WALSH: President Trump Is Right - Robert E. Lee Was A Great General

https://www.dailywire.com ^ | April 29, 2019 | Matt Walsh

[FLT-bird]

Yes.

Had the Southern states emancipated all the slaves and adopted sharecropping which they later did, their economic interests would have remained the same. They would have wanted as low a tariff as possible. The economic interests of the Northern states would have remained the same. They would have wanted a high protectionist tariff and they would have continued to lavish federal money for infrastructure and corporate subsidies on themselves.

[central_va]

Have you ever read US history? The Souths strategy from the beginning was defensive. There was never any intention of the CSA invading and/or occupying the North. First, they didn't have man power and second the whole point was to BREAK AWAY from the USA. Where did you learn history? A comic book?

I suggest you do a search on "Southern civil war strategy" start reading ( and less posting on the subject ).

[Roman_War_Criminal]

“Have you ever read US history?” Surely you jest... My undergrad is US History.

“The Souths strategy from the beginning was defensive.”

Yeah sure! They were the instigators of the entire war from Ft. Sumter and tried their best to invade boarding states of Kentucky, Maryland, Arkansas, and even tried actions in New Mexico, Arizona and California. You trying to pull off the false argument that the South was just defending themselves is a false strawman argument that anyone with basic knowledge with Civil War actions - especially in border states and the territories can easily rebuff. That doesn’t even include the terrorist plot in NYC on election day 1864.

“There was never any intention of the CSA invading and/or occupying the North.”

So the entire Gettysburg campaign never happened then - good to know....

I’ve read more books on the Civil War - guaranteed than you have. I have at least 200 in my library alone. I can name unit commanders of most battles and even tell you their ranks at the offset of the war. The 2nd US Dragoons unit at Bull Run produced no less than 5 future generals.

Easy to get on the internet and sit on your tush being the keyboard pretending you’re smarter than everybody else. But yeah, I did learn my history from a comic book.

[central_va]

You need a refund. I will attempt to educate you. Don't fight me and open your mind.

The Confederate States of America recognized from the outset of the Civil War that they had disadvantages in terms of population and industrial output. Their strategy was to take advantage of their compact geography, with internal lines of communication, their military heritage (Southerners had been disproportionately the officers of the United States Army), and their greater enthusiasm for their cause to wear down the Union will to wage war. They also believed the Britain, with its heavy dependence on Southern cotton to supply its mills, would be at worst neutral with a bias in their favor, and they dreamed of direct European assistance.

Southern Strategy

[Roman_War_Criminal]

” I will attempt to educate you.”

LOL - right...

History isn’t a one-sided story. The Civil War is more complex than most people realize. There wasn’t a noble side in the war. It was the biggest waste of blood this nation allowed because of prideful idiots who couldn’t dialogue.

[DiogenesLamp]

You are mistaking desperate attempts to avoid a war with the politicians actual positions.

I am pointing out that Lincoln was willing to sell all the slaves down the river to keep economic and political control of the Southern states.

Therefore the primary issue of the war was not concern about slaves, it was concern about keeping the South's economic system under the control of Washington DC, where the more numerous Northern advantage in Congress could keep Southern money flowing through New York and Washington DC hands.

Lincoln sought many compromises to save the Union. Acceptance of tis Democrat measure being one of them.

It's primary advocates were Republican Thomas Corwin from Ohio, and Republican William Seward from New York. There is even some circumstantial evidence that Lincoln even initiated it. Seward was Lincoln's Secretary of State.

Just weeks prior to the outbreak of the Civil War,

Interesting statement. Just how did Lincoln happen to know they were "Just weeks prior to the outbreak of the Civil War..."? What made anyone believe that war was weeks away?

You are aware that Lincoln sent a battle fleet to Charleston to attack the Confederates there, and perhaps this is how people knew war was "Just weeks prior to the outbreak of the Civil War..." ?

Lincoln's cabinet certainly made it clear that if sent those warships, it would cause a war. The vast majority of them were completely against Lincoln doing this, because they said it would trigger a war.

