America Needs To Rediscover The Spirit Of The Old South.

What is your question on slavery. If it has been answered, I won't revist that issue.

First of all Andersons move from Moultrie to Sumter, without orders was an act of war. It violated a treaty between South Carolina and Buchannan. Anderson and his men were getting supplies ffrom Charleston until word was leaked about Lincoln's planned inavssion at Charleston or Penacola. As for the supply fleet, the very makeup of the fleet calls you a LIAR Here is what is known--

The following list embraces the names, with armaments and troops, of the fleet dispatched from New York and Washington to Charleston harbor, for the relief of Fort Sumter:-

Vessels of War
Steam sloop-of-war Pawnee, Captain S. C. Rowan, 10 guns and 200 men. The Pawnee sailed from Washington, with sealed orders, on the morning of Saturday, April 6.
Steam sloop-of-war Powhatan, Captain E. D. Porter, 11 guns and 275 men. The Powhatan sailed from the Brookyln Navy Yard on Saturday afternoon April 6.
Revenue cutter Harriet Lane, Captain J. Faunce, 5 guns and 96 men. On Saturday, April 6, the Harriet Lane exchanged her revenue flag for the United States navy flag, denoting her transfer to the Government naval service, and sailed suddenly on last Monday morning, with sealed orders.

The Steam Transports
Atlantic, 358 troops, composed of Companies A and M of the Second artillery, Companies C and H of the Second infantry, and Company A of sappers and miners from West Point. The Atlantic sailed from the steam at 5 o'clock on Sunday morning last, April 7.
Baltic, 160 troops, composed of Companies C and D, recruits, from Governor's and Bedloe's islands. The Baltic sailed from Quarantine at 7o'clock on Tuesday morning last, April 9.
Illinois, 300 troops, composed of Companies B, E, F, G and H, and a detachment from Company D, all recruits from Governor's and Bedloe's Islands, together with two companies of the Second infantry, from Fort Hamilton. The Illinois sailed from Quarantine on Tuesday morning at 6 o'clock.

The Steamtugs
Two steamtugs, with a Government official on each, bearing sealed dispatches, were also sent. The Yankee left New York on Monday evening, 8th, and the Uncle Ben on Tuesday night.

The Launches
Nearly thirty of these boats-whose services are most useful in effecting a landing of troops over shoal water, and for attacking a discharging battery when covered with sand and gunny bags- have been taken out by the Powhatan and by the steam transports Atlantic, Baltic and Illinois.

Recapitulation
Vessels Guns Men
Sloop-of-war Pawnee 10 200
Sloop-of-war Powhatan 11 275
Cutter Harriet Lane 5 96
Steam Transport Atlantic 353
Steam Transport Baltic 160
Steam Transport Illinois 300
Steamtug Yankee Ordinary Crew
Steamtug Uncle Ben Ordinary Crew
Total number of vessels 8
Total number of guns (for marine service) 26
Total number of men and troops 1,380

It is understood that several transports are soon to be chartered, and dispatched to Charleston with troops and supplies.
________________________
Those ships that were assigned specifically to Charleston.
The ships assigned were the steam sloop-of-war USS Pawnee, steam sloop-of-war USS Powhatan, transporting motorized launches and about 300 sailors (secretly removed from the Charleston fleet to join in the forced reenforcement of Fort Pickens, Pensacola, Fla.), armed screw steamer USS Pochaontas, Revenue Cutter USS Harriet Lane, steamer Baltic transporting about 200 troops, composed of companies C and D of the 2nd U.S. Artillery, and three hired tug boats. The rest of the ships listed in the New York paper went to Pensacola.

I have plenty of info on Sumter. I will be glad to post it in the next few days.


You are the one who believes in American genocide!!!

George Purvis
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

 

If you would allow me to post info I have on Ft. Sumter, I would greatly appreciate it. You are making some excellent posts regarding the slavery issue, I'll defer that issue to you.

George Purvis
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

 

SO Kessy Athena when are you going to DENY these incidents??????

You are the only one who thinks the DELIBERATE killing of civilians is a part of war. Would you like me to hook you up with someone who thinks the same way????

George Purvis
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

 

You know, Purvis, it's generally agreed that the volume of an argument is inversely proportional to its validity. The more you shout and yell, the more desperate you look, and the less of an argument you have. Especially when you keep yelling the same things over and over that I've already answered in detail.

Woogs, I am seriously asking you what liberties I am being deprived of. Name them. Give examples. And if you can't, you're just acknowledging that there aren't any, and the entire argument of an oppressive Federal Government is pure bollix.

As for states rights, yes, the states most certainly did give up their sovereignty by ratifying the constitution. I suggest you try reading the Constitution for once. The document makes it absolutely crystal clear. "We the people" means we the people, not we the states. If the founders had meant we the states, don't you think that's what they would have said?

Of course Congress didn't declare war - there was no legitimate, sovereign government to declare war on. Likewise neither Buchanan nor anyone else ever made a treaty with South Carolina. South Carolina was never a sovereign state with the power to make treaties. The Confederacy was an illegal rebellion against the lawful government. The federal government would have been entirely within its rights to summarily execute every political and military officer serving the Confederacy for treason. It is a testament to the humanity and compassion of Lincoln and the Union leadership that they chose to treat Confederates as lawful combatants when they were not entitled to that treatment under the laws of war.

