin was there already. Steam driven tractors were coming. Up in Massachusetts, they proved hat labor was cheaper if paid little, worked to the bone, and disposed of when no longer productive. Slavery died for economic reasons. Quite true. Slavery would have been outlawed in the south in it's own time, without need of any war. The only thing war gained slaves was a quicker end to it. Though some may argue on the "justice delayed is justice denied" theme that ending it 25-50 years sooner would be worth a war, it being perhaps as much as 2 generations sooner. But of course the war was only partly related to slavery and more about the industrial vs agrarian economic differences between north and south. It might also have been the case that slaves often preferred the security of slavery, in spite of whatever labor was required of them where they had homes & plenty to eat in those cases were they had compassionate & wealthy owners (however non-PC it may be to say such a thing). Losing that and then having to face the competition & decision making of everyday life would have been quite a shocking transition to make for anyone who had grown up as a relatively well cared for slave, and of course being black in a white world would only make it harder. Of course I would not expect that to be true for most slaves. I believe I read once the importation of slaves was prohibited in the Confederate Constitution so the mindset of immorality of slavery was certainly a growing concept even in the south. Then again, maybe the import ban was more for economic or political reasons and not so much moral.
#24. To: nolu chan (#18) And when Lincoln spoke of freeing the slaves, he indicated that the northern states would not have to accept them. There's a pressure cooker building. Lincoln would have qualified as a white supremist by today's standards, though I'd bet most whites of the day would have also. He did not favor integration, and I think there are enough speeches of his to back that up. Sending them somewhere/anywhere was certainly his desire for at least part of his career. Hell, he's even on record as stating he'd just as easily keep slavery as abolish it, whichever would keep the union together. Apparently what you found was that Lincoln actually started the war to serve that end. If he'd put the country through the hell of war to preserve the union, how bad would it have been to just say, "okay, you guys can keep your slaves" and be a happy united country again? Seems to me that is a convincing argument that the war was not/could not have been about slavery. The south must have had much deeper differences with the north than slavery alone.
#25. To: Vicomte13 (#22) The better answer would be for the nation to stop murdering babies. It's not the best ideal answer that counts. Instead it's the best practical answer. War/nuking is one practical answer (though even nukes would not kill all women or men, so it's arguable even that would fail to achieve the desired goal of ending abortion). So can you not come up with one at least a little bit better?
#26. To: Pinguinite (#25) So can you not come up with one at least a little bit better? Yes. I didn't propose nuking the cities to end abortion. Nolu chan did. Which do we want to talk about? Slavery? Abortion? Paying taxes to the British crown rather than killing people to avoid taxes?
#27. To: Pinguinite (#25) Instead it's the best practical answer. The best practical answer to slavery is what happened: Civil War that ended it swiftly. The best practical answer to abortion is a Supreme Court decision that finds that abortion is neither a privacy right issue nor a states rights issue, but a constitutional issue: the unborn are persons, and it is unconstitutional everywhere to kill anybody without trial - and as the unborn are innocent, they cannot be tried - therefore, abortion is strictly unconstitutional as a matter of civil rights, and not a question open to state interpretation. Then prosecute people who continue to commit abortion as murderers. That's the solution to abortion: a swift, universal ban, following by the willing to enforce the ban with police and prison. The solution to slavery was to end it fast, and require the slaveowners to compensate the slaves for their labor, with transfer payments from the nation as well. That didn't happen. Nobody wanted that. So we had a war instead. That was the second best solution.
#28. To: Pinguinite (#23)
[Pinguinite #23] I believe I read once the importation of slaves was prohibited in the Confederate Constitution so the mindset of immorality of slavery was certainly a growing concept even in the south. Then again, maybe the import ban was more for economic or political reasons and not so much moral. The number of Blacks was multiplying as the need for slave labor was about to diminish drastically due to technology. Some southern states had been resisting further importation whle they were still colonies. http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-02-02-0019 Virginia acted to end the importation of slaves into the state as early as 1777, and the bill was passed in October 1778. As a colony, they had become unwilling participants at the mandate of the crown. In their Constitution of 1830, they railed against the king, including a complaint that "by prompting our negroes to rise up in arms among us, those very negroes whom, by an inhuman use of his negative, he had refused us permssion to exclude by law...." The Confederate Constitution, March 11, 1861, Section 9, Clause 1:
Sec. 9. (1) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.
