Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jul 25, 1861: Congress passes Crittenden-Johnson Resolution
http://www.history.com/ ^ | 7/25/2012 | Staff

Posted on 07/25/2012 9:50:49 AM PDT by BO Stinkss

On this day in 1861, the U.S. Congress passes the Crittenden-Johnson Resolution, declaring that the war is being waged for the reunion of the states and not to interfere with the institutions of the South, namely slavery. The measure was important in keeping the pivotal states of Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland in the Union.

This resolution is not to be confused with an earlier plan, the Crittenden Compromise, which proposed protecting slavery as an enticement to keep Southern states from seceding; the plan was defeated in Congress. Many Northerners initially supported a war to keep the Union together, but had no interest in advancing the cause of abolition. The Crittenden-Johnson Resolution was passed in 1861 to distinguish the issue of emancipation from the war's purpose.

The common denominator of the two plans was Senator John Crittenden from Kentucky. Crittenden carried the torch of compromise borne so ably by another Kentucky senator, Henry Clay, who brokered such important deals as the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and the Compromise of 1850 to keep the nation together. Clay died in 1852, but Crittenden carried on the spirit befitting the representative of a state deeply divided over the issue of slavery.

Although the Crittenden-Johnson Resolution was passed in Congress, it meant little when, just two weeks later, President Abraham Lincoln signed a confiscation act, allowing for the seizure of property—including slaves—from rebellious citizens. Still, for the first year and a half of the Civil War, reunification of the United States was the official goal of the North. It was not until Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation of September 1862 that slavery became a goal.

(Excerpt) Read more at history.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government
KEYWORDS: americanhistory; anniversary; civilwar; dixie
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-241 next last
What? I was taught that the War of Northern Agression was initiated to free the slaves?
1 posted on 07/25/2012 9:50:54 AM PDT by BO Stinkss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BO Stinkss
> “What? I was taught that the War of Northern Agression was initiated to free the slaves?”

What? I was taught that it was the war of Southern Aggression.

2 posted on 07/25/2012 9:56:20 AM PDT by jim_trent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BO Stinkss

Slavery was a major cause of the war.

However, abolition did not become a major reason to conduct the war until the Emancipation Proclamation.

There you go!


3 posted on 07/25/2012 9:56:40 AM PDT by RexBeach (Mr. Obama Can't Count.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BO Stinkss

The Union did not engage in the war to end slavery. They fought to preserve the Union. But they would not have needed to fight to preserve the Union, if the seceding states hadn’t left to over their desire to preserve slavery. This is why slavery is said to be the root cause of the war. Meanwhile, it’s useful to note that, while the goal was preserve the Union, it was clearly understood that conflict over slavery led to secession. Indeed, this is exactly why the Corwin amendment was recommended in the first place - to assure the secessionists that slavery was not threatened, and thus, avoid disunion and war.


4 posted on 07/25/2012 10:01:04 AM PDT by moonshot925
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BO Stinkss
(1) The aggressor in a conflict is the side that fires first.

The side that fired first was not the Union.

(2) It was clear from the very beginning that the Union's chief motivation in responding to that Southern-initiated aggression was to preserve the Union.

The Confederacy was fighting a war for the expansion of slave territory, the Union was fighting for the Union.

5 posted on 07/25/2012 10:02:24 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BO Stinkss

People on opposite sides in wars often have different motives and views of the war. For example, Hitler believed that he was waging war primarily against the Jews, not Britain, the US, and USSR.

The preservation of slavery was clearly the motive for secession. Many Unionists, however, were not much or at all against slavery and were only interested in preserving the Union. If the Civil War had ended within a year or two, it is very possible that slavery might have been preserved for some time.


6 posted on 07/25/2012 10:03:29 AM PDT by iowamark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BO Stinkss

When the South wouldn’t roll over and play dead and the Irish conscripts were running low, Lincoln “emancipated” the blacks to fill the ranks and throw at the Army of Northern Virginia.


7 posted on 07/25/2012 10:03:29 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
The Confederacy was fighting a war for the expansion of slave territory, the Union was fighting for the Union.