Reposted from my thread, http://www.politicalforum.com/political-opinions-beliefs/177387-states-rights-bunk.html :

And what is the theoretical basis for states' rights to begin with? That states are sovereign countries in their own right? Sorry, but that argument's full of holes. If the original 13 colonies viewed themselves as independant nations, why did they issue a joint declaration of independence instead of 13 individual ones? Why was the first thing they did after declarng independence establishing a central government under the Articles of Confederation? And why was there consensus just a few short years later that the Articles were unworkable and needed to be replaced with a stronger constitution? Why was it that during the Civil War the first thing the South did was to establish a central government closely modeled on the existing US federal government?

The Constitution itself is pretty clear on the matter in Article VI:

In addition, in Article IV you have Section 2:

Section 3:

And Section 4:

And of course, there's the 14th Amendment:

So if states can be created by fiat of Congress, are always subject to federal law, can't determine who is or is not one of their citizens, and aren't even allowed to change their form of government, in what way are they in any sense sovereign? The simple fact is that, wishful thinking aside, the states are not and (with a few exceptions) never have been sovereign.

 

You know, Woogs, I find it most remarkable that you accuse me of knowing better than the people actually alive at the time when you and Purvis are the ones either ignoring or massively twisting the Confederate's own words that they went to war to defend slavery. And Purvis, secession meant war. You know it, I know it, and the people at the time knew it. We've been over this. So spare me the idiotic drivel that the Confederacy merely pulled the trigger, it was the bullet that did the killing.

Since the two of you seem to have reading comprehension issues when it comes to documents that don't fit your preconceived ideas, I suppose I'll have to go over these documents point by point. Let's start with South Carolina.

 

Continued analysis of South Carolina's declaration of causes:

 

...From Margaret Rutherford's 'A True Estimate of Abraham Lincoln'...

...on violations of the Constitution.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1. First of all coercion in 1861, which was a violation of Article 4. And of course that's where Lincoln tried to coerce the South into fighting and of course into surrendering to him basically.

2. Lincoln violated the Constitution when he violated the Laws of Neutrality, which was the Trent Affair, Article 6, Clause 2, which was a violation of international law. Now if you don't know what the Trent Affair was, it is very interesting because the Confederate Government had sent some representatives to England to present our cause there before the English Parliament and our Confederate men were on an English ship named the Trent. And the United States government came and took the Confederate men off a British ship and imprisoned them. You say, well, what's so bad about that, because of the laws of Neutrality, and remember the War of 1812 was fought over the same issue because the English was doing that to our citizens. And what happened, the North was humiliated in this. Those men had to be released and William Seward had to write an apology to the English government because the English government would not even negotiate. They said you will either release those men or there is going to be war between you and England as well as the South and England. So, Lincoln when he violated the Constitution in this area, by the way, do you know what he did for the Captain who arrested those men and took them off of the English Ship? He gave him a gold medal. Didn't matter to him that he violated the Constitution.
(sounds a lot like what he did with Turchin....added by Woogs)

3. He suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2.

4. He declared war without the consent of Congress in 1861, which is a violation of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 and 12.

5. He made West Virginia a State in violation of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 1. He just separated Virginia and made West Virginia a State all by himself.

6. He denied the freedom of speech in the Valandeham Imprisonment, which was a violation of the first Amendment.

7. He blockaded Ports of the States that were held by the Federal government to still be in the Union. You don't block your own Ports.

8. The Liberty of the Press was taken away - that is a violation of the First Amendment.

9. Violation of the Fugitive slave law, which was violation of Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Athena,

Your analysis of South Carolina’s secession document doesn't equal a pimple on an ant behind. Why? Well first of all several pages back I said that slavery was one of the issues not all the only issue. You seem hell bent on proving it is the only issue. You chose s South Carolina to highlight --- big deal.

I have explained this once, it is not my style to cover ground twice but I suppose you were asleep the first time around. I will explain it so that a 12 year old can understand.

First point there are is a greater number than four so we can plainly see the greater majority did not necessary secede because of slavery.

There are e 13 Confederate states that seceded. The first 4 states that seceded drew up what is known as the Immediate Causes of secession.

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#Mississippi

None of the other Southern states did so. These 4 states do not represent the entire Confederacy. To get an idea how many Confederate states did not draw up these immediate causes take 13 and subtract 4. That leaves you a total of 9.

Now moving on we do know that all seceding states drew up Ordinances of Secession these ordinances can be found at-------

http://www.constitution.org/csa/ordinances_secession.htm

Now as we read these ordinances how many of these states give the reason for secession as the instruction of slavery--- 0. Now since none of these states, which also include the first 4 South Carolina, Georgia, Texas and Mississippi, list slavery as the cause of secession then we can safely conclude that slavery was not the major cause of secession. That is proven by 13-0=13. If it was --SO WHAT? They could have seceded because of any reason what -so- ever.

Now what you are trying to do is post as much BS as you can in order to deflect the attention from your ignorant stance on the causes of the war. You have made the statement that the South was fighting for the institution of slavery. You chose to use the Immediate Causes of secession as your proof positive. Since these documents do not support your argument you chose to reframe your argument to prove slavery was a cause. That will not work, so now using these documents, prove that the South went to war to preserve the institution of slavery. Support your argument with facts or just admit you are spreading a lie.

SHOW ME WHERE THESE STATES STTATED WE ARE GOING TO WAR FOR SLAVERY.

OH yes I use a larger font because you keep coming back with your ignorance, it is my conclusion you are having trouble seeing the forum.

Remember you are the one who advocates the murder of AMERICAN women and children.

George Purvis
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com[/SIZE][/B]

 

HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY
WASHINGTON, September 28, 1864,

Major-General SHERMAN, Atlanta, Georgia.