#29. To: Pinguinite (#24)
[Pinguinite #24] Lincoln would have qualified as a white supremist by today's standards, though I'd bet most whites of the day would have also. True, north and south. The evidence for it is overwhelming. But then the standard reason given for the war, supposedly being to free the slaves, posits a war between two groups of white racists to free the slaves, where one side held Blacks enslaved, and the other nearly enslaved them with Black laws. Illinois, the home of the free and the Land o' Lincoln instituted 99-year indentured servitude. Not to be confused with slavery because after 99 years servitude they were free. The history I was taught in school was pure nonsense. It included that the guy who assassinated Lincoln was a lone nut. At no time at school was I ever taught that four people were hanged and four more imprisoned for conspiracy. That was probably the most corrupt trial in history. One more conspiracy trial failed to obtain a conviction.
[Pinguinite #24] If he'd put the country through the hell of war to preserve the union, how bad would it have been to just say, "okay, you guys can keep your slaves" and be a happy united country again? Give the owners compensation and let all the freed slaves go to New England where they would be welcomed. /s Compensated emancipation and letting them go to the territories might have been tried. The the D.C. slaves were freed during the war, the owners were compensated. Compensation would have been cheaper than the war and would not have killed anyone. However, Lincoln and the radicals saw the territories as an all-White paradise with no Black labor in sight. Lincoln was not bashful about saying what he wanted:
"In our greedy chase to make profit of the Negro, let us beware, lest we 'cancel and tear to pieces' even the white man's charter of freedom" [the Declaration of Independence]
#30. To: Pinguinite (#24) [Pinguinite #24] Sending them somewhere/anywhere was certainly his desire for at least part of his career. Yes, the last part, up until approximately April 12, 1865. Shortly before that Lincoln met with General Benjamin Butler about what to do with the freed slaves. Benjamin F. Butler, Autobiography and Personal Reminiscences of Major-General Benjamin F. Butler: A Review of His Legal, Political, and Military Career (or, Butler’s Book) (Boston: A. M. Thayer & Co. Book Publishers, 1892), p. 577-79:
In the spring of 1863, I had another conversation with President Lincoln upon the subject of the employment of negroes. The question was, whether all the negro troops then enlisted and organized should be collected together and made a part of the Army of the Potomac and thus reinforce it. Benjamin F. Butler, Autobiography and Personal Reminiscences of Major-General Benjamin F. Butler: A Review of His Legal, Political, and Military Career (or, Butler’s Book) (Boston: A. M. Thayer & Co. Book Publishers, 1892), p. 903: In April 1865, Lincoln to General Butler:
But what shall we do with the negroes after they are free? I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes. Certainly they cannot if we don’t get rid of the negroes whom we have armed and disciplined and who have fought with us. . . . I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country with a good climate, which they could have to themselves. Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln, Collected and Edited by Allen Thorndike Rice, Published by North American Review, 1888, Reminiscence of Benjamim F. Butler, Reminiscence of Benjamim F. Butler, pp. 150-154:
Lincoln was very much disturbed after the surrender of Lee, and he had been to Richmond, upon the question of what would be the results of peace in the Southern States as affected by the contiguity of the white and black races. Shortly before the time, as I remember it, when Mr. Seward was thrown from his carriage and severely injured, being then in Washington, the President sent for the writer, and said, " General Butler, I am troubled about the negroes. We are soon to have peace. We have got some one hundred and odd thousand negroes who have been trained to arms. When peace shall come I fear lest these colored men shall organize themselves in the South, especially in the States where the negroes are in preponderance in numbers, into guerrilla parties, and we shall have down there a warfare between the whites and the negroes. In the course of the reconstruction of the Government it will become a question of how the negro is to be disposed of. Would it not be possible to export them to some place, say Liberia, or South America, and organize them into communities to support themselves? Now, General, I wish you would examine the practicability of such exportation. Your organization of the flotilla which carried your army from Yorktown and Fort Monroe to City Point, and its success show that you understand such matters. Will you give this your attention, and, at as early a day as possible, report to me your views upon the subject." I replied, "Willingly," and bowed and retired. After some few days of examination, with the aid of statistics and calculations, of this topic, I repaired to the President's office in the morning, and said to him, "I have come to report to you on the question you have submitted to me, Mr. President, about the exportation of the negroes." He exhibited great interest, and said, "Well, what do you think of it ?" I said: "Mr. President, I assume that if the negro is to be sent away on shipboard you do not propose to enact the horrors of the middle passage, but would give the negroes the airspace that the law provides for emigrants." He said, "Certainly." "Well, then, here are some calculations which will show you that if you undertake to export all of the negroes—and I do not see how you can take one portion differently from another—negro children will be born faster than your whole naval and merchant vessels, if substantially all of them were devoted to that use, can carry them from the country; especially as I believe that their increase will be much greater in a state of freedom than of slavery, because