The Original Secessionists

Sorry Bud, lay it on the table and look at it for the first time in your life. Lincoln’s folly was an epic failure.

Look at it? Hell, the FR Lincoln Coven relishes in the hypocrisy. They live for it.

The Civil War has become untouchable, unless you agree with the standard arguments. 1. Lincoln was a god among men. 2. The South was evil. 3. Union is the ultimate goal of the American experiment. 4. The Federal government’s design trumps the rights of the People, and the States. 5. Political bands are eternal, and must be preserved at all costs. 6. The ends justify the means.

The problem here is the author has lined up what are pretty much six straw men arguments. Let's look at them one at a time.

1. Lincoln was a god among men.

Classic straw man logical fallacy. I don't know a single person who actually holds this belief. Lincoln was by no means perfect. He was undoubtedly coarse and could be quite devious in his dealings. But many, like myself, have come to the conclusion he was quite literally the indispensable man for the Union at the time. Nobody else could have held the Union together.

2. The South was evil.

Little less straw in this man. A good many want to demonize the entire South and all it stood for, then and now, because of slavery. Yet I think most conservatives do not do this. Certainly Lincoln didn't. I honor the bravery of the men of the South, though I believe with Grant that the cause for which they fought was based on lies and was at its core an evil one. And those southerners, the fire-eaters, who strove for many years to bring about secession and therefore probably war, were absolutely in my opinion evil and un-American (indeed anti-American) by definition. But that doesn't make the South as a whole evil anymore than a recognition that the USA has done evil things means our country is defined by the evil it has done.

3. Union is the ultimate goal of the American experiment.

Back to the straw man. I know of nobody who really holds this position. Union is good not in and of itself but rather because it is more likely to promote the ultimate goals of the American experiment, which I believe have been defined as the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

4. The Federal government’s design trumps the rights of the People, and the States.

Straw man again. While I'm sure there are liberals and statists who hold this belief, I'm sure few conservatives do. Certainly I don't. We just believe that the States did not, and do not, have the right to violently secede and wage war against the Federal government. I believe firmly in States' rights, but those rights are themselves limited by the Constitution, as are (or should be) the rights and powers of the federal government.

5. Political bands are eternal, and must be preserved at all costs.

Straw. Nobody really believes this.

6. The ends justify the means.

The dumbest argument of all. Everybody believes this. The entire question is one of what ends justify what means. Some ends are of themselves evil, and justify no means at all. Some ends are so critically important they justify most but not all means. Otherwise a just war could never be fought, because war is by definition the use of evil means, death and destruction. Yet everybody but true pacifists recognize that some wars are necessary, that the end of preservation of freedom is so important that it justifies even such evil means. (Though many will still differ on which wars are justified.)

The phrase is really trying to say that a particular end, whatever it may be, justifies any means whatsoever. There are indeed people who believe this. Inquisitors, radical Islamic fundamentalist, commie and Nazi true believers all spring to mind. Yet I believe there are very few American conservatives who would agree that the "end" of keeping American united would have justified any means whatsoever. And the means used were not unlimited. When compared with other great civil wars (English, French, Spanish, Chinese, Russian, etc.) ours had by far the fewest atrocities and the lowest civilian death toll. Very bad things were done by both sides, but when compared to the only logical thing to compare it against, other civil wars, ours was considerably kinder and gentler.

Columbia, South Carolina, as it looked the morning after a visit from sherman's fire fiends. "

by John T. Trowbridge Northern journalist

Early in the evening [of February 17] as the inhabitants, quieted by General Sherman's assurances, were about retiring to their beds, a rocket went up in the lower part of the city. Another in the center, and a third in the upper part of town, succeeded. Dr. R.W. Gibbes was in the street near one of the Federal guards, who exclaimed on seeing the signals, "My God! I pity your city!" Mr. Goodwyn, who was mayor at the time, reports a similar remark from an Iowa soldier. "Your city is doomed! These rockets are the signal!" Immediately afterwards fires broke out in twenty different places.

The dwellings of Confederate Treasury Secretary George A. Trenholm and General Wade Hampton were among the first to burst into flames. Soldiers went from house to house, spreading the conflagration. Fireballs, composed of cotton saturated with turpentine, were thrown in at doors and windows. Many houses were entered and fired by means of combustible liquids poured upon beds and clothing, ignited by wads of burning cotton, or by matches from a soldier's pocket. The fire department came out in force, but the hose-pipes were cut to pieces and the men driven from the streets. At the same time universal plundering and robbery began.

The burning of the house of R.W. Gibbes, an eminent physician, well-known to the scientific world, was thus described to me by his son:

"He had a guard at the front door; but some soldiers climbed in at the rear of the house, got into the parlor, heaped together sheets, poured turpentine over them, piled chairs on them, and set them on fire. As he remonstrated with them, they laughed at him. The guard at the front door could do nothing, for if he left his post, other soldiers would come in that way.