GENERAL: Your communications of the 20th in regard to the removal of families from Atlanta, and the exchange of prisoners, and also the official report of your campaign, are just received. I have not had time as yet to examine your report. The course which you have pursued in removing rebel families from Atlanta, and in the exchange of prisoners, is fully approved by the War Department. Not only are you justified by the laws and usages of war in removing these people, but I think it was your duty to your own army to do so. Moreover, I am fully of opinion that the nature of your position, the character of the war, the conduct of the enemy (and especially of non-combatants and women of the territory which we have heretofore conquered and occupied), will justify you in gathering up all the forage and provisions which your army may require, both for a siege of Atlanta and for your supply in your march farther into the enemy's country. Let the disloyal families of the country, thus stripped, go to their husbands, fathers, and natural protectors, in the rebel ranks; we have tried three years of conciliation and kindness without any reciprocation; on the contrary, those thus treated have acted as spies and guerrillas in our rear and within our lines. The safety of our armies, and a proper regard for the lives of our soldiers, require that we apply to our inexorable foes the severe rules of war. We certainly are not required to treat the so-called non-combatant rebels better than they themselves treat each other. Even herein Virginia, within fifty miles of Washington, they strip their own families of provisions, leaving them, as our army advances, to be fed by us, or to starve within our lines. We have fed this class of people long enough. Let them go with their husbands and fathers in the rebel ranks; and if they won't go, we must send them to their friends and natural protectors. I would destroy every mill and factory within reach which I did not want for my own use. This the rebels have done, not only in Maryland and Pennsylvania, but also in Virginia and other rebel States, when compelled to fall back before our armies. In many sections of the country they have not left a mill to grind grain for their own suffering families, lest we might use them to supply our armies. We most do the same.

I have endeavored to impress these views upon our commanders for the last two years. You are almost the only one who has properly applied them. I do not approve of General Hunter's course in burning private homes or uselessly destroying private property. That is barbarous. But I approve of taking or destroying whatever may serve as supplies to us or to the enemy's army.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

H. W. HALLECK, Major-General, Chief of Staff

 

From the OR's --The war of the rebellion: a compilation of the official records of the Union and Confederate armies. ; Series 1 - Volume 39 (Part II)
page 132 KY., SW. VA., TENN., MISS., ALA., AND N. GA.

MILITARY DIVISON OF THE Mississippi, In the Field, Big Shanty, Ga., June 21, 1864. Hon. E. M. STANTON, Secretary of War, Washington, D. C.:

[CHAr. LI. ate in our midst the class of men that we all know to be conspiring against the peace of the State, and yet who if tried by jury could not be convicted. Our civil powers at the South are ridiculously impotent, and it is as a ship sailing through seaour armies traverse the land, and the waves of disaffection, sedition, and crime close in behind, and our track disappears. We must make a beginning, and I am will- ing to try it, but to be effectual it should be universal. The great diffi- culty will be in selecting a place for the malcontents. Honduras, British or French Guiana, or San iDomingo would be the best countries, but these might object to receive such a mass of restless democrats. Madagascar or Lower California would do. But one thing is certain, there is a class of people, men, women, and children, who must be killed or banished before you can hope for peace and order, even as far south as Tennessee. I would like to have your assent and to name the land to which I may send a few cargoes, but if you will not venture, but leave me to order, I will find some island where they will be safe as against the district of my command.

(Note that when copy and paste is used some typos occur)

George Purvis
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

 

HDQRS. MILITARY DIVISION OF THE Mississippi, In the Field, Big Shanty, June 21, 1864. General Lorenzo THOMAS, Chattanooga:

It has repeatedly come to my knowledge, on the Mississippi, and recently Colonel Beckwith, my chief commissary, reported officially that his negro cattle drivers and gangs for unloading cars were stampeded and broken up by recruiting officers who actually used their authority to carry them off by a species of force. I had to stop it at once. I am receiving no negroes now, because their owners have driven them to Southwest Georgia. I believe that Negroes better serve the Army as teamsters, pioneers, and servants, and have no objection to the surplus, if any, being enlisted as soldiers, but I must have labor and a large quantity of it. I confess I would prefer 300 Negroes armed with spades and axes than 1,000 as soldiers. Still I repeat I have no objection to the enlistment of Negroes if my working parties are not interfered with, and if they are interfered with I must put a summary stop to it. For God’s sake let the Negro question develop itself slowly and naturally, and not by premature cultivation make it a weak element in our policy. I think I understand the Negro as well as anybody, and profess as much conviction in the fact of his certain freedom as you or any one, but he, like all other of the genus homo, must pass through a probationary state before he is qualified for utter and complete freedom. As soldiers it is still an open question, which I am perfectly willing should be fairly and honestly tested. Negroes are as scarce in North Georgia as in Ohio. All are at and below Macon and Columbus, Ga. W. T. SHERMAN, Major- General, Commanding.

 

The war of the rebellion: a compilation of the official records of the Union and Confederate armies. ; Series 1 - Volume 39 (Part III)
Author: United States. War Dept., John Sheldon Moody, Calvin Duvall Cowles, Frederick Caryton Ainsworth, Robert N. Scott, Henry Martyn Lazelle, George Breckenridge Davis, Leslie J. Perry, Joseph William Kirkley

page 162 KY., SW. VA., TENN., MISS., ALA., AND N. GA. [CHAP. LI.