The unionists were against expansion of slavery in the territories for racist reasons, to "keep it pure for free whites".

8 posted on 07/25/2012 10:07:20 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: central_va
The unionists were against expansion of slavery in the territories for racist reasons, to "keep it pure for free whites".

The Norther industrialists were against expansion of slavery, because slaves did not buy much in the way of Northern factory products.

9 posted on 07/25/2012 10:11:20 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (If I can't be persuasive, I at least hope to be fun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: central_va
When the South wouldn’t roll over and play dead and the Irish conscripts were running low

Lincoln never expected the Confederate interests to "roll over and play dead" - he expected a fierce fight, unlike some Northern journalists.

The Union armies had many Irish volunteers and not very many Irish conscripts - as the draft riots proved, conscription was not a very reliable source of manpower.

The Emancipation Proclamation was issued largely to prevent the United Kingdom from assisting the Confederacy.

The first experimental black regiments were not even formed in the Union until months after the Proclamation, and they did not add significant manpower to the Union forces.

10 posted on 07/25/2012 10:13:41 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: central_va
The unionists were against expansion of slavery in the territories for racist reasons, to "keep it pure for free whites".

If that was the case, such an opinion was not publicly expressed by very many voices in the North.

Your statement is more invented propaganda than historical fact.

11 posted on 07/25/2012 10:16:44 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RexBeach

That makes no sense, How can slavery be a cause of the war if it as not at issue until long after the war started?

From the southern perspective the war was about preserving their freshly declared independence.

From the northern perspective as this act clearly demonstrates the war was about forcing the south under a corrupt union it no longer consented to.

Where is the slavery issue when the first shots are fired?


12 posted on 07/25/2012 10:19:50 AM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Face it, Mr. Lincoln’s war was very unpopular throughout the conflict until the fall of Atlanta. Then things flipped, the war became somewhat popular in the North and the once wildly popular war became decidedly unpopular below the Mason-Dixon.


13 posted on 07/25/2012 10:19:50 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Also, on the manpower question, one of Lincoln's most bitter criticisms of McClellan's performance at Antietam was that he left almost 25,000 Union soldiers (a third of his force) in reserve - in other words, the Union had armies standing around that were not even being used.
14 posted on 07/25/2012 10:22:11 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Lincoln and his party were billed as “the only white man’s party in the country.”


15 posted on 07/25/2012 10:22:48 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Lee invaded MD with an infantry brigade still in Harper’s Ferry, several hours march away from the front. That wasn’t to swift either.


16 posted on 07/25/2012 10:27:30 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Face it, Mr. Lincoln’s war was very unpopular throughout the conflict until the fall of Atlanta.

It was initially popular, became unpopular in 1862 and its popularity was renewed after the double victories of Gettysburg/Vicksburg.

McClellan's electoral defeat demonstrates that Lincoln had popular backing before Atlanta fell.

the once wildly popular war became decidedly unpopular below the Mason-Dixon

The war became quite unpopular in the South earlier than Atlanta's fall - as evidenced by the bread riots in Richmond and elsewhere months before Gettysburg. Northern Alabama and North Carolina/Northern Georgia basically quit sending new troops to the Confederate armies in the fall of 1862.

17 posted on 07/25/2012 10:29:54 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Oh, and the Confederacy fell back on conscription before the Union did.


18 posted on 07/25/2012 10:32:00 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Which begs the question: by whom, where, and when?


19 posted on 07/25/2012 10:33:10 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: central_va
In hindsight that was unwise, but it underlines Lincoln's problem with McClellan - Lee took a bold risk to try and win a decisive victory.

McClellan had all the men and materiel and advantage he needed to encircle and crush the ANV - but he lacked the nerve that made Lee such a brilliant captain.

20 posted on 07/25/2012 10:36:06 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

I think the opinion was very prevalent.
http://www.slavenorth.com/exclusion.htm


21 posted on 07/25/2012 10:39:03 AM PDT by wfu_deacons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
The Republican party's opposition to the expansion of slavery, therefore, encompassed a distinctive moral protest against slavery itself, but also contained, at least for many Republicans, a racial concern that the territories be reserved primarily for free white people.

