Posted on 02/18/2005 11:27:18 PM PST by churchillbuff
I agree with you on most points. Lincoln would have treated the South better in regards to reconstruction. Why would he do otherwise, when he had won every aim, and destroyed constitutional government of the states!
I guess I am missing your point....no problem.
And this is what passes for conservative thought by some in this day and age. God help us all. Conservatism and limited government is completely dead. The most worthless President to ever sit in the office destroyed the Constitution for one thing only. Taxes. Not the abolition of slavery, not freedom, but greed. And this nation of states praises him as a great leader. No wonder this nation of states is in the shape it is today
I suspect the opinion in the South about popular sovereignty was divided. Was the New Orleans paper you saw the Picayune? The Picayune opposed secession in the fall of 1860 but later supported it completely.
Here is another opinion on popular sovereignty (or squatter sovereignty, as it was called in the South), this one from the Austin, Texas State Gazette of May 21, 1859. The State Gazette was pro-secession, and it contained numerous articles about slavery, the price of slaves across the South, the possibility of opening up slave importation from overseas again, etc. Its editor was the head of the Democratic Party in Texas.
The principle of Squatter Sovereignty allows any number of men who can first reach a U. S. Territory to set up for themselves and establish their own political institutions. If this principle were true and identified with the spirit or letter of the Constitution, it would be fatal to the South, for it would enable the populous free States to command the settlement of every future territory in existence. But it is a false as well as meretricious theory. A territory is not a mere nullias fillias -- a bastard birth. It is the offspring of the States; it is subject to their authority; it has its period of minority and majority.
Congress stands as agent for the States. It can not only prescribe the rule when it shall come into the Union, but give to it its organic law and government machinery during minority, and command that its law shall be obeyed; and while it may not force slavery upon the territory or prohibit its introduction, any more than any other kind of property -- what it cannot do the territory cannot do, while Congress has the power and must exercise it whenever demanded, to prevent the territory from destroying slave or any other property by contemptuously and vindictively refusing to give it adequate protection.
Thus stands the Democracy of Texas as a conservator and guardian of inalienable rights under the Constitution. The doctrine of squatter sovereignty is calculated to overturn all this. It concedes the right of a body of men to make a government for a territory without consulting the authority of Congress. They may do what they please. The moment that this power of Congress is withdrawn, the squatters of a territory though they be but half a dozen in number, would have a greater power than Massachusetts. They would draw their power from a source above the Constitution ...
I guess the whole "the constitution isn't a suicide pact" phrase so beloved about here gets tossed in the trash when blacks are considered Americans in the 1860's.
Oh, right, they weren't citizens, so we should have stuck to the letter of the law. I guess if slaves were all, say, Irish people or Brits we'd all feel the same way. Should have just let slavery die in its own time. Not like slaves were PEOPLE.
I await the laughable flames from those who want to pretend slavery had NOTHING to do with the Civil War.
Yeah, isn't it awful? What a horrible country! We should have left slavery in place rather than break the law.
I guess the whole "the constitution isn't a suicide pact" phrase so beloved about here gets tossed in the trash when blacks are considered Americans in the 1860's.
Oh, right, they weren't citizens, so we should have stuck to the letter of the law. I guess if slaves were all, say, Irish people or Brits we'd all feel the same way. Should have just let slavery die in its own time. Not like slaves were PEOPLE.
I await the laughable flames from those who want to pretend slavery had NOTHING to do with the Civil War.
#1 George Washington Pre-Communist-stained America
#2 Ronald Reagan
I have no comment about Lincoln. Only questions.
The whole concept of one person owning another is was and shall always be an abomination. We should have freed the slaves first, then fired on Ft. Sumter.