Lincoln sent a letter to each state’s governor transmitting the proposed amendment,[18] noting that Buchanan had approved it."

Yes he did, and this is an unusual step because the president plays no role in the passage of constitutional amendments. One can only surmise his letter was intended to make the governors aware that he was backing this amendment, because if he opposed it, he would hardly send a letter to notify them of it, or if he did, it would have voiced his opposition.

[DiogenesLamp]

Bingo. There’s just no getting around that. The North Offered the South slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. The South turned it down. Obviously secession and the war were not “about” slavery.

And yet, the apologists for the North have the astonishing ability to look right at this fact and not see it.

Years ago when I was in High School we had a hypnotist show come to our auditorium. The man solicited volunteers from the audience, and he would hypnotize them. One of the volunteers was told to forget the number "7". When the hypnotist snapped his fingers to "awaken" the volunteer, he asked him to count to ten.

The fellow said "1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10!"

The audience tittered. Again the hypnotist bade him to count to ten. Again he said "1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10!"

The audience erupted with laughter while the poor volunteer couldn't seem to comprehend what was happening.

The hypnotist then asked him to add 3+4. The man said "6!" The hypnotist said "Isn't that 3+3? Try again. What is 3+4?" The volunteer said "8!", to which the hypnotists replied, "Isn't that 4+4?"

Of course we in the audience thought this was quite hilarious, and the volunteer couldn't grasp what he was missing.

So too is it with people when you point out the Corwin amendment. It absolutely destroys the claim that the war had anything to do with slavery, but they simply cannot see this in the same manner that the poor volunteer had lost the ability to comprehend the number "7".

Astonishing. People simply want to believe what they want to believe to such an extent that they become literally blind to facts which do not fit their world view.

[DiogenesLamp]

The Virginia secession convention provides plenty of detail as to the cause of the secession and the resulting war.

And here we go again with the "secession" statements. First of all, only 3 or 4 states made any that suggested slavery was the cause. There were 11 states in the confederacy, but a lot of people want to make the 3 or 4 speak for the 11.

Secondly, Virginia, which you so conspicuously named, makes it clear that they seceded because the North was raising an army to invade their sister states to the South, and they believed this was absolutely contrary to the principles the nation was founded upon.

Thirdly, the reasons why the North invaded have nothing to do with this claim that the South seceded solely over the issue of slavery. You may be unaware of this, but slavery was legal in the Union, and would continue being legal in the Union had those Southern states not seceded.

Why did the Northern states invade? Because Lincoln fired them up with a pretext that Federal troops were attacked at Ft. Sumter. He completely left out the part about him sending warships to attack the confederates first, and since he was just locking up any newspaper editors that refused to run his propaganda, all the information the Northern people had was that the Union had been attacked. Lincoln was controlling the "news" media at that point.

He also left out the part about his government consistently telling the people of South Carolina that fort Sumter would be evacuated, so by the time the warships arrived, nobody there believed anything Lincoln said about his motives or intents.

[DiogenesLamp]

Yeah sure! They were the instigators of the entire war from Ft. Sumter

Incorrect. Major Anderson took over the empty fort in December of 1860. Since November of 1860, The Secretary of war had told the people of South Carolina that all the forts would be evacuated and turned over to them. Anderson had spiked all the cannons in Ft. Moultrie, and set the gun carriages on fire. The people of Charleston woke up to fires burning in their forts, and Anderson and his men occupying the previously never garrisoned Ft. Sumter in the middle of the harbor entrance.

The people of Charleston considered the spiking of the guns and the burning of the gun carriages to be the first belligerent act of the war.

So with Anderson occupying the fort, and his officers discussing whether or not to turn the cannons of the Fort on Charleston, the Confederates allowed Anderson to remain there from December of 1860, to April of 1861. In April, Anderson was sent word that if he would but name a time he would evacuate, they would give him as much time as he needed to do so.