Link here.

RICHARD B. LATNER Professor Ph.D., UW Madison, 1972

Richard B. Latner specializes in Jacksonian America; Sectionalism and Civil War; and Information Technology.

22 posted on 07/25/2012 10:45:34 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

“(1) The aggressor in a conflict is the side that fires first.
The side that fired first was not the Union.”

No they just refused to leave your house when ordered and given ample time. I call that an act of aggression, particular when it is combined with the anti-southern Independence rhetoric of the north.

Only an insane man would stand by and do nothing.


“(2) It was clear from the very beginning that the Union’s chief motivation in responding to that Southern-initiated aggression was to preserve the Union.”

This fact I will not dispute, although I would remind you that by preserving they meant imposing upon people who no longer consented, thus suppressing their inalienable right of revolution. The exact same right by which the union was formed in the first place.

If the cost of preserving a tool is the destruction of that which it is for, then the tool has usurped the master. Such was the case with the Federal Government then as now.


“The Confederacy was fighting a war for the expansion of slave territory, the Union was fighting for the Union.”

Rather difficult to do without territory in which to expand into. Non-slave territory remained with the union.

Seriously wideawake you need to think about what you write before you write it. That statement is quite impossible to believe as it is contracted by the very Independence the South was fighting to preserve.


23 posted on 07/25/2012 10:46:59 AM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: central_va

A.P. Hill had to deal with thousands of prisoners at Harpers Ferry and subsequently had a forced march from Harpers Ferry to Sharpsburg. One of my great-great grandfathers was a Sgt in the 49th Regiment Va Infantry in Jackson’s Corp at Sharpsburg.


24 posted on 07/25/2012 10:55:19 AM PDT by wfu_deacons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: central_va

A.P. Hill had to deal with thousands of prisoners at Harpers Ferry and subsequently had a forced march from Harpers Ferry to Sharpsburg. One of my great-great grandfathers was a Sgt in the 49th Regiment Va Infantry in Jackson’s Corp at Sharpsburg.


25 posted on 07/25/2012 10:55:30 AM PDT by wfu_deacons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise
Confederates and confederate sympathizers agitated in every western state and territory in attempts to declare those localities in alliance to the rebel states.

The southron slavrocracy most certainly sought to expand their holdings beyond their borders.

26 posted on 07/25/2012 11:01:04 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: BO Stinkss

The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in states that were in rebellion, and specifically also excluded New Orleans and few other parishs in Lousiana that were under Federal control. BTW, Delaware was another slave state that never joined the Confederacy.

Slavery was legal in Massachusetts until 1781, the first state to outlaw it. Most Northern states followed shortly thereafter.


27 posted on 07/25/2012 11:02:14 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (The Democratic Party strongly supports full civil rights for necro-Americans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise
No they just refused to leave your house when ordered and given ample time.

The problem was, it was not the Confederacy's house.

their inalienable right of revolution. The exact same right by which the union was formed in the first place

The Union was not based on an "inalienable right to revolution." It was based on the right of representation, and the decision to take arms was based on the UK government's denial of that right.

The states that made up the Confederacy were - thanks to the Constitution - actually overrepresented in the nation's councils. They were not denied representation.

Rather difficult to do without territory in which to expand into.

Which was why two of the Confederacy's first projects were to invade the New Mexico territory and to interfere in the Oklahoma territory.

Non-slave territory remained with the union.

Not in the Confederacy's opinion.

Seriously wideawake you need to think about what you write before you write it.

Oh, I have.

That statement is quite impossible to believe as it is contracted by the very Independence the South was fighting to preserve.

It's very easy to believe when one acquaints oneself with the Confederacy's actual behavior instead of only listening to its rhetoric.

The hypocrisy of the Confederacy was evident from the very first.

28 posted on 07/25/2012 11:14:08 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

“Confederates and confederate sympathizers agitated in every western state and territory in attempts to declare those localities in alliance to the rebel states.
The southron slavrocracy most certainly sought to expand their holdings beyond their borders.”

