Posted on 02/17/2010 3:43:05 PM PST by Constitutionalist Conservative
That they were going to attempt to resupply Sumter. You were complaining that Lincoln only gave a few hours notice.
Don't bother to read the posts, do you?
To your comment: “The title ‘Peace Commission’ is a bit of post-rebellion Southron revisionism, circa late 20th century.”....
You were given the following to show that even before Lincoln's invasion of Charleston, that the term was already in use, not the late “20th century” misrepresentation that you tried to make.
“Well, it seems that everyone was calling duly appointed Confederate officials desiring to obtain peace by that title “Peace Commissioners”, beginning with the newspapers. Here from the Staunton (Va) Vindicator are two uses of the term in March of 1861 regarding the Virginia Peace conference"....
Proof of your effort at prevarication.
And that is the term that was used then, and at that time, regarding the mission of those men.
No confusion, just an attempt at obfuscation by you.
Now you exert all this energy at misdirection to run away from the most damaging evidence to your truth less assertions, the following.........
Report of the Committee on Federal Relations, with the Report of the Peace Commissioners appointed to wait on Presidents Lincoln and Davis by the General Assembly. Document H Maryland State Senate ISBN: NA Price: $269.16 Publisher: Frederick: Beale H. Richardson, printer Date Published: 1861
And Here Again is another document for sale on the Internet:
Leslie's Illustrated News. 4/13/61. Front cover has the CSA Peace Commissioners to avoid a Civil War
You might want to look up this last one. It is an excellent rendition of Messrs. Crawford, Forsythe, and Roman, all waiting to negotiate peace with the new President Lincoln's government.
Oh, you mean the armed invasion of two ports, don’t you.
No, I mean the attempt to resupply two United States Army forts in the face of a rebellion that was trying to starve them into surrender.
But never in reference to the men Davis dispatched with his demands.
Proof of your effort at prevarication.
Proof of your poor scholarship. Why would anyone refer to the men Davis dispatched as the "Virginia Peace Commissioners"? Virginia did not join the confederacy until after the South fired on Sumter.
Here is the document that proves you wrong.
Leslie's Illustrated News. 4/13/61. Front cover has the CSA Peace Commissioners to avoid a Civil War
You might want to look up this last one. It is an excellent rendition of Messrs. Crawford, Forsythe, and Roman, all waiting to negotiate peace with the new President Lincoln's government.
“Why would anyone refer to the men Davis dispatched as the “Virginia Peace Commissioners”?”
You were the one that tried to make the connection, not the newspaper article.
Unless you can read the text in that photo, all you're doing is repeating the description written by the seller. I assume that the paper doesn't also say "Full issue with events leading up to the war that would start in less than one week," but that's in the description, too.
The point is that there’s no evidence that the men are identified as “Peace Commissioners” in the actual paper.
On February 24, 1861 and from the The New York Herald
“The city was thrown into great commotion yesterday by the receipt of intelligence that Mr. Lincoln, the President elect, had unexpectedly appeared in Washington city.... In the evening he held a reception, when the members of the cabinet, the Peace Commissioners, and a large number of ladies and gentlemen waited upon him to pay their respects. Mrs. Lincoln, and the party comprising the Presidential suite, reached Washington early last evening.”
It is not likely that these Peace Commissioners were Crawford, Forsythe, and Roman, but the indisputable case is made that the term PEACE COMMISIONER was in wide usage as Lincoln was being inaugurated.
The evidence is there in front of your nose is you care to look.
February 24? Jefferson Davis did not write his letter to Lincoln introducing his delegation until February 27 - Link The delegates did not reach D.C. until March - Link. So how could the New York Times be calling them a "Peace Commission" when they hadn't even left the South with their ultimatum?
It is not likely that these Peace Commissioners were Crawford, Forsythe, and Roman, but the indisputable case is made that the term PEACE COMMISIONER was in wide usage as Lincoln was being inaugurated.
Damned right it isn't. Nobody ever referred to Davis' three stooges as a peace commission, because that wasn't what they were there for. What the paper is referring to, no doubt, were the people Letcher had pulled together - the self-proclaimed "Virginia Peace Commssion".