Lt Gen. James Longstreet CSA June 1863
I believe the South & North would have worked out their differences, and slavery would have ended peacefully, though later on. With so many hotheads (not unlike you) in the South of 1861, the only way that North and South would have worked out their differences peacefully is if slavery had remained legal in perpetuity and expanded into any new states and territories. That was a condition set forth by none other than Jeff Davis in his Inaugural address. In fact Davis and his ilk would have insisted on the rigid application of the Fugitive Slave Laws as a nonnegotiable price for staying in the Union. So when would slavery have ended? How many more generations would have toiled under the lash? Maybe that's your problem. You have some fantasy that if the evil Lincoln had not prevailed, you might have had your own plantation. Sitting on your veranda, sipping your mint julep, and visiting the slaves' quarters at night to find a comely wench. On the other hand, since you don't sound like a highborn member of the aristocracy, maybe you would have had to content yourself with the job as an overseer. Maybe you'd have preferred that, to handle the bull-whip. Not as much fun as assassination, I'll grant, nor as rewarding as being the "massa", but you probably could have gotten into it. I like this citation from the Mississippi Declaration of Secession. It says it all, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world". Do you really think that men with that warped an attitude were interested in a "peaceful solution"? Like you, my pugnacious Reb, they were spoiling for a fight, as you well know.
And you are certifiable.
My ancestor, (the one who spent 2 years in Prison Camp)
inherited 50 slaves in 1861. He freed them everyone, including his personal servant, who insisted on remaining.
The same servant that took a bullet for him at Gettysburg.
I suggest you read the Texas Secession Documents. There are other problems listed than slavery. And I don't care what you think about assassination. In time of war it is justifiable. Your God, Lincoln ordered a raid on Richmond, to assassinate Jeff Davis and his cabinet. (But that would have been OK, since he was a "Reb" right?)
We assassinated Yamamoto in WWII, and that is DOCUMENTED. So don't start your little attack about conspiracy theories. What about Castro? (Also documented) It is a well known and documented fact that the CIA tried to have him killed. And the only one that deserves a whipping is YOU. I and my family have always believed slavery was wrong, but it was up to the SOUTH to tackle the problem. Instead, Northern interlopers stuck their nose in business that was not theirs. Now, go ahead and see what other cute little ad hominem attack you can throw this way, and continue to prove your ignorance and lack of manners
"I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."
"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
At the start of the War, it is quite clear, except perhaps to you Jaffaites, that he cared less about the issue of slavery. Of course reading his inaugural address of 1860 and his implicit support of the original 13th Amendment makes this clear. The man's goal in 1860 was the fruition of Clay's 'American System', tariffs to pay for it, and nothing else. But keep fooling yourself will you?
I guess the whole "the constitution isn't a suicide pact" phrase so beloved about here gets tossed in the trash when blacks are considered Americans in the 1860's.
Yes, let's talk about rights of blacks in the north before the war shall we? Then let's talk about free blacks in the South who fought for the South, supported the South, and even owned slaves in the South. Then talk to me about how blacks were considered 'Americans' in the north in the 1850s
You know Tex, I really had never considered that aspect. I agree that slavery would have ended peacefully, as we both know it did worldwide, within a few decades at most.
Do you know where I get my best information on the Civil War? It's not from reading history books, per se, or from reading opinion piece editorials (even good ones like D'Souza's). I look at the newpapers (North and South) of that era, the music of that era, the personal journals and correspondence of that era, and the international reaction to our Civil War. Which is not to say that newspapers back then were any more accurate or any less partisan than newspapers today. Some of them made Dan Rather look "fair and balanced" by comparison; but if you want the flavor, the temper of those times, you just have to do a little research. And how any one could look at the Southern press, the personal journals, the music and literature of that era and conclude that there was a hope in hell of ending slavery peaceably given the militancy of the soon to be Confederate "movers, shakers and opinion makers" is beyond me. If heard that twaddle from a lot of neo-Confederates, but they've obviously romanticized and idealized the people who dragged the Southern states into rebellion, just like Margaret Mitchell did in "Gone With the Wind".
The Confederate soldier probably was from West or Middle Tennessee. If he was from East Tennessee, it would have been more likely that he would have welcomed the Union army as liberators from overbearing rule centered in Richmond and restorers of the ties to the old flag. Here's a typical East Tennessee reaction to the Union army that occurred in Bradley County as related by a man of Illinois.
"The Union citizens were quite demonstrative, some of them even bringing out flags which had doubtless been hidden for at least three years. Women swung their bonnets and men hurrahed for the Yankees and the Union, manifesting great delight."
He's right.
Perhaps you need to reread my post. I did not say the South wanted to take over the North. (I really appreciate the insult to my intelligence.
Maybe I should but maybe you should have worded it better. Oh well.
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.