No doubt people who simpatico with the right of revolution which the confederacy in its irritating act exercised supported the confederacy everywhere they stood.

The Federal Government in numerous acts of repressive deviance suppressed them quite often. The Constitution under Lincoln was but a thing of paper. Indeed Lincoln even went so far as to proclaim that if his acts were unconditional he would be unable to carry them out.

So Lincoln & his men suppressed those advocating for our natural rights everywhere. The fact that they were less successful in the West is not surprising. The west at that time was still wild as it would be for many decades to come.


29 posted on 07/25/2012 11:15:03 AM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: central_va
From your source:The Republican party's opposition to the expansion of slavery, therefore, encompassed a distinctive moral protest against slavery itself, but also contained, at least for many Republicans, a racial concern that the territories be reserved primarily for free white people.

He argues that it was primarily a moral protest, but that many also had a racial motive.

I'm sure for many rank-and-filers that was the case - but for even more it was not, and for the leadership it was not at all.

30 posted on 07/25/2012 11:18:02 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: BO Stinkss
Slavery was the reason for the war. To say otherwise is to engage in rank sophistry.

The reason the North wanted to retain the Southern states in the Union was because immigration trends and settlement in the West was going to result in an overwhelming free soil country, and when that happened the abolitionists were going to roll over the slave holders. Pure and simple. This was also why the South wanted out of the Union.

I think the Civil War was a completely avoidable disaster. No one, Yankee or Rebel, foresaw the enormous cost of the War in blood and treasure. If the North had known before hand how bloody the War was to be, they never would have fought it. Obviously, if the South had known the outcome before hand, neither would they have instigated it.

My reading of history is that slavery in the South was moribund. No one really believed that it was morally justified, and it was only marginally economically advantageous. The result of the War was to poison race relations in this country and in the South for a hundred years. Had Southerners been allowed to dismantle slavery with their own institutions, as the North had, the treatment of the freed slaves would have been gentler (imho) and the transition to equality faster and less controversial.

31 posted on 07/25/2012 11:20:00 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (The Democratic Party strongly supports full civil rights for necro-Americans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise

They actually didn’t gain much traction for their insurrection at all. Most westerners wanted to keep the ugliness of the slavrocracy far far away from them.


32 posted on 07/25/2012 11:32:13 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise

On the contrary, it makes a great deal of sense.

Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to preserve the Union...not abolish slavery.

However, slavery was a significant issue between north and south since the Declaration of Independence. It, slavery, raised the anger level on both sides to a frenzied height.

This has been a classic disagreement between historians since the end of that war. That is, what caused the war in the first place?

Thanks for the post.


33 posted on 07/25/2012 11:49:58 AM PDT by RexBeach (Mr. Obama Can't Count.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: BO Stinkss

It certainly can’t be argued that the South went to war to free the slaves.


34 posted on 07/25/2012 12:08:09 PM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Damn Reb, did you ever regret the fact you weren’t born in the right century?


35 posted on 07/25/2012 12:10:19 PM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

The war was unavoidable and the south was always going to lose.

Over 90% of the pig-iron, copper, coal, textiles, boots, shoes, hats, locomotives, etc produced in the United States were produced in the north.

The north had a dense network of railroads and canals.

The south by comparison was backward and underdeveloped.

An agricultural economy with no chance in a modern industrial war.


36 posted on 07/25/2012 12:11:36 PM PDT by moonshot925
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: moonshot925
The south by comparison was backward and underdeveloped.

By choice, not by circumstance. An important distinction.

37 posted on 07/25/2012 12:18:20 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: BO Stinkss

The history of the civil war has been distorted and simplified to push the idea that it was all about slavery, and that the motivation of the northern states and the federal government was a noble concern for the well being of the blacks.

The notion that northern citizens were solely driven by charity and a desire to free blacks while the south was driven by greed and malice toward blacks is a gross simplification of the true forces in play at the time.