Then they were sent word that Abraham Lincoln had launched a fleet of warships with orders to attack the confederates, and so they gave Anderson an ultimatum. Either offer your assurances that you will not attack the confederates with the guns of that fort when those warships arrive to attack, (Anderson refused) or evacuate the fort. (Anderson also refused.)

With the circumstance of shortly being caught between the guns of the fort, and the guns of the warships Lincoln had sent, they had no choice but to neutralize the Fort before the warships could be put into position for an attack.

It was the arrival of the "Harriet Lane", (Which immediately fired cannon at the "Nashville.") which triggered the attack on the fort. When the first of the warships were sighted, General Beauregard realized that the war fleet was actually coming to engage them.

Here is an image of another one of the warships Lincoln sent with orders to attack them.

[DiogenesLamp]

There wasn’t a noble side in the war. It was the biggest waste of blood this nation allowed because of prideful idiots who couldn’t dialogue.

I agree it was the biggest wast of blood this nation allowed, but I disagree that it was because prideful idiots couldn't dialogue.

I think they had been "dialoguing" for decades, and the South just realized there was no further point to it. The taxes were set to make the South pay for the vast bulk of government costs, and the laws were set to funnel virtually all the Southern produced export value back through New York.

The South would never get a sufficient majority in the Congress to fix any of this, and since they didn't want to continue being the milk cow for the Northern elites who would not quit telling them how much they hated them, they saw leaving as their only option.

Unfortunately for them, the powerful Northern elites did not want to relinquish that 230 million per year of Southern wealth flowing through their hands, and they also did not want the South importing European goods to be distributed all along the border and throughout the Mississippi watershed.

The financial ramifications of Southern independence to the Northern "robber barons" was massive, and these were not the sort of men who would be ushered away to the poor house without a fight.

The Civil War was that fight.

[gandalftb]

The fight over money clearly drove the ruling classes of the South.

But that won’t get the voluntary military muster that happened.

The Abolitionists and preachers drove the northern, you might say, hysteria over slavery.

Dickens, from his home in England, had no real idea what drove the feelings of Americans on the ground.

Once Fort Sumter was fired on, that and the background feelings over slavery and the Fugitive Slave Act caused the muster in the north.

In Iowa, my ancestors joined others to create 3 regiments, without a call from Lincoln or the Federal Army.

They mustered so quickly, without consultation from the Feds, that they chose gray uniforms that had to be replaced later when the Feds showed them that the correct color was blue.

[rockrr]

The Civil War is more complex than most people realize.

You said a mouthful there!

[DiogenesLamp]

The fight over money clearly drove the ruling classes of the South.

It also clearly drove the ruling classes of the North. These later came to be called "Robber Barons" during what is known as the "Gilded age."

Trouble is, the ruling classes of the North are still ruling over the rest of us.

The Abolitionists and preachers drove the northern, you might say, hysteria over slavery.

The vast majority of the Northern people were not motivated by the Abolitionists. Their opposition to slavery stemmed from what they saw as a threat to labor and wages from free labor. They hated slavery because it undermined their own ability to earn wages. They didn't hate it because it oppressed black people. They just didn't care about that.

States like Illinois had made laws to keep blacks out of their state. The average Northerner wanted nothing to do with blacks, and didn't really care what happened to them. The Abolitionists were a tiny minority who's influence was exaggerated after the fact to make it appear as if moral considerations about slavery drove the war.

This was just propaganda.

In Iowa, my ancestors joined others to create 3 regiments, without a call from Lincoln or the Federal Army.

Why didn't they invade Missouri? That slave state was on their own border. Seems as if their focus wasn't actually slavery, or else they would have stamped it out where it was close to them.

[DiogenesLamp]

Dickens, from his home in England, had no real idea what drove the feelings of Americans on the ground.

He spent six months touring the United States in the 1840s. He details the discussions he had with Americans, both North and South in a book he published. He was quite critical of slavery, and urged the Southern families with whom he spoke to get rid of it.

[Roman_War_Criminal]

The CSA still fired the first shots.
My entire point is to counter this ridiculous notion that the South just wanted to fight an entirely defensive campaign throughout the war and to try an win by attrition a defense of their homeland.