the commingling of the two races does not tend to productiveness." He examined my tables carefully for some considerable time, and then he looked up sadly and said: "Your deductions seem to be correct, General. But what can we do? "I replied:" If I understand you, Mr. President, your theory is this: That the negro soldiers we have enlisted will not return to the peaceful pursuits of laboring men, but will become a class of guerrillas and criminals. Now, while I do not see, under the Constitution, even with all the aid of Congress, how you can export a class of people who are citizens against their will, yet the Commander-in-Chief can dispose of soldiers quite arbitrarily. Now, then, we have large quantities of clothing to clothe them, large quantities of provision with which to supply them, and arms and everything necessary for them, even to spades and shovels, mules and wagons. Our war has shown that an army organization is the very best for digging up the soil and making in-trenchments. Witness the very many miles of intrenchments that our soldiers have dug out. I know of a concession of the United States of Colombia for a tract of thirty miles wide across the Isthmus of Panama for opening a ship canal. The enlistments of the negroes have all of them from two to three years to run. Why not send them all down there to dig the canal? They will withstand the climate, and the work can be done with less cost to the United States in that way than in any other. If you choose, I will take command of the expedition. We will take our arms with us, and I need not suggest to you that we will need nobody sent down to guard us from the interference of any nation. We will proceed to cultivate the land and supply ourselves with all the fresh food that can be raised in the tropics, which will be all that will be needed, and your stores of provisions and supplies of clothing will furnish all the rest. Shall I work out the details of such an expedition for you, Mr. President?" He reflected for some time, and then said: "There is meat in that suggestion, General Butler; there is meat in that suggestion. Go and talk to Seward, and see what foreign complication there will be about it. Then think it over, get your figures made, and come to me again as soon as you can. If the plan has no other merit, it will rid the country of the colored soldiers." "Oh," said I, "it will do more than that. After we get down there we shall make a humble petition for you to send our wives and children to us, which you can't well refuse, and then you will have a United States colony in that region which will hold its own against all comers, and be contented and happy." Yes, yes," said he, "that's it; go and see Seward."
#31. To: nolu chan (#0) The best way to end slavery would have been for all to those northern high and mighty people just to pay a marginal price for all of of them and bring them to to the north. Everyone knows how much they they really loved black people, right? The cotton industry would have gone on (sharecropping).
#32. To: Vicomte13, nolu chan (#2) Gotta let those eggs hatch if you want a chicken. I hate eggs but love chicken.
#33. To: Vicomte13 (#9) That the country that permitted it was horribly traumatized is justice. According to you barbarian, Jesus must have been horrible because he didn't end slavery when he was on the earth. He didn't even talk about it as far as I can tell.
#34. To: A K A Stone (#33) Jesus didn't have slaves.
#35. To: Vicomte13 (#14) Americans had no right, under God, to HAVE slavery. Genesis 9:25-27: "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japeth live in the tents of Shem and may Canaan be his slave.' " 17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Leviticus 25:44-46King James Version (KJV) 44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. 46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour. Exodus 21:20-21 When a slave-owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives for a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property. Ephesians 6:5-9King James Version (KJV) 5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; 6 Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; 7 With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: 8 Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. 9 And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him. Colossians 3:22-25King James Version (KJV) 22 Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God; 23 And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; 24 Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ. 25 But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons. 1 Timothy 6:1-5King James Version (KJV) 6 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. 2 And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. 3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; 4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, 5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
#36. To: nolu chan (#19) As I recall, three Amendments were added, and the 14th Amendment was unable to get the support of 3/4ths of the Union states, so the Southern representatives were expelled from Congress and the Southern states were coerced to ratify the amendment that the Union states would not, as a condition of re-entry into Congress. We've talked about this before. Long story short you said the 14th is lawful, and that my position that it wasn't ratified correctly was horse shit. :) Granted it was a different argument as to why it wasn't legitimate that I was making.
#37. To: nolu chan (#19) Should we destroy the country, say nuke all the cities, to rid of abortion? Vic said he would vote for pro abortion Hillary over Ted Cruz if he got the nomination. Mammon is more important then innocent life is what it boiled down to. Even though his conclusion of the economy was incorrect.
#38. To: Vicomte13 (#20) It's a thought. God said he would save the city if only one good person was in it. You would murder tens of millions for the crimes of far less number of people. Truly barbaric, sick and unchristian.