Columbia, south carolina, as it looked the morning after a visit from sherman's fire fiends. "The guard had a disabled foot, and my father had dressed it for him. He appeared very grateful for the favor, and earnestly advised my father to save all his valuables. The house was full of costly paintings, and curiosities of art and natural history, and my father did not know what to save and what to leave behind. He finally tied up in a bedquilt a quantity of silver and gems. As he was going out the door the house was already on fire behind him -- the guard said, 'Is that all you can save?" "It is all I can carry,' said my father. 'Leave that with me,' said the guard; 'I will take charge of it, while you go back and get another bundle.' My father thought he was very kind. He went back for another bundles, and while he was gone, the guard ran off on his lame leg with all the gems and silver."

The soldiers, in their march through Georgia, and thus far into South Carolina, had a wonderful skill in finding treasures. They had two kinds of divining-rods," negroes and bayonets. What the unfaithful servants of the rich failed to reveal, the other instruments, by thorough and constant practice, were generally able to discover. On the night of the fire, a thousand men could be seen in the yards and gardens of Columbia by the glare of the flames, probing the earth with bayonets.

The dismay and terror of the inhabitants can scarcely be conceived. They had two enemies, the fire in their house and the soldiery without. Many who attempted to bear away portions of their goods were robbed by the way. Trunks and bundles were snatched from the hands of hurrying fugitives, broken open, rifled, and then hurled into the flames. Ornaments were plucked from the necks and arms of ladies, and caskets from their hands. Even children and negroes were robbed.

Fortunately the streets of Columbia were broad, else many of the fugitives must have perished in the flames which met them on all sides. The exodus of homeless families, flying between walls of fire, was a terrible and piteous spectacle. Some fled to the parks; others to the open ground without the city; numbers sought refuge in the graveyards. Isolated and unburned dwellings were crowded to excess with fugitives.

Three-fifths of the city in bulk, and four-fifths in value, were destroyed. The loss of property is estimated at thirty millions. No more respect seems to have been shown for buildings commonly deemed sacred, than for any others. The churches were pillaged, and afterwards burned. St. Mary's College, a Catholic institution, shared their fate. The Catholic Convent, to which had been confided for safety many young ladies, not nuns, and stores of treasure, was ruthlessly sacked. The soldiers drank the sacramental wine, and profaned with fiery draughts of vulgar whiskey the goblets of the communion services. Some went off reeling under the weight of priestly robes, holy vessels and candlesticks.

Yet the army of Sherman did not in its wildest orgies forget its splendid discipline. "When will these horrors cease?" asked a lady of an officer at her house. "You will hear the bugles at sunrise," he replied; "then they will cease, and not till then." He prophesied truly. "At daybreak, on Saturday morning," said Gibbes, "I saw two men galloping through the streets, blowing horns. Not a dwelling was fired after that; immediately the town became quiet."

Some curious incidents occurred. One man's treasure, concealed by his garden fence, escaped the soldiers' divining-rods, but was afterwards discovered by a hitched horse pawing the earth from the buried box. Some hidden guns had defied the most diligent search, until a chicken, chased by a soldier ran into a hole beneath the house. The soldier, crawling after and putting in his hand for the chicken, found the guns.

A soldier, passing in the streets and seeing some children playing with a beautiful little greyhound, amused himself by beating its brains out. Some treasures were buried in cemeteries, but they did not always escape the search of the soldiers, who showed a strong distrust of new-made graves.

Of the desolation and horrors our army left behind it, no description can be given. Here is a single instance: At a factory on the Congaree, just out of Columbia, there remained for six weeks a pile of sixty-five dead horses and mules, shot by Sherman's men. It was impossible to bury them, all the shovels, spades, and other farming implements of the kind having been carried off or destroyed.

Columbia must have been a beautiful city, judging by its ruins. Many fine residences still remain on the outskirts, but the entire heart of the city is a wilderness of crumbling walls, naked chimneys, and trees killed by the flames. The fountains of the desolated gardens are dry, the basins cracked; the pillars of the houses are dismantled, or overthrown; the marble steps are broken. All these attest to the wealth and elegance which one night of fire and orgies sufficed to destroy.

that’s a lie, he did NOT say he PREFERRED slavery, he said he PREFERRED UNION and he would be willing to allow slavery to remain if UNION remain

learn to quote accurately

This is how one Southerner felt about the bombardment of Fort Sumter.

“The firing on that fort will inaugurate a civil war greater than any the world has yet seen. ... Mr. President, at this time it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend at the North. You will wantonly strike a hornet’s nest which extends from mountain to ocean, and legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary; it puts us in the wrong; it is fatal.”

