Lincoln and Southern Secession

I find it strange you're disputing this point. Are you arguing just to argue? Is it your position that people should bend over to whoever exercises power over them without having a say in how they're governed, or that we should all follow the contracts signed by our ancestors because...?

Don't think you had a point to begin with. It's like holding a great grandson accountable for a contract his great grandfather signed before he was born.

Given they were forming a separate government, the constitution doesn't apply much like King George's authority meant nothing to the revolutionaries other than a threat to contend with. They made a bad decision in the sense that they should have known the North had better war-making capacity combined with underestimating the will of the North to force them to stay. Willpower matters in war. I mean, America lost Vietnam because they were willing to fight to the last man, and we weren't, as it was their home and only a piece of the cold war to us. So despite a massive military superiority, and a great kill to death ratio, America lost that war. Not the case in the civil war since Lincoln valued the union over the lives of the people in it.

Hard to speculate on such a thing. Could have just become one big confederate model who came together for military and economic purposes but had their own social policies. Might have been better.

 

"contemporaneous documentation" means somebody agrees with him

SCOTUS in 1866 said no to secession

 

That would be 1869, but if 1866 is your opinion, stick with it.

 

I am an child of the fifties from the Greatest State of California
raised on Saint Abraham the Martyr. ​

The above understood I hold Lincoln responsible for costliest war.
More lives lost in the War Between The States than any other war.


Lincoln and his ilk have blood on their hands.
Blood of those they could have negotiated, and introduced the 1860 American Factory system of employment. Far more enslaving and profitable than slavery. And if one dies, hire a new one.

Demonstrate Plantations on the Yankee Factory System were more profitable and viola.
Problem solved.
Slavery solved.
No Bloodiest War.
It was not only blood, it was famine too! War on innocents. Babies and Children.

This is not totally fiction!


There were alternatives to Mr. Lincoln's Bloody War but, Abe did not have
the willingness nor the intellect to pursue them.


Slavery would have ended regardless.
Mr. Lincoln's War was not necessary except to advance it a decade or two.


BLAME LINCOLN!
witness the treatment of the defeated South after the war.
Worse than a colony is treated!
Okay, Lincoln was conveniently dead then, but it represents those he accepted support! Those who wished to "colonize" the Southern States for profit.

It Was About
Yankee Profits!

What part do I have incorrect.

 

Hindsight is great, but Lincoln could have done nothing, since 90% of capital in the South was directly or indirectly invested in the Cotton Kingdom.

The South did invite Doom and Maelstrom on itself.

 

Ratification meant the country was created. States as defined by the Articles of Confederation were free to join the federal union. If they did, they became states as defined by the Constitution.

RI was not required to become a state in the United States. When it did, it moved through a one-way door into the United States.

That conflict was for the sovereign state to resolve in terms of presenting a request for statehood.

 

The pro-secession supporter above walked into the trap I set. I said that secession was resolved in 1866. He "corrected" me by accurately noting it was 1869, meaning he knows his arguments don't hold water.

 

From my perspective, you just don't "get it." Why don't people in regions of a state have the right of srlf-determination? We don't have a process for regions of states or entire states to leave the union.

Our relatives did all sorts of things that committed us, not the least of which was creating and maintaining this country.

Well, as you pointed out, the South miscalculated the North's capacity and resolve.

 

Dunno where you get that idea, but the original 13 states predated the Constitution.

You've got that totally backwards.

No, the original 13 states began their existence not later than 7/4/1776.

 

They were sovereign nations that were called states prior to the creation of the federal union. They ceded their sovereignty when they joined the United States.

 

I doubt you can cite any contemporaneous documents that support that view; but whatever they were, they sure as hell weren't created by the AoC.

 

Texas v White is a case over ownership of bonds. Secession is NOT the central issue. Chase's comments regarding secession in deciding ownership of bonds are dicta, which hold no legal authority.

Put simply, secession could not be decided in a case over ownership of bonds no more than you could be convicted of murder at your shoplifting trial.

For whatever reason, the country has decided that secession is settled but, in a legal sense, it is not.

Nice "trap", Jake.

To go further, both Lincoln's and Chase's arguments regarding the permanence of the union hinge on the Constitution's preamble. Preambles hold no legal weight unless what is stated in the preamble is further stated in the actual document. Lincoln and Chase both knew this as the words fell out of their mouths.

 

And your basis for that assertion is...?

 

Woogs gives his opinion as if it were authority, when in fact it is merely dicta, meaning it is only his opinion. And we all have one.

When Lee and Johnston surrendered their armies, the question became moot.