#39. To: Vicomte13 (#22) The better answer would be for the nation to stop murdering babies. That is why you said you would vote for Hillary. Such a hypocrite.
#40. To: Vicomte13 (#34) Jesus didn't have slaves. No, but the Romans who crucified him did. We can presume he was familiar with the issue.
#41. To: nolu chan (#30) Excellent research and thread by the way.
#42. To: A K A Stone (#36)
As I recall, three Amendments were added, and the 14th Amendment was unable to get the support of 3/4ths of the Union states, so the Southern representatives were expelled from Congress and the Southern states were coerced to ratify the amendment that the Union states would not, as a condition of re-entry into Congress. I do not recall the precise conversation, but I think there is a misunderstanding of the legal effect of something I may have said. No amendment, certified as ratified, can be judicially challenged or held to be unlawful. I have frequently assailed the method by which ratifications were obtained for the 14th Amendment. That does not make the amendment unlawful. The certification of ratification by the Secretary is absolutely conclusive and is not subject to challenge in any court. As a political question, it is beyond the jurisdiction of the courts. No matter what evidence of questionable acts or wrongdoing can be found, there is absolutely no recourse. The 14th is part of the Constitution unless repealed. LaVergne v Bryson, Secretary of Commerce, 3rd Cir 12-1171 (20 Sep 2012)
LaVergne’s claims also fail on other grounds, including lack of justiciability. LaVergne’s constitutional challenge to § 2a is primarily based on his argument that the apportionment method violates Article the First. He alleges that this proposed constitutional amendment was ratified by the states in November 1791 or June 1792. Putting aside the considerable factual and historical problems with his argument, “[t]he issue of whether a constitutional amendment has been properly ratified is a political question.” United States v. McDonald, 919 F.2d 146, 1990 WL 186103 (table), at *3 (9th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (citing Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 450 (1939)). In Coleman, the Supreme Court held that “the question of the efficacy of ratifications by state legislatures . . . should be regarded as a political question pertaining to the political departments, with the ultimate authority in the Congress in the exercise of its control over the promulgation of the adoption of the amendment.” 307 U.S. at 450. See also Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 1, 39 (1849) (holding that “the political department has always determined whether the proposed constitution or amendment was ratified or not by the people of the State, and the judicial power has followed its decision”); United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457, 463 n.6 (7th Cir. 1986) (holding that the issue of “the validity of an amendment’s ratification [is] a non-justiciable political question” and citing, among other cases, Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 137 (1922), and Coleman, 307 U.S. at 450). US v McDonald, 9th Cir 88-5239, 919 F.2d 146 (26 Nov 1990)
Because the ratification of a constitutional amendment is a political question, the Secretary of State's certification that the required number of states have ratified an amendment is binding on the courts. See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 137 (1922) (Secretary of State's certification that the Nineteenth Amendment had been ratified by the requisite number of state legislatures was conclusive upon the courts); United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438, 1439 (9th Cir. 1986) (Secretary of State's certification that the Sixteenth Amendment was properly ratified was conclusive upon the courts), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1036 (1987). United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438, 1439 (9th Cir. 1986)
Stahl argues that the sixteenth amendment was never ratified by the requisite number of states because of clerical errors in the ratifying resolutions of the various state legislatures and other errors in the ratification process. He further argues that Secretary of State Knox committed fraud by certifying the adoption of the amendment despite these alleged errors. Secretary of State Knox certified that the sixteenth amendment had been ratified by the legislatures of thirty-eight states, two more than the thirty-six then required for ratification. His certification of the adoption of the amendment was made pursuant to Section 205 of the Revised Statutes of the United States which provided: Luther v Borden, 48 US 1, 39 (1849)
In forming the constitutions of the different States, after the Declaration of Independence, and in the various changes and alterations which have since been made, the political department has always determined whether the proposed constitution or amendment was ratified or not by the people of the State, and the judicial power has followed its decision.
#43. To: A K A Stone (#35) So, Americans were Hebrews, and the Americans were respecting God's Law of slavery in the Torah, were they? No. If you're going to invoke God's law of slavery from Mt. Sinai, you had better be ready to FOLLOW it, ALL of it. God forbade the Hebrews from having their co-religionists as slaves. God required the freedom of slaves at the Jubilee. God did not permit the Hebrews to have sex with their slaves. They had to marry them, which ended their slavery. Uh oh. If you're going to invoke God, have a care for what you're invoking, because God's law of slavery was utterly disregarded by American slavers, in virtually every respect.