Robert Toombs, April 11, 1861

He preferred slavery with Union, over the abolition of slavery without Union. Sorry, I know this is hard for you.

The North was equally guilty of atrocities. There are no angels here. Brave men and children paraded as men died to win territory that was never lost. The South lost a war, America lost its soul. It was lose, lose, lose, and slavery is now colorblind.

The South should never have fired on Fort Sumter, and it indeed guaranteed that Lincoln would unleash hell on earth.

George Washington was a Federalist, not a Jeffersonian.

Yeah, George and Tom disagreed on everything. Oh wait...

Yeah, George and Tom disagreed on everything. Oh wait...

They certainly disagreed about federal vs. state supremacy, implied vs. enumerated powers, and the national bank. They also disagreed on foreign policy (Jefferson supported the Jacobins).

Washington fought for Independence from an oppressive and remote regime... I’m trying to distiguish... Nope, can’t.

I’m rapidly coming to the conclusion that Funky Winkerbean here hasn’t an honest bone in his body...

Thanks for your comments.

Tennessee and Virginia did at first turn down secession but voted for it after Lincoln called for troops to invade the South. It is not surprising that they changed their minds. Arkansas and North Carolina held their conventions in May after Federal troops had invaded Virginia and it was clear what Federal intensions were. Perhaps Arkansas and North Carolina felt did not have the time or the luxury for a referendum, although Tennessee, which did not hold a convention, held their popular referendum on June 8. Things were moving to a head very quickly by May and June.

None of the original thirteen had referendums approving the actions of their ratification conventions. Does that call their ratifications in question?

There were certainly large minorities in the New York, Virginia, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina ratification conventions who were opposed to ratification of the Constitution (see Link). They were "overridden by the process" too, to use your words. Their ratifications were acceptable, but secession votes of the seceding Southern are not?

I recently discovered in the Charleston (SC) Daily Courier newspaper of May 17, 1861 that six delegates to the 1788 Virginia ratification convention of 1788 who were elected to oppose ratification changed their minds to vote for ratification because the resume governance provision was included in the ratification document. That clause made Virginia’s ratification possible. Yet that resume governance statement and those of New York and Rhode Island get conveniently ignored by most secession opponents on these threads. By the way, Virginia cited that clause in their secession document of 1861.

In the 1970s, Georgia historians concluded that there were so many irregularities -- fraud and coercion -- in the vote for convention delegates that they couldn't rightly say whether the result reflected the view of the majority of voters. Charges of corruption have also been made about the Texas referendum, though they've been disputed.

I see that The New Georgia Encyclopedia (a project of the Georgia Humanities Council in partnership with the University of Georgia Press, the University System of Georgia/GALILEO, and the Office of the Governor) says the following (see Link):

The exact results of the January 2 election, in terms of total votes cast for each side statewide, will probably never be known: there were voting irregularities, and some of the candidates held ambiguous positions. Although the unofficial count released—not until April—by Governor Joseph E. Brown showed a lopsided victory for the immediate secessionists, the best evidence indicates that they won, at best, a tiny majority of the ballots cast, 44,152 to 41,632.

After the war Alexander Stephens said the following about Georgia’s secession before a US Congressional Committee (see Link):

Question. Was not the ordinance of secession adopted by Georgia earlier in date than the proclamation for the 75,000 volunteers?

Answer. Yes, sir. I stated that the people were very much divided on the question of the ordinance of secession, but that after the proclamation the people became almost unanimous in their support of the cause. There were some few exceptions in the State, I think not more than half a dozen among my acquaintances. As I said, while they were thus almost unanimous in support of the cause, they differed as to the end to be attained by sustaining it. Some looked to an adjustment or settlement of the controversy upon any basis that would secure their constitutional rights. Others looked to a southern separate nationality as their only object and hope. These different views as to the ultimate objects did not interfere with the general active support of the cause.

Mr. BOUTWELL. Yes, after it was adopted by the convention, if it had been submitted forthwith or within a reasonable time.

Answer. Taking the then state of things, South Carolina, Florida, and Mississippi, I think, having seceded, my opinion is that a majority of the people would have ratified it, and perhaps a decided or large majority. If, however, South Carolina and the other States had not adopted their ordinances of secession, I am very well satisfied that a majority of the people of Georgia, and perhaps a very decided majority, would have been against secession if her ordinance had been submitted to them. But as matters stood at the time, if the ordinance had been submitted to a popular vote of the State it would have been sustained. That is my judgement and opinion about that matter.