 

If true, then why is the People’s Republic of Kalifornia talking secession? Is that so all the Hollywood types who threatened to leave the country if Trump was elected don’t have to actually move out of Malibu and Beverly Hills?

 

Some nuts in California are talking secession, just like we have on this Board.

It's all nuts and fruit.

 

No one has to guess why slaves didn't get included in your war on innocents spiel. Do I even need to comment on the rest?

 

Joseph Storey's Commentaries on the Constitution, written in 1833. Regarding the preamble, Storey wrote, "The preamble never can be resorted to, to enlarge the powers confided to the general government, or any of its departments. It cannot confer any power per se; it can never amount, by implication, to an enlargement of any power expressly given. It can never be the legitimate source of any implied power, when otherwise withdrawn from the constitution. Its true office is to expound the nature, and extent, and application of the powers actually conferred by the constitution, and not substantively to create them."

▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪

Reputation in the law
Story's Commentaries have been cited in hundreds of cases before state and federal courts where constitutional issues are decided.[15]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentaries_on_the_Constitution_of_the_United_States

▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪
Jacobson v. Mass, 197 U.S. 11 (1904)

The only case in which the Supreme Court has directly addressed a claim based on the Preamble. In this case the court examined the Constitutional rights of Jacobson, and rejected his claim to a personal right, derived from the Preamble, to the "blessings of liberty". In rejecting Jacobson’s claim, the Court wrote that "the Preamble indicates the general purpose for which the people ordained and established the Constitution" and went on to point out that "[the Preamble] has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government..."

▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪

 

Excellent discussion. There is soooo much in this thread, its impossible for me to know where to start of finish. My analytic brain has gotten flabby since college. I am in way over my head both from a historic and philosophic point of view. So my first step is to separate what I agree with, or am sympathetic with, from what I disagree with or find too simplistic etc. into two categories.

These statements I agree with:
1. “The roots of the controversy … lay in social groupings founded on differences in climate, soil, industries, and labor systems, in divergent social forces, rather than varying degrees of righteousness and wisdom.”
3. "They were rationalists -- not atheists (most of them) -- but their arguments were grounded in reason -- "Nature and Nature's God". Go to Continental Europe at the same time and you'll find the same thing.
4. "I thought and still think that Trump would be a disaster. But one of the two or three wee bits of silver peeking out of that dark cloud was the fact that he wasn't a captive of the Washington foreign policy establishment, and he did hint at maybe taking a new approach to foreign policy, rather than continuing to be the world's policeman. But I have no idea what his foreign policy is now, or if there any guiding principles to it at all" There isn't one


These statements I am uncomfortable with:
0.5. "Explanatory appeals to history, culture, or evolution are mere “sophistry.” Utter and complete bullshit!
1. "To ask whether the natural rights philosophy of the Declaration is true or false is essentially a meaningless question.” No its not meaningless, but its importance is exaggerated.
2. “Right and wrong have an objective existence [and] are knowable by human reason.” The scope and scale of such instances have to remain rudimentary, basic and without too many variables to balance, or measure.
3. “The last temptation is the greatest treason:/To do the right thing for the wrong reason.” Doing the wrong thing for the wrong reason is the greatest treason. There is still value in a right thing accomplished.
4. "It is said that the only benefit coming from depression can be the ability to see things clearly, exactly as they are, without emotion clouding one's judgment. Depressed people can be very perceptive." Whoever said this is full of it. Anyone who thinks depression does not cloud judgement is off their rockers. It normally replaces one 'cloud' , with another one. The fact that many great statemen suffered from periodic depression, does not mean that those were the periods that provided the greatest clarity or inspiration.
5. "It seems to me that now is a good time for liberals and conservatives to actually have a conversation about what our foreign policy should be -- putting aside Mr Trump and whatever relationship he has with the Russians" Its a terrible time. The kinds of personalities to have that conversation have been wiped out by hyperpartisanship or tribalism. There is no one to have it.
6. "It's a matter of self-determination, the most basic of all rights that Lincoln did not respect. The South didn't want to be a part of the Union. It was their right to secede, even if they were morally corrupt due to slavery" Slave states cannot advocate for self-determination. they have, by definition, corroded and undermined the fundamental principle.

I only got so far, and a new idea for a thread occurred.

 

YES, at that time, slaves were property.

I have read the criticisms of this book and it is but on more apology for Lincoln forcing the deaths of 630,000 humans.

Totally ignored by fhis forum by the Democrats of today, lord knows they loved slavery at that time ... is that we had not one president as a slave owner but 12 of them. Surely if it were illegal, no way would a dozen presidents openly owned slaves.

if you cool your jets long enough to study what David Donald says in his pulitzer prize skills in his book, he speaks to the way Lincoln ignored counsel and waged war.