Is it possible that you have never heard of the Letcher's Virginia Peace Commission? Is your knowledge of the history of the period that poor?
What the paper is referring to, no doubt, were the people Letcher had pulled together - the self-proclaimed "Virginia Peace Commssion".
But in your own post number 650 you said:
The title ‘Peace Commission’ is a bit of post-rebellion Southron revisionism, circa late 20th century.
First you say the term was not in use. Then you say it was. Looks like you engage in revisionism yourself....or maybe just some confusion?
Let's go back to post 641 where it becomes obvious that the confusion is all on your side. That's where you first refer to the Davis crew as a "peace commission". And I am correct in that nobody ever referred to them - or any other confederate delegation - as a "peace commission", no doubt because none of them were sent for peaceful purposes. Every quote you have come up with is a reference to the Washington Peace Conference that was organized by Governor Letcher in February. No credit can be given to Davis or the confederacy for the conference because at the time it was called Virginia was not part of the confederacy, and in fact all seven confederate states boycotted it. So it's an historical fact that no delegation of any kind coming from Montgomery prior to Sumter could ever properly be referred to as a 'Peace Commission'. Peace was the last thing Davis was interested in.
“...you first refer to the Davis crew as a ‘peace commission’.
That is exactly how they were known.
“And I am correct in that nobody ever referred to them - or any other confederate delegation - as a ‘peace commission’,...”.
No, you are wrong and have been wrong in saying this in all your last posts. The term “peace commissioners” was used by many sources. Here are a few more for you from documents of the period:
“In March, 1861, he (John Forsyth) was a member of the famous but fruitless peace commission sent to Washington; Crawford of Georgia and Roman of Louisiana being his collegues.”
“In March 1861 he was sent as commissioner to Washington to negotiate for peace, Mesers. Crawford of Georgia and Roman of Louisiana being his colleagues.
Jefferson Davis......Immediately after his February 18, 1861, inauguration as provisional president, Davis sent a peace commission to Washington.
“Every quote you have come up with is a reference to the Washington Peace Conference that was organized by Governor Letcher in February.”
Wrong. Here is a newspaper quote of the time referring to the Confederate Commissioners who went to Washington to meet with Lincoln to “negotiate for peace”(see above).
“So it's an historical fact that no delegation of any kind coming from Montgomery prior to Sumter could ever properly be referred to as a ‘Peace Commission’.”
That is absolutely and unequivocally a falsehood. You have already documented the Confederate Legislation to do exactly that and quoted Davis’ letter of introduction to the Lincoln government to arrange the peace and compensation for federal property in the seceded states.
“Peace was the last thing Davis was interested in.”
That is an illusion that you have had for years and unsupported by any fact. http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:DfQshVAJl6sJ:memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/nov06.html+peace+commission+%22jefferson+davis%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&ie=UTF-8 ">here
“Yes, because x.”
“No, because x.”
Here, x would be an explanation of the laws that supported the Yes or No answer.
With the secession issue, though, we are given the following as a complete and sufficient answer:
“No, because if any state tries to secede, the central government will use force of arms to keep it from succeeding.”
There is no appeal to law in this answer – just brute force.
______________
The correct answer is “No, because x says so.”
Seriously, though, the article gets it all wrong.
You can build a case that secession is constitutional or an argument that secession is unconstitutional and argue about it for eternity. That's because the constitution doesn't literally and precisely answer the question. You look at what's there and infer some answer that isn't there in black and white.
To resolve the question somebody says, "The Civil War decided that" or "See Texas vs. White." They aren't saying that there is no other answer than force or the will of the Supreme Court at a particular time. They're saying that all the arguments don't amount to a resolution that all parties would agree to.
If the Confederates had gotten their way -- if the federal government didn't object to secession on demand, or if the slaveowning South had won the war -- we'd point to their victory as deciding the question, but it wouldn't be an answer as to what the Constitution "said" or "meant" in 1860.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.