Very few people today understand that Lincoln’s Emacipation Proclamation applying to slaves in the southern states was not primarily motivated by a charitable desire on the part of the federal government to end all slavery.
(ie: it did not end slavery in the “border states” that had not taken sides in the war)

It was a political decision to create havoc in the southern states and to damage the ability of the Confederacy to wage war against the north. In the time leading up to the decision to announce the emancipation the northern army was getting its butt kicked by the south.

The hope was that announcement of emancipation would lead to large scale insurrection on the part of the remaining slaves in the southern states, crippling the south and help turn the tide of the war in favor of the north.

The reality is, that at the time, blacks were treated as bad, or worse, in the northern states. Yes, they were “free” in the northern states - free to starve, to work for slave wages (literally) and free to be abused without repercussion.

In the NY City draft riots of 1863 it is estimated that at least 100 blacks were beaten to death, burned to death, hung to death from lamp posts. There was great resentment in the north that sons, husbands and lovers were being killed by the thousands to free blacks in southern states. I was made worse as whites were drafted to fight in the south and their jobs were filled with blacks who were not included in the draft. It all came to a head in the draft riots.

IMHO -If Lincoln was anywhere near as great as he is portrayed in the history books, he would have been able to negotiate a reasonable accomodation to end the war and prevented the brutal slaughter of more than 600,000 Americans.


38 posted on 07/25/2012 12:23:17 PM PDT by Iron Munro ("Jiggle the Handle for Barry!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moonshot925
I don't deny the South was going to lose, provided the North was as determined as the South, which they were not. But they were determined enough.

In the event, the War happened, so by that standard, it was unavoidable.

There was plenty of open and vocal abolitionist sentiment in the South prior to the War. Once the War began, they shut up.

39 posted on 07/25/2012 12:25:17 PM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (The Democratic Party strongly supports full civil rights for necro-Americans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Iron Munro
IMHO -If Lincoln was anywhere near as great as he is portrayed in the history books, he would have been able to negotiate a reasonable accomodation to end the war and prevented the brutal slaughter of more than 600,000 Americans.

I agree that it would have been far better had we been able to find a non-violent alternate solution. You will recall however that South Carolina started the Carnival Ride From Hell before Lincoln took office. He did try several efforts to placate the south, but they weren't having any part of it. His hand was forced.

40 posted on 07/25/2012 12:39:18 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

I agree.

The north had an enormous advantage, but it still took 4 years and 370,000 lives to defeat the south.


41 posted on 07/25/2012 12:47:26 PM PDT by moonshot925
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

“”No they just refused to leave your house when ordered and given ample time.”
The problem was, it was not the Confederacy’s house.”

Yes that is right all houses/property and effectively people belong to the federal Government.
The old “We did not build that argumentation of leftist”.

*roll eyes* are you sure you ain’t an employee of the Obama Campain?


“”their inalienable right of revolution. The exact same right by which the union was formed in the first place”

The Union was not based on an “inalienable right to revolution.” It was based on the right of representation, and the decision to take arms was based on the UK government’s denial of that right.”

If such a right existed under the united KINGDOM’S government it would have been in place for hundreds of years. Instead it never before existed for the American colonies.

England changed the terms of the relationship to that which was unpalatable. The federalist like to claim it was simply the additional taxation new forms of taxation in trade of which they demanded representation. But were that the case then the long standing trade restrictions which were also in contest(now that they were being more aggressively enforced) would not have been in contest.


“The states that made up the Confederacy were - thanks to the Constitution - actually overrepresented in the nation’s councils. They were not denied representation.”

No they were denied by the northern States their Constitutionally contracted extradition of not only escaped slaves but northern terrorist(who happens to be white) and on many occasions had attacked southern towns to retreat into the north.

On top of that the south was unconstitutionally decrminated against in the Federal trade laws which favored northern industrialization(protectionist) at the expense of southern export export driven economy. There were also numerous other matters in which the South saw the Federal Constitutional compact in violation by northern states. Many of which were listed as causes in their respective Declarations of Independence.

One issue that comes to mind which my state of Texas complained bitterly about in its declaration and is still an issue today is the Failure of Washington to protect our southern border.