Men then close to the situation wanted him to let the South go. Not to invade it. But he refused to listen. Result of then 630,000 dead humans and today such strife as it seems like it never shall end.

Lincoln cured nothing, he set the forest on fire.

We have long departed from slavery yet even today it is a topic on the top of a lot of people's minds. Thank you Abe the outlaw for invading states.

 

When slaves were liberated, they generally were sent to Contraband Camps, where the average mortality rate was 25%.

▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪
I Had Rather Die — Rape in the Civil War
an Excerpt

By Kim Murphy
In Alabama, several charges were brought against Russian immigrant, Colonel J.B. Turchin, of the 19thIllinois Regiment for neglect of duty in "the sack of Athens." Among the incidents, a group of his command went into the house of Milly Ann Clayton. They destroyed clothing and bed clothes. After threatening to shoot Milly Ann, they proceeded to the kitchen and attempted to rape a black servant.

Another squad of Turchin's soldiers plundered John F. Malone's house and law office. A part of this brigade went to Malone's plantation, where they "quartered in the negro huts for weeks, debauching the females." To pretend all of the women went willingly would be turning a blind eye to reality. And at the house of widow Charlotte Hine "a colored girl" was raped.[1] Private Ayer Bowers was identified as the rapist. Because the victim had been raped in front of her mistress, she had a white witness.[2]

Major General O. M. Mitchel, in charge of the brigade, filed a report with Secretary of War E. M. Stanton. He complained that his line extended more than 400 miles. "The most terrible outrages—robberies, rapes, arson, and plundering—are being committed by lawless brigands and vagabonds connected with the army." He went on to state that "wherever I am present in person all is quiet and orderly. ... I beg authority to control these plunderers by visiting upon their crimes the punishment of death."[3] Apparently, Stanton granted Mitchel's request, but nothing changed.

Colonel J. S. Norton of the 21st Ohio Regiment submitted a deposition to the Committee on the Conduct of the War: "I charge Colonel Turchin, and the officers and soldiers of his command, with having committed outrages and depredations upon the people of Limestone county... with committing rapes upon servant girls in the presence of their mistresses."[4] The committee took no action. Because Norton had violated normal military protocol, he was relieved of command. Formal charges were filed against Turchin.

Charlotte Hine testified on behalf of her unnamed servant. Normally Charlotte had been unafraid of soldiers coming to her house. She often gave them milk for which they offered to pay. On May 3, 1862, a few soldiers came to her house and stole some meat from her smokehouse. The following day, three men returned and "at once commenced indecent familiarities with them [the slaves], calling the women, `Sissy,' and throwing their arms around them, running their hands into their bosoms." The soldiers rummaged through some drawers and searched the house before going outside, where they went after the women again. According to Charlotte, "all had left the place, except for one woman and her daughter, the latter about 14 years of age." The girl held a baby, and one of the soldiers told her to put the child down. He said, "I want to use you." When the girl's mother screamed for help from Charlotte, the girl cried for her mother. The soldier threatened, "*******n your mammy, we will have her next."

Charlotte ran into the yard and "there before me a horrid outrage was committed on her person by the man, and afterward the outrage was repeated by one of the others, but not by the third man." As for the girl's mother, "I locked [her] up in a closet, but let her out to escape them, and she ran away into the thicket. They tried to hunt her up."

Another officer stated, "Col. Turchin asked me if I had the man under arrest. I replied ... I would not arrest one of my men on negro testimony."[5] Private Bowers, the soldier accused of raping the girl, was sent to the guardhouse for two weeks before returning to duty.[6] The second man seems to have escaped charges completely.

A New York Times article denied any wrongdoing: "In General Mitchel's invasion of Alabama and Georgia, one of his officers, Turchin, allowed his men to sack a village ... and to ravish a whole seminary of young ladies! The whole foundation of this story is this: Our men captured the village." After a battle, the soldiers began to burn houses. "On the investigation before the Court-martial, the only woman injured was a negro prostitute, who was thought not to have been especially unwilling. So much for dreadful outrage."[7]

The reporter first resorted to propaganda, then turned around and pretended that no women had been raped. The single case that made it to the court-martial records was dismissed entirely as being brought by a prostitute. Had the reporter read the real record he might have thought differently, but the truth of the matter is that few during the era treated the rape of black or poor women as a matter of any importance.