As you may know, the Texas secession referendum vote totals closely matched the presidential election results from the previous fall. The total vote in February 1861 against secession roughly matched that for Bell, the Constitutional Union party candidate (the "conservative Southern Unionists" as T. R. Fehrenbach called them in his book Lone Star). The vote for Southern Democrat candidate Breckenridge roughly matched the popular vote for secession. IMO, this suggests that there wasn't too much of a problem with the Texas secession vote.

Washington fought for Independence from an oppressive and remote regime... I’m trying to distiguish... Nope, can’t.

::Sigh:: You know, it's late and I really don't have time for all this. Our friend x has done a very good job of punching your arguments full of holes and I commend him for it.

I am myself a Southerner, from the Upper South, and the descendant of Southern Unionists. There were lots of Southern Unionists, just as there were lots of Northern Copperheads. The whole notion that everyone on the North was on one side and everyone on the South on the other is nonsense, and I sincerely hope you know better. As the descendant of Southern Unionists forgive me if I get a bit tired of the constant deification of Jefferson Davis and labeling of Abraham Lincoln as a Communist (and the Republican party as the creation of Communists). It's especially rankling when the lovers of localism and decentralism turn right around and idolize Francisco Franco, Antonio Salazar, George Papadopoulos, Rafael Trujillo, and Chiang Kai-shek--men who ruled highly centralized regimes and who would never have allowed any locality to secede from their regimes.

At any rate (and I do hope you're still reading since I'm going to raise some important points you've utterly misrepresented), you totally ignore the fact that the ideological aggression leading to the Civil War came primarily from the pro-slavery side. First was the Compromise of 1850 which included a fugitive slave law, forcing citizens of free states to cooperate with something they believed was morally wrong (sound familiar?). Then came the Kansas-Nebraska Act which repealed the Missouri Compromise, which up to that point had been considered sacrosanct. Then came the Dred Scott decision. It was obvious to all that what was at the time called "the slave power" had every intention of forcing slavery into every single state and territory of the United States whether the people in those states and territories wanted it or not. Of course, this doesn't fit the stereotype of the mean old Yankee Republicans picking on virtuous slave owners for absolutely no reason whatsoever, does it?

Then was the fact that any protest against the spread of slavery was being shouted down (the caning of Charles Sumner being merely one example). Yes, there were radical abolitionists but they didn't bring the conflict on all by themselves.

Are you even remotely interested in the plain facts of history, or is your determination to identify the defeat of the Confederacy with The Fall Of Man so strong that you don't care about the facts at all?

Finally, while Washington indeed rebelled against a tyrannical government, the fact is that just a few years later he presided over the drafting of a federal Constitution (something that exceeded the authority of the convention and done in absolute secrecy) that created a government in many was just as big as the British one against which he had rebelled. This all culminated in the Alien and Sedition Laws in the John Adams administration (and Adams had been Washington's VP) which made it illegal to criticize the federal government and its officials--ironic, considering that Adams had been one of the fiery radicals of the Revolution a mere two decades earlier.

The Founding Fathers basically fell into two camps. Some (the Anti-Federalists, later Jeffersonian Republicans) believed in a strict construction of the Constitution and states' rights (some held that the United States was not a nation at all but a "compact" among nations). The other was the Federalists--men like Washington, Hamilton, John Adams, John Jay, etc., who believed in federal supremacy, implied powers, and a national bank (something Washington personally signed into law). Anyone who makes the claim that one of these two schools of thought is the "official" One True Interpretation of the Constitution is either an ignoramus or a liar.

In the name of my brave Southern Unionist ancestors, I pardon you for your rebellion.

I was born in Illinois, raised in Ohis, live in Indiana. A little-known secret about my State; Indiana had more Klan members (not me) per capita than any other State including the South. This isn’t really about North versus South, it’s about just cause for a holocaust. Both sides could have stepped back from the brink, both sides did wrong. Lincoln was at the helm, and I simply the consider the outcome to be damning evidence. We judge our leaders based on results. The Civil War was an apocalyptic nightmare which was, in my estimation avoidable. I will not step away from the facts.

Talk amongst yourselves.. oh wait.

Was the theory of the Declaration of Independence a universal truth, or was it a one-time specious proclamation that only applied at one moment in history?

It wasn't theory. It was and is self-evident, in other words as-plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face, truth. Sadly, though, the South turned the Declaration on its head, using its eternal truth not to declare liberty to all men who had been created equal, but to enforce slavery and servitude on their fellow men.

I’d talk to you except that you said, “I won’t be reading any of your future posts”.. oh wait.

It's especially rankling when the lovers of localism and decentralism turn right around and idolize Francisco Franco, Antonio Salazar, George Papadopoulos, Rafael Trujillo, and Chiang Kai-shek--men who ruled highly centralized regimes and who would never have allowed any locality to secede from their regimes.

Did you pull that out of your arse? Reference?