#44. To: nolu chan (#42) The certification of ratification by the Secretary is absolutely conclusive and is not subject to challenge in any court. As a political question, it is beyond the jurisdiction of the courts. No matter what evidence of questionable acts or wrongdoing can be found, there is absolutely no recourse. Well, unless an activist Supreme Court says otherwise. "Political question" is itself a court doctrine. The court could change that doctrine.
#45. To: rlk (#40) No, but the Romans who crucified him did. We can presume he was familiar with the issue. Yes, and the Roman Empire was also destroyed. Jesus had a very simple answer: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. He didn't make distinctions among the others.
#46. To: A K A Stone (#38) God said he would save the city if only one good person was in it. You would murder tens of millions for the crimes of far less number of people. Truly barbaric, sick and unchristian. So you think the United States was sick, barbaric and unchristian for the bombings of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, etc., etc. Good to know.
#47. To: Vicomte13 (#43) If you're going to invoke God's law of slavery from Mt. Sinai, you had better be ready to FOLLOW it, ALL of it. God forbade the Hebrews from having their co-religionists as slaves. God required the freedom of slaves at the Jubilee. God did not permit the Hebrews to have sex with their slaves. They had to marry them, which ended their slavery. Uh oh. I quoted scripture. You didn't. As I have noticed on several occasions your intrepretations are often incorrect. Go ahead and show me from scripture where it says what you say. Your point was that any nation that practiced slavery should be destroyed by God. You hinted that any nation that supports abortion should be nuked. I know Chan said it first but your answer basically conodned it. Or would at least consider it. Since you said many times that you would vote for pro abortion Hillary over pro life Ted Cruz. Shouln't you also be judged and killed by God? Since in your heart you are ok with abortion in certain circumstances. Like instead of christian Ted Cruz becoming President. You would support a thief who murders children. You are a true hypocrite.
#48. To: Vicomte13 (#44) Well, unless an activist Supreme Court says otherwise. "Political question" is itself a court doctrine. The court could change that doctrine. I'm not all negative on you. You are correct here imo.
#49. To: A K A Stone (#47) Shouln't you also be judged and killed by God? We're ALL going to be killed by God - me, you, Nolu - everybody. As fas as quoting Scripture goes, you put down some lines, which didn't prove the point you were trying to make. I've played that game with you before - spent a whole afternoon lining up the poverty laws from Scripture. I posted it. It's somewhere on this board somewhere. I quoted Scripture exhaustively, in context. You ignored it completely, as if it never happened, and went right on saying exactly what you said before. Could I go in and pull out of Torah the specific provisions in which God prohibits the enslavement of fellow religionists? Sure. Could I lay out the law by which masters could not have sex with their slaves without marriage? Sure. It's all there. The law of slavery that God gave the Hebrews was a machine that was designed to induce conversion among captives, for conversion brought liberation and a share in Israel. God's law of slavery wasn't about slavery, it was about protecting lives from being killed, and giving them the chance to see the light and convert to the worship of God, at which point slavery ended. There was a purpose to it, and that purpose was not to make Israelites rich, but to be a vehicle for the conversion of slaves to God. American slavery had nothing in common with Israelite slavery. The Americans did not care about God's law of slavery. They had their own, and it was a vehicle of profit and oppression, not conversion. I could spend my afternoon putting together all of those verses comprehensively, and post it. I'm not going to, because past experience has shown you will ignore it, because it doesn't fit your politics.
#50. To: Vicomte13 (#44)
Well, unless an activist Supreme Court says otherwise. "Political question" is itself a court doctrine. The court could change that doctrine. It would be as likely as the Supreme Court overturning the 13th Amendment and bringing back slavery. But if that is all you've got, I guess you have to go with it. Your argument, such as it is, depends on overturning a judicial precedent that has been repeatedly upheld for nearly two centuries. And, I wish you well in overturning the Separation of Powers. http://laws.findlaw.com/us/369/186.html
U.S. Supreme Court
#51. To: nolu chan (#50) The Supreme Court violated this doctrine when it imposed abortion and gay marriage - eminently political questions that had been decided by legislatures - on vague constitutional grounds and "emanations of penumbrae". Same thing with the Dred Scott decision, that effectively wiped out the Missouri Compromise. Of course, the Court did not ADMIT that it was answering political questions. They've always put on a fine fan dance to make their decisions seem logically justified and, indeed, inevitable. In any case, it's the system we've got, and it's not changing anytime soon. So it's very important that we control the people who get put up there, stack it with people who will decide things rightly and overturn the established precedents that are not right, in our opinion.
. . . Comments (52 - 69) not displayed. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|