Not only did some officers ignore the rapes their men committed, some allegedly perpetrated the act themselves. A Maine volunteer wrote in his diary from Virginia:

At this place occurred a dastardly outrage, if [the] report be true. Colonel Byles, of the 99th Penn. and his ADJT [adjutant] made their headquarters at a farm house near by occupied by two women alone. They made infamous proposals to them, which being refused, these miserable, cowardly skulks threatened to burn the house unless their demands were complied with. So to save their home, and themselves from being turned out into the "bleak December," they submitted.

Had this outrage been the work of privates, they would probably have dangled from the nearest tree in very short order, Col Byles consenting thereto. But there may be another side to the story, women are not all of them always paragons of virtue and these innocent creatures may have been "as deep in the mud as Col Byles was in the mire." As who shall say?

One thing we did know, Old Byles, was a drunken old fool and one never knows when an officer keeps in this condition, what crazy and dirty ideas may creep into his brain.[8]
The private responded in a typical period style by questioning the women's reputations, but not only was Colonel Edwin Ruthin Biles never investigated for improper conduct or possible rape, he mustered out on July 1, 1865, as a brigadier general.

Footnotes

1. OR, series 1, vol. 16, part 2, 273-275.
2. George C. Bradley and Richard L. Dahlen, From Conciliation to Conquest: The Sack of Athens and the Court-Martial of Colonel John B. Turchin (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2006), 270.
3. OR, Series 1, vol. 10, part 2, 204.
4. "Charges against Mitchel," Press (PA), July 23, 1862.
5. National Archives RG 153, file KK 122.
6. Bradley and Dahlen, 270.
7. "Some Thoughts about the Army," New York Times, September 13, 1863.
8. John Haley papers, December 10, 1864, diary entry, Dyer Library Archives and Special Collections, Saco Maine.

Note: OR in the footnotes refers to Official Records.

 

Whether they were killed by northern troops or southern slave masters they were still innocent. Also you provide no source for this claim and its worded in such a way that even if the figure is accurate it doesn't necessarily mean that rate is all do to mistreatment.

You can do intellectual gymnastics and stretch yourself into whatever position you want. I'm a black man. There were horrible wrongs committed by north and south before and after the war but the Evil Empire of the Confederacy enshrined into their constitution my servitude in perpetuity so that even if future generations wanted to free me they were prevented by their constitution from doing so. I'm glad the south fell and I'm only saddened by the fact it's people weren't broken and beaten to submission. But we will, break the south and its supporters eventually. They will be remembered not as the noble defenders of their homelands but the bigoted backwards losers that they were.

 

Yes, they were innocent .... and victims .... doubly so. I did not mean to imply otherwise.

▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪
https://www.africanamerica.org/topi...t-s-known-as-the-devil-s-punchbowl-of-natchez

Historians estimate that in one year following Union troops' arrivals in Natchez, up to 20,000 freed slaves died in "contraband camps" below steep bluffs.

"When the slaves were released from the plantations during the occupation they overran Natchez. And the population went from about 10,000 to 120,000 overnight," Westbrook said. Her research included searching through Adams County Sheriff's reports from the time.

"So they decided to build an encampment for 'em at Devil's Punchbowl which they walled off and wouldn't let 'em out," Don Estes, former director of the Natchez City Cemetery, said.

Estes said that history research is his life. During his studies he said he learned that Union troops ordered re-captured black men to perform hard labor. Women and children were all but left to die in the three "punchbowls".

"Disease broke out among 'em, smallpox being the main one. And thousands and thousand died. They were begging to get out. 'Turn me loose and I'll go home back to the plantation! Anywhere but there'," Estes said.

"But they wouldn't let 'em out," Estes said.

Westbrook adds that, "The union army did not allow them to remove the bodies from the camp. They just gave 'em shovels and said bury 'em where they drop".

 

But Lincoln didn't care about the slaves. here you go. And it is NOT fake news, the original is in the national archieves.

Letter to Horace Greeley
Written during the heart of the Civil War, this is one of Abraham Lincoln's most famous letters. Greeley, editor of the influential New York Tribune, had just addressed an editorial to Lincoln called "The Prayer of Twenty Millions," making demands and implying that Lincoln's administration lacked direction and resolve.
President Lincoln wrote his reply when a draft of the Emancipation Proclamation already lay in his desk drawer. His response revealed his concentration on preserving the Union. The letter, which received acclaim in the North, stands as a classic statement of Lincoln's constitutional responsibilities. A few years after the president's death, Greeley wrote an assessment of Lincoln. He stated that Lincoln did not actually respond to his editorial but used it instead as a platform to prepare the public for his "altered position" on emancipation.

Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.
Yours,
Abraham Lincoln.

 

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.
Yours,
Abraham Lincoln