That nonsense can be countered by instance after instance of incursions into the North, border states that were essentially neutral, territories, and included terroristic plots well beyond the battlefields, leading all the way up to finally the assassination of the President.

[DiogenesLamp]

The CSA still fired the first shots.

If a big guy throws a punch at you, and you see it coming and hit him first, who started it?

Lincoln launching that war fleet was the "first shot." Had he not done that, there would have been no shots fired at Sumter. Even Major Anderson said this action would cause a war.

"... I had the honor to receive by yesterday's mail the letter of the honorable Secretary of War, dated April 4, and confess that what he there states surprises me very greatly, following as it does and contradicting so positively the assurance Mr. Crawford telegraphed he was authorized to make. I trust that this matter w ill be at once put in a correct light, as a movement made now, when the South has been erroneously informed that none such will be attempted, would produce most disastrous results throughout our country.

It is, of course, now too late for me to give any advice in reference to the proposed scheme of Captain Fox. I fear that its result cannot fail to be disastrous to all concerned. Even with his boat at our walls the loss of life (as I think I mentioned to Mr. Fox) in unloading her will more than pay for the good to be accomplished by the expedition, which keeps us, if I can maintain possession of this work, out of position, surrounded by strong works, which must be carried to make this fort of the least value to the United States Government.

We have not oil enough to keep a light in the lantern for one night. The boats will have, therefore, to rely at night entirely upon other marks. I ought to have been informed that this expedition was to come. Colonel Lamon's remark convinced me that the idea, merely hinted at to me by Captain Fox, would not be carried out. We shall strive to do our duty, though I frankly say that my heart is not in the war which I see is to be thus commenced. That God will still avert it, and cause us to resort to pacific measures to maintain our rights, is my ardent prayer.

The vast majority of Lincoln's cabinet also told him that if he sent those ships, it would cause a war. Apparently they all regarded that as the "first shot."

My entire point is to counter this ridiculous notion that the South just wanted to fight an entirely defensive campaign throughout the war and to try an win by attrition a defense of their homeland.

They didn't want to fight a war at all. What they wanted was to run their own affairs and be left in peace by the government in Washington DC.

[Roman_War_Criminal]

I’m not going to disagree at all with the abuse heaped upon Southern farmers, plantation and business owners by Yankee elitists & politicians for decades.

My prideful idiots comment reflects on them as much as it does the chest-beating southern ‘gentlemen’ who refused to even consider any middle ground. It’s almost as if no matter what the discussion would be about that the hatred and contempt was so high on both sides that this war was unavoidable. With politicians on both sides adding fuel to the already heavily kindled fire the result was what it was.
Arrogance, ego and pride cost lives.
Always does.

[Pikachu_Dad]

Georgia was also very clear as tho the cause.

But keep on tryin. You might stumble over a cogent thought... eventually.

---

“Georgia

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation.

Our Northern confederates, after a full and calm hearing of all the facts, after a fair warning of our purpose not to submit to the rule of the authors of all these wrongs and injuries, have by a large majority committed the Government of the United States into their hands. The people of Georgia, after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with equal firmness that they shall not rule over them. A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution.

While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation. The main reason was that the North, even if united, could not control both branches of the Legislature during any portion of that time. Therefore such an organization must have resulted either in utter failure or in the total overthrow of the Government. The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade.

Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency.

The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.

But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded— the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.

All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity. This question was before us. We had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding solution. This state of facts gave form and shape to the anti-slavery sentiment throughout the North and the conflict began. Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South. We had shed our blood and paid our money for its acquisition; we demanded a division of it on the line of the Missouri restriction or an equal participation in the whole of it. These propositions were refused, the agitation became general, and the public danger was great. The case of the South was impregnable. The price of the acquisition was the blood and treasure of both sections— of all, and, therefore, it belonged to all upon the principles of equity and justice.