42 posted on 07/25/2012 3:05:45 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: nnn0jeh

Ping


43 posted on 07/25/2012 3:09:53 PM PDT by kalee (The offenses we give, we write in the dust; Those we take, we engrave in marble. J Huett 1658)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
I agree that it would have been far better had we been able to find a nonviolent alternate solution. You will recall however that South Carolina started the Carnival Ride From Hell before Lincoln took office. He did try several efforts to placate the south, but they weren't having any part of it. His hand was forced.

Good comments and all true as far as it goes.

There were many opportunities on both sides to mediate some sort of resolution but the Union demanded immediate and total capitulation on all points. There was more than enough arrogance and intransigence and little willingness to compromise or find a workable middle ground on both sides.

After Sharpsville, Gettysburg, Vicksburg it is clear the Union was in the ascendancy and the Confederacy was in decline. It became clear to most in the south that they were facing ultimate defeat. That was the opportune time to seek compromise. But the federal government that shortly before feared the imminent fall of Washington and Maryland became determined to not only win, but to absolutely crush and devastate the south. A desire for revenge replaced any desire to search for a nonviolent solution.

And that is exactly what followed. It wasn't necessary to the ultimate northern victory and the damage it caused still lingers.

There is a difference between being an effective leader and being a great leader. Almost every action Lincoln took exacerbated the situation and reduced chances for compromise. That is why I hold to my original observation - a great leader, a great statesman, would not have presided over the death of 600,000 of his countrymen.

44 posted on 07/25/2012 3:22:01 PM PDT by Iron Munro ("Jiggle the Handle for Barry!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise
Yes that is right all houses/property and effectively people belong to the federal Government. The old “We did not build that argumentation of leftist”. *roll eyes* are you sure you ain’t an employee of the Obama Campain?

In the case of Fort Sumter, it actually was a government-owned piece of property. But that is completely beside the point.

The federal government had authority over South Carolina as quite clearly spelled out in the Constitution's supremacy clause.

Not only was the seizure of Fort Sumter by the Confederates the theft of taxpayers' property, but it was an act of illegal insurrection.

I would have thought the Obama comment was beneath you, and I would have been wrong.

England changed the terms of the relationship to that which was unpalatable. The federalist like to claim it was simply the additional taxation new forms of taxation in trade of which they demanded representation. But were that the case then the long standing trade restrictions which were also in contest(now that they were being more aggressively enforced) would not have been in contest.

This is incoherent. The plain fact of the matter is that the common law of the UK guaranteed the colonists the same rights as other Englishmen, but the Crown deprived them of these rights and they were left with no other option.

No they were denied by the northern States their Constitutionally contracted extradition of not only escaped slaves

This is absolutely and completely false. The federal executive went to great lengths to recover humans being claimed as property - even sending 300 federal marshals to Boston to seize one alleged escaped slave. The federal judiciary struck down laws protected escaped slaves and the federal Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Act to empower the executive to implement those judicial decisions.

The federal government bent over backwards for the South on this point.

but northern terrorist(who happens to be white) and on many occasions had attacked southern towns to retreat into the north.

Also false. Which southern towns were these? The one possible historical claim that could be sustained on this point was John Brown's raid into Virginia - but the federal government caught him and hanged him.

On top of that the south was unconstitutionally decrminated against in the Federal trade laws which favored northern industrialization(protectionist) at the expense of southern export export driven economy.

Also false. One of the main reasons why the South felt bold enough to go to war is because the Southern economy doubled between 1850-1860. There was no law against building factories in the South - there was just more money in cotton.

There were also numerous other matters in which the South saw the Federal Constitutional compact in violation by northern states.

Well your two other claims have now been exploded by actual facts. What other fake grievances are you referring to?

Many of which were listed as causes in their respective Declarations of Independence.

The secession ordinances are full of bombast but pretty much devoid of specific charges. Read them, you'll see.

One issue that comes to mind which my state of Texas complained bitterly about in its declaration and is still an issue today is the Failure of Washington to protect our southern border.