HDQRS. MiLITARY DIVISION OF THE Mississippi, In the Field, Allatoona, Ga., October 9, 18647.30 r. m. Lieutenant-General GRANT, (Received 11 a. ni. 10th.) City Point, Va.: It will be a physical impossibility to protect the roads, now that Hood, Forrest, and Wheeler, and the whole batch of devils, are turned loose without home or habitation. I think Hoods movements indicate a diversion to the end of the Selma and Talladega Railroad at Blue Momitain, about sixty miles southwest of Rome, from which he will threaten Kingston, Bridgeport, and Decatur, Ala. I propose we break up the railroad from Chattanooga, and strike out with wagons for Mil- ledgeville, Millen, and Savannah. Until we can repopulate Georgia, it is useless to occupy it, but the utter destruction of its roads, houses, and people will cripple their military resources. By attempting to hold the roads we will lose 1,000 men monthly, and will gain no re- sult. I can make the march, and make Georgia howl. We have over 8,000 cattle and 3,000,000 of bread, but no corn; but we can forage in the interior of the State. W. T. SHERMAN, Major- General, Commanding.


More coming soon.

George Purvis
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

 

Having thus provided for the reënforcement of the forts, in
case of need, the Secretary of War despatched Assistant Adju-
tant-General Buell to Major Anderson, at Fort Moultrie, with
instructions how he should act in his present position. These
were communicated to him on the 11th December, 1860.

From Mr. Buchanans administartion on the eve of Rebellion
Chapter 9, page 165- 166

Whilst they instructed the Major to avoid every act of aggres-
sion, they directed him, in case of an attack upon, or an attempt
to take possession of, any of the three forts under his command,
to defend them to the last extremity. Furthermore, he was
authorized, as a precautionary measure, should he believe his
force insufficient for the defence of all three, to remove it at his
discretion from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter, whenever he
should have tangible evidence of a design, on the part of South
Carolina, to proceed to a hostile act. We say to Fort Sumter,
because the third fort, Castle Pinckney, was wholly indefensi-
ble. From the important bearing of these instructions upon
subsequent events, they are entitled to textual insertion. They are as follows: ★ "You are aware of the great anxiety of the
Secretary of Wax, that a collision of the troops with the people
of the State shall be avoided, and of his studied determination
to pursue a course with reference to the military force and forts
in this harbor, which shall guard against such a collision. He
has, therefore, carefully abstained from increasing the force at
this point, or taking any measures which might add to the pres-
ent excited state of the public mind, or which would throw any
doubt on the confidence he feels that South Carolina will not
attempt by violence to obtain possession of the public works or
interfere with their occupancy. But as the counsel and acts of
rash and impulsive persons may possibly disappoint these expec-
tations of the Government, he deems it proper that you shall be
prepared with instructions to meet so unhappy a contingency. He
has, therefore, directed me verbally to give you such instructions.
You are carefully to avoid every act which would needlessly
tend to provoke aggression, and for that reason you are not,
without evident and imminent necessity, to take up any position
which could be construed into the assumption of a hostile atti-
tude, but you are to hold possession of the forts in this harbor,
and if attacked you are to defend yourself to the last extremity.
The smallness of your force will not permit you, perhaps, to
occupy more than one of the three forts, but an attack on or
attempt to take possession of either one of them will be regarded
as an act of hostility, and you may then put your command into
either of them which you may deem most proper to increase its
power of resistance. You are also authorized to take similar
defensive steps whenever you have tangible evidence of a design
to proceed to a hostile act." ★



★ Ex. Doc., H. R., vol. vi., No. 26, p. 10.

 

Mr. Buchanans admin.--------

Page 166

The President having determined not to disturb the status quo
at Charleston, as long as our troops should continue to be hospi-
tably treated by the inhabitants, and remain in unmolested pos-
session of the forts, was gratified to learn, a short time thereafter,
that South Carolina was equally intent on preserving the peace.
On the 8th December, 1860, four of the Representatives in
Congress from that State sought an interview, and held a con-
versation with him concerning the best means of avoiding a
hostile collision between the parties. In order to guard against
any misapprehension on either side, he suggested that they had
best reduce their verbal communication to writing, and bring it
to him in that form. Accordingly, on the 10th December, they
delivered to him a note, dated on the previous day, and signed
by five members, in which they say: "In compliance with
our statement to you yesterday, we now express to you our
strong convictions that neither the constituted authorities, nor
any body of the people of the State of South Carolina, will
either attack or molest the United States forts in the harbor of
Charleston, previously to the action of the Convention; and we
hope and believe not until an offer has been made, through an
accredited representative, to negotiate for an amicable arrange-
ment of all matters between the State and the Federal Govern-
ment, provided that no reënforcements be sent into these forts,
and their relative military status shall remain as at present." ★
Both in this and in their previous conversation, they declared
that in making this statement, they were acting solely on their
own responsibility, and expressly disclaimed any authority to
bind their State. They, nevertheless, expressed the confident
belief that they would be sustained both by the State authori-
ties and by the Convention, after it should assemble. Although
the President considered this declaration as nothing more than
the act of five highly respectable members of the House from
South Carolina, yet he welcomed it as a happy omen, that by
means of their influence collision might be prevented, and time
afforded to all parties for reflection and for a peaceable adjust-

____________________
★ Ex. Doc., H. R., vol. vi., No. 96, p. 9, &c.

 

Fine, you want me to go through every single secession document line by line, I'll do it. I'm having to do a fair amount of work on this and I don't have all day, so I'll post it as I get it done. I'm also working on Sherman's march, so I'll get back to you on that. But calling it genocide is just idiotic. Sherman targeted infrastructure, not civilians, and very few civilians actually died during the campaign. Your claim of mass murder is pure fiction. Unless you consider railroad tracks and cotton gins to be people.