The Constitution delegated no power to Congress to excluded either party from its free enjoyment; therefore our right was good under the Constitution. Our rights were further fortified by the practice of the Government from the beginning. Slavery was forbidden in the country northwest of the Ohio River by what is called the ordinance of 1787. That ordinance was adopted under the old confederation and by the assent of Virginia, who owned and ceded the country, and therefore this case must stand on its own special circumstances. The Government of the United States claimed territory by virtue of the treaty of 1783 with Great Britain, acquired territory by cession from Georgia and North Carolina, by treaty from France, and by treaty from Spain. These acquisitions largely exceeded the original limits of the Republic. In all of these acquisitions the policy of the Government was uniform. It opened them to the settlement of all the citizens of all the States of the Union. They emigrated thither with their property of every kind (including slaves). All were equally protected by public authority in their persons and property until the inhabitants became sufficiently numerous and otherwise capable of bearing the burdens and performing the duties of self-government, when they were admitted into the Union upon equal terms with the other States, with whatever republican constitution they might adopt for themselves.

Under this equally just and beneficent policy law and order, stability and progress, peace and prosperity marked every step of the progress of these new communities until they entered as great and prosperous commonwealths into the sisterhood of American States. In 1820 the North endeavored to overturn this wise and successful policy and demanded that the State of Missouri should not be admitted into the Union unless she first prohibited slavery within her limits by her constitution. After a bitter and protracted struggle the North was defeated in her special object, but her policy and position led to the adoption of a section in the law for the admission of Missouri, prohibiting slavery in all that portion of the territory acquired from France lying North of 36 [degrees] 30 [minutes] north latitude and outside of Missouri. The venerable Madison at the time of its adoption declared it unconstitutional. Mr. Jefferson condemned the restriction and foresaw its consequences and predicted that it would result in the dissolution of the Union. His prediction is now history. The North demanded the application of the principle of prohibition of slavery to all of the territory acquired from Mexico and all other parts of the public domain then and in all future time. It was the announcement of her purpose to appropriate to herself all the public domain then owned and thereafter to be acquired by the United States. The claim itself was less arrogant and insulting than the reason with which she supported it. That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity. This particular question, in connection with a series of questions affecting the same subject, was finally disposed of by the defeat of prohibitory legislation.

The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.
The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.

For forty years this question has been considered and debated in the halls of Congress, before the people, by the press, and before the tribunals of justice. The majority of the people of the North in 1860 decided it in their own favor. We refuse to submit to that judgment, and in vindication of our refusal we offer the Constitution of our country and point to the total absence of any express power to exclude us. We offer the practice of our Government for the first thirty years of its existence in complete refutation of the position that any such power is either necessary or proper to the execution of any other power in relation to the Territories. We offer the judgment of a large minority of the people of the North, amounting to more than one-third, who united with the unanimous voice of the South against this usurpation; and, finally, we offer the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest judicial tribunal of our country, in our favor. This evidence ought to be conclusive that we have never surrendered this right. The conduct of our adversaries admonishes us that if we had surrendered it, it is time to resume it.

The faithless conduct of our adversaries is not confined to such acts as might aggrandize themselves or their section of the Union. They are content if they can only injure us. The Constitution declares that persons charged with crimes in one State and fleeing to another shall be delivered up on the demand of the executive authority of the State from which they may flee, to be tried in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property. Our confederates, with punic faith, shield and give sanctuary to all criminals who seek to deprive us of this property or who use it to destroy us. This clause of the Constitution has no other sanction than their good faith; that is withheld from us; we are remediless in the Union; out of it we are remitted to the laws of nations.

A similar provision of the Constitution requires them to surrender fugitives from labor. This provision and the one last referred to were our main inducements for confederating with the Northern States. Without them it is historically true that we would have rejected the Constitution. In the fourth year of the Republic Congress passed a law to give full vigor and efficiency to this important provision. This act depended to a considerable degree upon the local magistrates in the several States for its efficiency. The non-slave-holding States generally repealed all laws intended to aid the execution of that act, and imposed penalties upon those citizens whose loyalty to the Constitution and their oaths might induce them to discharge their duty. Congress then passed the act of 1850, providing for the complete execution of this duty by Federal officers. This law, which their own bad faith rendered absolutely indispensible for the protection of constitutional rights, was instantly met with ferocious revilings and all conceivable modes of hostility.