The federal government's position at that time, quite rightly, was that policing the "forays of banditti" into Texas from Mexico was a matter for Texas law enforcement.

45 posted on 07/25/2012 3:35:31 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

P.S.

Often overlooked is the fact that Lincoln (and others) recognized that racial relations were a problem, even in the north where blacks were free. Long before Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation he considerred proposals to ship all blacks, north and south, to colonies in some foreign lands.

Various places in Central and South America were considered as well as Africa.

The idea never came to much as it was taken over by war related events.

Ultimately Lincoln settled on the idea of using emancipation of blacks in the Confederacy as a political and strategic tool against the south. That led to the formation of black military units (led by white officers) to fight in the south. That decision was more political than strategic as it was calculated to infuriate southerners.


46 posted on 07/25/2012 3:39:04 PM PDT by Iron Munro ("Jiggle the Handle for Barry!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

“I agree that it would have been far better had we been able to find a non-violent alternate solution. You will recall however that South Carolina started the Carnival Ride From Hell before Lincoln took office. He did try several efforts to placate the south, but they weren’t having any part of it. His hand was forced. “

I don’t see how you can have an acceptable solution except thou Independence. Which Lincoln believing he owed the south & southern people was not prepared to accept.

Simply put Tyrants like Lincoln had to be killed so that all men might be free of his tyranny. The tragity is the south didn’t do that right off the bat. They should have taken Lincoln at his word and accepting that he was never going to let them live free of him their only option was to kill or imprison Lincoln like any other criminal.

Instead following the custom of the time they left the enemy tyrant alone until the end, when hundreds of thousands of Yankees were thrown like cannon fodder into southern defenses, and hundredths of thousands of southerns were killed defending their own land from the aggression of one Tyrant.

Lincoln may be burning in hell today but hundreds of thousand of lives might have been saved had they sent him there a little sooner. Perhaps more importantly a hundred million + people might still be free living under a government with the consent of the governed.

Instead nobody won, the south is held captive to the lawless political passions of the north and the north is held captive to not only that but the south’s disagreeable influence.


47 posted on 07/25/2012 3:43:49 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

“I agree that it would have been far better had we been able to find a non-violent alternate solution. You will recall however that South Carolina started the Carnival Ride From Hell before Lincoln took office. He did try several efforts to placate the south, but they weren’t having any part of it. His hand was forced. “

I don’t see how you can have an acceptable solution except thou Independence. Which Lincoln believing he owed the south & southern people was not prepared to accept.

Simply put Tyrants like Lincoln had to be killed so that all men might be free of his tyranny. The tragity is the south didn’t do that right off the bat. They should have taken Lincoln at his word and accepting that he was never going to let them live free of him their only option was to kill or imprison Lincoln like any other criminal.

Instead following the custom of the time they left the enemy tyrant alone until the end, when hundreds of thousands of Yankees were thrown like cannon fodder into southern defenses, and hundredths of thousands of southerns were killed defending their own land from the aggression of one Tyrant.

Lincoln may be burning in hell today but hundreds of thousand of lives might have been saved had they sent him there a little sooner. Perhaps more importantly a hundred million + people might still be free living under a government with the consent of the governed.

Instead nobody won, the south is held captive to the lawless political passions of the north and the north is held captive to not only that but the south’s disagreeable influence.

Nobody is happy and we are still fighting about it 150 years later.


48 posted on 07/25/2012 3:44:23 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Iron Munro
Long before Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation he considerred proposals to ship all blacks, north and south, to colonies in some foreign lands.

True, albeit voluntary emigration. And idea he shared with folks like Robert E. Lee. An idea he got - and modified from Thomas Jefferson, who preferred forced deportation.

49 posted on 07/25/2012 3:46:23 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise
I don’t see how you can have an acceptable solution except thou(sic) Independence.

We have an acceptable solution now. We would have had an acceptable solution 150 years ago except for moronic hotheads who were spoiling for a fight. They got one alright, just not with the outcome they were expecting

50 posted on 07/25/2012 3:50:43 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-241 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson