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 ...
I agree.
The north had an enormous advantage, but it still took 4 years and 370,000 lives to defeat the south.
“”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.
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.
Ping
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.
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.
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.
“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.
“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.
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.
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
“”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.”
At least we agree on something.
There you go again siting that one “clause” of the Federal Constitution to justify boundless power. Well let me quote that irrelevant clause for you:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”
Notice how it says not a thing about foreign states which South Carolina was at that point, nor any law not in pursuance of what it does say.
This clause is utterly irrelevant, less the rest of the world be bound by the edicts of Washington. Talk about the mother of all empire complexes but I wouldn’t put it past a federal political or his appointed employees in black robes.
If it was Taxpayer property then it rightly belonged to the south Carolina tax payers that paid for it. In any-even they sent delegations offering to pay for any disputed share the North might have held.
Lincoln refused to event meet with the Southern Delegation, and instead insisted upon retaining the dagger at his former roommates neck in an effort hold them as prisoners. This was a violation of the custom at the time and obviously unacceptable at any time.
“”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 “
So said the British empire in 1776, or any other imperial tyrant. There is nothing acceptable about the currently oppressive arrangement.
We are now made serfs to a distant government that knows no more bounds to its twisted usurpation than its imagination can conger. If this tyranny is acceptable to you, then I welcome you to take it with you to your own private coroner of hell. Leave us out of it, or force us to resist with all the might and cleverness we can bring forth.
I will fight to get out of hell not make it more to your likeing.
Comparisons to the Revolutionary War strain credulity to the point of being ludicrous. The colonialists were subjects of the crown, not citizens with the same rights and representation to "real" Brits.
Southern states not only enjoyed full representation but they dominated government for most of its pre-Civil War years.
So, when do you plan your next insurrection?
Can you please post the title and the authors of the textbooks in your schools that made those claims? I never saw any such claims in my k-12 education. Ever.
“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 “
So said King George & his loyalist friends of the American Colonies in 1776.
The point is you should know that one party does not get to define for the other what is and what is not an acceptable solution. Both parties define what they find acceptable for themselves and the only issue arises where one party refuses to accept any definition except that which imposes upon the other.
In this case Lincoln refused to accept any solution except that of submission of the other party set them on the path to war. For the other party to submit would require that that party give up the inalienable right to revolution and with that right by implication of present and current usurpation every other right.
I do not understand how that simple concept can be so difficult for you to grasp?
Can you not see that the only possible way to retain liberty under any union(government) is to base that same union upon the consent of those it governs?
Lincoln by refusing to even meet with the Confederate delegation, rejected the underlining primis of peace he rejected their Independence.
You simply have your history upside down.
Both parties did have relatively equal voices in the determination of our nation but one party - the democrats - decided to throw law and convention out the window and rebel.
When they did that - and I’ll remind you once again that they did so even before Lincoln assumed office - all bets were off. The southern hotheads set the course and forced Lincoln to respond in the only way left to him - meeting force with force.
Nether party existed then as they exist today. You seem to have your history clouded by inapplicable labels.
As for southern democrats you might find that conservative streak now forms the foundation of what is today’s republican party base.
You continue to alienate them and you will soon have a tiny RINO party of the north and a Conservative party of the south. I hope you enjoy living under the thumb of Washington State Yankee leftist.
“When they did that - and I’ll remind you once again that they did so even before Lincoln assumed office - all bets were off. The southern hotheads set the course and forced Lincoln to respond in the only way left to him - meeting force with force.”
Your right Lincoln had no choice but to uses force to accomplish his goal of subjugation all of us under an empire(forced union of subjects to a central athoirty).
Your wrong in that this was his only choice. Lincoln could have read the Federal Constitution and found no prohibition against withdraw. For that matter Lincoln could have read the Declaration of Independence and found that any such prohibition would be impossible.
But Lincoln didn’t and instead Lincoln argue that that people exist to service government and not the other way around, as such people could not withdraw from the service of their master government anymore than a slave could emancipate himself.
This position of course was entirely political and in utter contradiction with Lincoln’s position on the same subject just a decade earlier (While Southern Conservative were in power.)
Your right Lincoln had no choice but to uses(sic) force to accomplish his goal of subjugation all of us under an empire(forced union of subjects to a central athoirty(sic)).
That's just idiotic.
Whoever taught you was wrong. The war didn't start to free slaves. It started over the expansion of slavery into the Western territories.
The Southern states seceded when Lincoln, who's only had two campaign promises -- 1.)Stop further expansion of slavery into the Western territories, and 2.) Not to interfere with slavery where it currently existed.
When those first seven Deep South states seceded, the Northern states basically said No, this is not a good reason to break the Union.
And War Came. Blame the Southern Fire Eaters who wanted to turn the entire nation into a slave empire for the carnage that followed.
No one was touching there precious slaves at that point.
Republicans!
Don’t forget to celebrate.
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.