The Supreme Court unanimously, and their own local courts with equal unanimity (with the single and temporary exception of the supreme court of Wisconsin), sustained its constitutionality in all of its provisions. Yet it stands to-day a dead letter for all practicable purposes in every non-slave-holding State in the Union. We have their convenants, we have their oaths to keep and observe it, but the unfortunate claimant, even accompanied by a Federal officer with the mandate of the highest judicial authority in his hands, is everywhere met with fraud, with force, and with legislative enactments to elude, to resist, and defeat him. Claimants are murdered with impunity; officers of the law are beaten by frantic mobs instigated by inflammatory appeals from persons holding the highest public employment in these States, and supported by legislation in conflict with the clearest provisions of the Constitution, and even the ordinary principles of humanity. In several of our confederate States a citizen cannot travel the highway with his servant who may voluntarily accompany him, without being declared by law a felon and being subjected to infamous punishments. It is difficult to perceive how we could suffer more by the hostility than by the fraternity of such brethren.

The public law of civilized nations requires every State to restrain its citizens or subjects from committing acts injurious to the peace and security of any other State and from attempting to excite insurrection, or to lessen the security, or to disturb the tranquillity of their neighbors, and our Constitution wisely gives Congress the power to punish all offenses against the laws of nations.

These are sound and just principles which have received the approbation of just men in all countries and all centuries; but they are wholly disregarded by the people of the Northern States, and the Federal Government is impotent to maintain them. For twenty years past the abolitionists and their allies in the Northern States have been engaged in constant efforts to subvert our institutions and to excite insurrection and servile war among us. They have sent emissaries among us for the accomplishment of these purposes. Some of these efforts have received the public sanction of a majority of the leading men of the Republican party in the national councils, the same men who are now proposed as our rulers. These efforts have in one instance led to the actual invasion of one of the slave-holding States, and those of the murderers and incendiaries who escaped public justice by flight have found fraternal protection among our Northern confederates.

These are the same men who say the Union shall be preserved.

Such are the opinions and such are the practices of the Republican party, who have been called by their own votes to administer the Federal Government under the Constitution of the United States. We know their treachery; we know the shallow pretenses under which they daily disregard its plainest obligations. If we submit to them it will be our fault and not theirs. The people of Georgia have ever been willing to stand by this bargain, this contract; they have never sought to evade any of its obligations; they have never hitherto sought to establish any new government; they have struggled to maintain the ancient right of themselves and the human race through and by that Constitution. But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquillity.

Approved, Tuesday, January 29, 1861 “

[Roman_War_Criminal]

There’s a lot to be said of what happened at Lexington and Concord in the American Revolution, and by allowing the British to get the first volley in, in essence - the British we roundly considered to be instigators. Every historical book tells that same story and it garnered worldwide sympathy for their cause eventually.

Had the South been smart enough to allow either those ships or the fort to fire first, the diplomatic front of the war with Europe might have been a bit more receptive.

What Lincoln did is tactical genius by sending those ships and forcing Beauregard to make an impulsive and impetuous decision to fire on Sumter, force it’s surrender, and use it as a rallying call to muster gullible volunteers to fight his war. We’ll never know if those ships were sent to evacuate the troops or attack Beauregard’s forces - sure folks can write about the so called intentions all day long and centuries later, but that doesn’t make their presumptions correct.

What Beauregard should have done (hindsight of course), was to allow it’s starved out occupants a surrender - boat them back to DC or Baltimore. Well-clothed, well-fed, treated respectfully and then allowed Lincoln to make his next provocation.

That is, if in fact the South didn’t want a war at all and be left in peace.

[Pikachu_Dad]

as did Mississippi.

---

“A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery— the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.”