Mississippi's declaration of causes:

--------------------

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery- There, they said it outright right off the bat, it's all about slavery. - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory. slavery

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France. slavery

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico. slavery

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction. slavery

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion. slavery

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot. Since you have reading comprehension issues, I will remind you that throughout this section "it" refers to hostility toward slavery

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain. slavery

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst. slavery

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice. prejudice against slavery

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists. slavery

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better. slavery

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives. Reference to John Brown, again about slavery.

It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security. Okay, honestly, I'm not sure what they're on about here, but since "it" still refers to hostility towards slavery, clearly they thought it had something to do with slavery.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system. slavery

It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause. slavery

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood. slavery

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property (Property = slaves.) worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.

 

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. Georgia also says it explicitly and right off the bat. Honestly, did you bother to read these at all? They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, In other words, the North has allowed abolitionists to spread their lies about how slavery is wrong. and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, Fugitive Slave Law and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. Spread of slavery to the territories This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation. Our Northern confederates, after a full and calm hearing of all the facts, after a fair warning of our purpose not to submit to the rule of the authors of all these wrongs and injuries, have by a large majority committed the Government of the United States into their hands. We lost the election! It's not fair! We're always supposed to win! The people of Georgia, after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with equal firmness that they shall not rule over them. A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. They said it, not me. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution. While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation. The main reason was that the North, even if united, could not control both branches of the Legislature during any portion of that time. Therefore such an organization must have resulted either in utter failure or in the total overthrow of the Government. Here they're explicitly linking the following economic issues to slavery. Again, they said it, not me. The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.

But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.

All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity. This question was before us. We had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding solution. This state of facts gave form and shape to the anti-slavery sentiment throughout the North and the conflict began. Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South. We had shed our blood and paid our money for its acquisition; we demanded a division of it on the line of the Missouri restriction or an equal participation in the whole of it. These propositions were refused, the agitation became general, and the public danger was great. The case of the South was impregnable. The price of the acquisition was the blood and treasure of both sections-- of all, and, therefore, it belonged to all upon the principles of equity and justice. In other words, the exclusion of slavery from the territories was the same as excluding the South as a whole. This clearly demonstrates that Mississippi was entirely serious when it said that their position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery.

 

The Constitution delegated no power to Congress to excluded either party from its free enjoyment; therefore our right was good under the Constitution. Again, they equate excluding slavery from the territories with excluding the South. Southerners were perfectly free to enjoy the territories, if they left their slaves behind. Our rights were further fortified by the practice of the Government from the beginning. Slavery was forbidden in the country northwest of the Ohio River by what is called the ordinance of 1787. That ordinance was adopted under the old confederation and by the assent of Virginia, who owned and ceded the country, and therefore this case must stand on its own special circumstances. The Government of the United States claimed territory by virtue of the treaty of 1783 with Great Britain, acquired territory by cession from Georgia and North Carolina, by treaty from France, and by treaty from Spain. These acquisitions largely exceeded the original limits of the Republic. In all of these acquisitions the policy of the Government was uniform. It opened them to the settlement of all the citizens of all the States of the Union. They emigrated thither with their property of every kind (including slaves). All were equally protected by public authority in their persons and property until the inhabitants became sufficiently numerous and otherwise capable of bearing the burdens and performing the duties of self-government, when they were admitted into the Union upon equal terms with the other States, with whatever republican constitution they might adopt for themselves.

Under this equally just and beneficent policy law and order, stability and progress, peace and prosperity marked every step of the progress of these new communities until they entered as great and prosperous commonwealths into the sisterhood of American States. In 1820 the North endeavored to overturn this wise and successful policy and demanded that the State of Missouri should not be admitted into the Union unless she first prohibited slavery within her limits by her constitution. After a bitter and protracted struggle the North was defeated in her special object, but her policy and position led to the adoption of a section in the law for the admission of Missouri, prohibiting slavery in all that portion of the territory acquired from France lying North of 36 [degrees] 30 [minutes] north latitude and outside of Missouri. The venerable Madison at the time of its adoption declared it unconstitutional. Mr. Jefferson condemned the restriction and foresaw its consequences and predicted that it would result in the dissolution of the Union. His prediction is now history. The North demanded the application of the principle of prohibition of slavery to all of the territory acquired from Mexico and all other parts of the public domain then and in all future time. It was the announcement of her purpose to appropriate to herself all the public domain then owned and thereafter to be acquired by the United States. The claim itself was less arrogant and insulting than the reason with which she supported it. That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity. This particular question, in connection with a series of questions affecting the same subject, was finally disposed of by the defeat of prohibitory legislation.

The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.

For forty years this question has been considered and debated in the halls of Congress, before the people, by the press, and before the tribunals of justice. The majority of the people of the North in 1860 decided it in their own favor. We refuse to submit to that judgment, and in vindication of our refusal we offer the Constitution of our country and point to the total absence of any express power to exclude us. We offer the practice of our Government for the first thirty years of its existence in complete refutation of the position that any such power is either necessary or proper to the execution of any other power in relation to the Territories. We offer the judgment of a large minority of the people of the North, amounting to more than one-third, who united with the unanimous voice of the South against this usurpation; and, finally, we offer the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest judicial tribunal of our country, in our favor. This evidence ought to be conclusive that we have never surrendered this right. The conduct of our adversaries admonishes us that if we had surrendered it, it is time to resume it.

The faithless conduct of our adversaries is not confined to such acts as might aggrandize themselves or their section of the Union. They are content if they can only injure us. The Constitution declares that persons charged with crimes in one State and fleeing to another shall be delivered up on the demand of the executive authority of the State from which they may flee, to be tried in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property. Our confederates, with punic faith, shield and give sanctuary to all criminals who seek to deprive us of this property or who use it to destroy us. The North is giving sanctuary to abolitionists! Those scoundrels! This clause of the Constitution has no other sanction than their good faith; that is withheld from us; we are remediless in the Union; out of it we are remitted to the laws of nations.

 

Are you completely ignorant? I posted this in plain simple terms today and you

STILL COMEBACK WITH THE SAME BS. I HAVE ALREADY SAID SLAVERY WAS A CAUSE OF SECESSION. DO YOU UNDERSTAND YET?

You can post this day in and day out doesn't matter to me. These are secession documents.

THESE ARE NOT DECLARATIONS OF WAR.

The fact of the matter is you still cannot prove the South went to war over slavery. What is so hard for you to comprehend about that statement?

There is a point in time when ignorance becomes willful stupidity, you have reached that point. For that reason I just skim over your stupid posts without really reading. I am done trying to make your ignorant self understand 4 simple documents.

GENOCIDE = Sherman fair or not you advocate the practice!!!!


George Purvis
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4


PS:
Did you pee yourself when I posted these documents???

 

The unpublished Civil War era remembrances of Ellen Denham the ten year old daughter of James Denham (James Denham was the owner of Denhamville Plantation in Putnam county Ga. , the plantation complex consisted of a grist mill, a sawmill, a comissary weaving and spinning and sewing facilities, houses for 200 factory employees, and a tanyard and leather factory. The leather factory was converted at the beginning of the war to make brogan shoes, boots, saddles, bridles and harnesses for the Confederacy.)
" Now Papa had extensive land holdings in Putnam county and other counties too, " ellen told her granddaughter in the early 1900's, " We lived on a large plantation east of Eatonton, and on this property we also had a factory for leather goods, making shoes, saddles, harnesses, etc. Throughout the war the entire putput of the Denham factory was sent to aid the Army of the Confederacy. At one time the factory handled 4,000 hides a day and made 60 pair of shoes as well as other articles....there was never any doubt in Papa's mind that the factory, plantation and even his family would be in danger if Federal troop pentetrated south of Atlanta". "Then the message came," Ellen recorded, "and I'll never forget Moma's face when she heard that Sherman was burning Atlanta, was ready to march across Georgia t the sea, and could be in Eatonton by tomorrow, or the next day. Word had gone out that the Denham factory would be destroyed and Papa and maybe Uncle Joe too, would be sent North in Chains... our people were crying and pleading to go with us to South Georgia. Silver and other valuables were packed to be buried in secure places. All the available food was put into hampers. Clothes were packed helter-skelter. Quilts and blankets were stuffed into sacks." Under the cover of darkness Ellen, her parents, brothers, sisters and a loyal servant named Epsie, loaded into a caravan of wagons and carriages for the arduous evacuation to distant Mitchell county in southwest Ga. Sherman's "bummers"-- scavengers and foragers who would ransack the countryside for food and valuables-- were to be feared. Indeed, at one point Ellen's mother fired a pistol at one of menacing intruder.
After delivering his family to safety, James Denham returned to his beloved Putnam county to check on his factory. He found the familiar brick and mortar smokestack silhouetted agains the red western sky, the stench of burning hides filled the air and the ruins of out buildings were still smoking. This devastation was the handiwork of the 20th Corps of the Union army. The only factory structure to survive the conflagaration was the 100 foot tall, twleve foot in diameter brick chimney topped by a metal fish weathervane.
"Although the house had not been burned, it had been terribly abused", remembered Ellen, "Windows were shot out. Doors had been chopped up for kindling. Animals had been quartered in the parlor. all the carpets were ruined and most of them cut to shreds. All the beautiful china and crystal had b een wantonly broken to bits and strewn about. The furniture had been chopped up. Mama's beautiful rosewood piano was in the barnyard where it had been used to feed and water animals. Everything valuable that had been buried had been found, dug up and taken away... All the privies had been turned over and some of them burned. All the wells were filled with garbage and human and animal offal."

Ellen Denham's reminiscences also include an intersting note about the family's slaves, which she referred to as "our people". After many of the slaves departed the plantation, Ellen recalled, they later " escaped the army of liberation that had rounded them up" and "returned as practically skeletons"

Sources:
1.Georgia Backwoods magazine summer 2011. "Shermans Destruction of Denhamville" Hank Segars
2."Oconee River Tales to Tell" by Katherine Bowman Walters, Published by the Eatonton-Putman county Historical Society, 1995....
3."Remembering the Stores of Ellen Taylor Denham Cason" as comoplied by her granddaughter, Roberta F. Cason Cox (1982) with an introduction and notes by Benjamin Taylor Beas;ey (200 Unpublished
4.The Eatonton Messenger, editions of April 25 and May 2, 1991 August 16 2007
"On the Plantation: A Story of a Georgia Boys Adventures During the War" first published in 1892 in numerous reprinted editions to include the University of Georgia Press (1980)

 

A similar provision of the Constitution requires them to surrender fugitives from labor. This provision and the one last referred to were our main inducements for confederating with the Northern States. Without them it is historically true that we would have rejected the Constitution. In the fourth year of the Republic Congress passed a law to give full vigor and efficiency to this important provision. This act depended to a considerable degree upon the local magistrates in the several States for its efficiency. The non-slave-holding States generally repealed all laws intended to aid the execution of that act, and imposed penalties upon those citizens whose loyalty to the Constitution and their oaths might induce them to discharge their duty. Congress then passed the act of 1850, providing for the complete execution of this duty by Federal officers. This law, which their own bad faith rendered absolutely indispensible for the protection of constitutional rights, was instantly met with ferocious revilings and all conceivable modes of hostility. The Supreme Court unanimously, and their own local courts with equal unanimity (with the single and temporary exception of the supreme court of Wisconsin), sustained its constitutionality in all of its provisions. Yet it stands to-day a dead letter for all practicable purposes in every non-slave-holding State in the Union. We have their convenants, we have their oaths to keep and observe it, but the unfortunate claimant, even accompanied by a Federal officer with the mandate of the highest judicial authority in his hands, is everywhere met with fraud, with force, and with legislative enactments to elude, to resist, and defeat him. Claimants are murdered with impunity; officers of the law are beaten by frantic mobs instigated by inflammatory appeals from persons holding the highest public employment in these States, and supported by legislation in conflict with the clearest provisions of the Constitution, and even the ordinary principles of humanity. In several of our confederate States a citizen cannot travel the highway with his servant who may voluntarily accompany him, without being declared by law a felon and being subjected to infamous punishments. It is difficult to perceive how we could suffer more by the hostility than by the fraternity of such brethren. And again the South cheerfully waves away states rights - when it suits them.

The public law of civilized nations requires every State to restrain its citizens or subjects from committing acts injurious to the peace and security of any other State and from attempting to excite insurrection, or to lessen the security, or to disturb the tranquillity of their neighbors, and our Constitution wisely gives Congress the power to punish all offenses against the laws of nations.

These are sound and just principles which have received the approbation of just men in all countries and all centuries; but they are wholly disregarded by the people of the Northern States, and the Federal Government is impotent to maintain them. For twenty years past the abolitionists and their allies in the Northern States have been engaged in constant efforts to subvert our institutions and to excite insurrection and servile war among us. They have sent emissaries among us for the accomplishment of these purposes. Some of these efforts have received the public sanction of a majority of the leading men of the Republican party in the national councils, the same men who are now proposed as our rulers. These efforts have in one instance led to the actual invasion of one of the slave-holding States, and those of the murderers and incendiaries who escaped public justice by flight have found fraternal protection among our Northern confederates.

These are the same men who say the Union shall be preserved.

Such are the opinions and such are the practices of the Republican party, who have been called by their own votes to administer the Federal Government under the Constitution of the United States. We know their treachery; we know the shallow pretenses under which they daily disregard its plainest obligations. If we submit to them it will be our fault and not theirs. The people of Georgia have ever been willing to stand by this bargain, this contract; they have never sought to evade any of its obligations; they have never hitherto sought to establish any new government; they have struggled to maintain the ancient right of themselves and the human race through and by that Constitution. But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquillity.
And there you have it folks, straight from the horse's mouth, again. It was about slavery, slavery, slavery, and slavery. The Confederacy was created for the explicit purpose of protecting slavery. Georgia said it here. It was a moral imperative to destroy this evil, just as it was a moral imperative to destroy the Third Reich.

 

And for the umpteenth time, secession meant war, you know it, I know it, and the people at the time most certainly knew it. So who's engaging in willful stupidity here? Secession was illegal. The states raising their own armies was most certainly illegal. Seizing federal property was massively illegal. Besieging a federal garrison and then attacking them was an act of war. You're still arguing that the person pulling the trigger is blameless because it's the bullet that does the killing. That's so stupid it's insulting. Don't you have an ounce of self respect?

If you concede that the Confederacy was created to protect slavery, that means that defending the Confederacy is defending slavery. Is that moral ground you're prepared to stand on?

 

I'm kind of getting like George. I've seen your tactics, both here and on other threads. You tend to dismiss what you can, give lip service to what you can't and completely ignore what you have no answer for. All that wrapped up in a neat little package of blathering circular logic.

There is no need to go into detail about the causes of secession or to post huge sections of the Constitution. Simply put, secession is a political right universally understood by both our State and Federal Governments. There is ample evidence throughout our history to show this, right up through the Buchanan administration, some of which has been posted here.

It really all goes back to the 10th amendment. There was nothing in the Constitution that gave the Federal Govt the power to prevent secession nor anything there to prohibit the States from doing so.

It really doesn't matter WHY the States seceded. Slavery, unfair tariffs, worries about slave rebellion, being under-represented in the House or Hell...even having fun with farm animals...it simply doesn't matter. They had a right to do so, period...end of story.

You, on the other hand, have yet to justify the making of WAR on a population that simply wanted to be left alone. This WAR led to the death of over 600,000 people and left this country with an ever more centralized government, something anathema to our Founders. I listed several Constitutional abuses by Lincoln, noting the specific clauses they were in violation of. The question that begs to be asked is this: If the WAR was so justified, why did Lincoln have to resort to these tactics for the pretext and prosecution of this WAR? You have yet to answer any of this.

I don't want to hear of any 'good' things that may have resulted from this WAR. There is a wrong way and a right way to go about anything. Our Founders knew this and gave us a document that allowed for solving our problems in a peaceful, Constitutional way. It is completely un-American to take a crisis and use it as an excuse to expand the Federal Govt's reach and power, but that is what Lincoln did. He created the template for that technique, something that is still being followed today. You cannot do the 'wrong' thing for some perceived 'right' reason. In doing so, you put in place a tool for abuse.

To allow the South to be smeared over its cause is to give the go-ahead for our Federal Govt to encroach even further into our lives. That is why it is important to see the complete picture of this period and realize just what all Americans lost as a result of Lincoln and his grab for power.

If one can set aside the red herring of slavery for a moment (which Lincoln himself did), it becomes clear that Lincoln acted more like a Fascist dictator than a President of a free nation. In trying to justify his actions, you become an enabler for further erosion of our Liberties. Hmmm....there's a word for that....it starts with a 'T". Let me just say that a brown shirt would be appropriate wear for you.

 

Secession was not illegal. Why don't you quit ignoring facts and actually read what is being posted. Why do you feel you need to put your spin on documents that we all can read?


"You're still arguing that the person pulling the trigger is blameless because it's the bullet that does the killing. That's so stupid it's insulting. Don't you have an ounce of self respect?"

Yep you got it. Stupid people like you are easy to insult. Does self respect equate to knowledge? It is easy to see I have more knowledge than you.

And you still cannot prove war, you can't prove it. I know it, you know it, and everyone reading these forums knows it. No the people of the time did not know it.

Gosh you really are eat up with dumbass aren't you?

Four states do not equate to the Confederacy being solely for slavery. Yes I am ready and have been defending the Confederacy.


PROVE WAR IF YOU CAN

George Purvis
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

 

I am editing down a long rambling letter by Sherman that actually gives props to the Confederate soldier. Will post as soon as I can get the length down some. One point that you have made (I think it was you) is the idea of "Might makes Right", well ole W.T. comes right out in his letter and says as much. Hope to have it online soon.

Right now gotta catch up on my Fort Sumter posts.

George Purvis
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

 

The President having determined not to disturb the status quo
at Charleston, as long as our troops should continue to be hospi-
tably treated by the inhabitants, and remain in unmolested pos-
session of the forts, was gratified to learn, a short time thereafter,
that South Carolina was equally intent on preserving the peace.
On the 8th December, 1860, four of the Representatives in
Congress from that State sought an interview, and held a con-
versation with him concerning the best means of avoiding a
hostile collision between the parties. In order to guard against
any misapprehension on either side, he suggested that they had
best reduce their verbal communication to writing, and bring it
to him in that form. Accordingly, on the 10th December, they
delivered to him a note, dated on the previous day, and signed
by five members, in which they say: "In compliance with
our statement to you yesterday, we now express to you our
strong convictions that neither the constituted authorities, nor
any body of the people of the State of South Carolina, will
either attack or molest the United States forts in the harbor of
Charleston, previously to the action of the Convention; and we
hope and believe not until an offer has been made, through an
accredited representative, to negotiate for an amicable arrange-
ment of all matters between the State and the Federal Govern-
ment, provided that no reënforcements be sent into these forts,
and their relative military status shall remain as at present." ★
Both in this and in their previous conversation, they declared
that in making this statement, they were acting solely on their
own responsibility, and expressly disclaimed any authority to
bind their State. They, nevertheless, expressed the confident
belief that they would be sustained both by the State authori-
ties and by the Convention, after it should assemble. Although
the President considered this declaration as nothing more than
the act of five highly respectable members of the House from
South Carolina, yet he welcomed it as a happy omen, that by
means of their influence collision might be prevented, and time
afforded to all parties for reflection and for a peaceable adjust-

____________________
★ Ex. Doc., H. R., vol. vi., No. 96, p. 9, &c.

-167-

ment. From abundant caution, however, he objected to the
word "provided" in their statement, lest, if he should accept it
without remark, this might possibly be construed into an agree-
ment on his part not to reënforce the forts. Such an agreement,
he informed them, he would never make. It would be impossi-
ble for him, from the nature of his official responsibility, thus to
tie his own hands and restrain his own freedom of action. Still,
they might have observed from his message, that he had no
present design, under existing circumstances, to change the con-
dition of the forts at Charleston. He must, notwithstanding,
be left entirely free to exercise his own discretion, according to
exigencies as they might arise. They replied that nothing was
further from their intention than such a construction of this
word; they did not so understand it, and he should not so con-
sider it.

It was at this moment, on the 15th December, 1860, after
the President's policy had been fixed and announced in his an-
nual message; after the "Brooklyn" had been made ready to go
to the relief of Major Anderson in case of need; after he had
received instructions in accordance with this policy; after the
President's pacific interview with the South Carolina members,
and before any action had yet been taken on the first Critten-
den Compromise, that General Scott deemed it proper to renew
his former recommendation to garrison the nine Southern forti-
fications. This appears from his report to President Lincoln,
of the 30th March, 1861, entitled "Southern Forts; a Sum-
mary," &c., of which we shall often hereafter have occasion to
speak. It is scarcely a lack of charity to infer that General
Scott knew at the time when he made this recommendation
(on the 15th December) that it must be rejected. The Presi-
dent couldnot have complied with it, the position of affairs still
remaining unchanged, without at once reversing his entire pol-
icy, and without a degree of inconsistency amounting almost to
self-stultification. The Senators from the cotton States and
from Virginia, where these forts are situated, were still occupied
with their brother Senators in devising measures of peace and
conciliation. For this patriotic purpose the Committee of Thir-
teen were about to be appointed, and they remained in session

-168-


George Purvis
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4