Posted on 06/14/2006 5:58:12 PM PDT by Oshkalaboomboom
What do you suppose Messrs. Bragg, Polk, Pemberton, Buckner, Pillow, and Johnston would have said?
Well, you got me there. It is absolutely true that for the first three years of the war the Union army generously kept those ragamuffins well-supplied with muskets and artillery.
You really have no clue about anything west of the Shenandoah, do you?
On the other hand, getting back to my original point, had there been an equivalent number of rabble, the Union would have had to resort to total war the first year, with doubtful results.
Or if they had, the rebellion would have been put down much more quickly.
a friend just sent me this :
"The Southern states did not secede nor fight to preserve slavery just as Lincoln and the Northern states did not start or wage a war to end slavery. Twice the North offered the South chances to preserve slavery - the first time permanently, the second time for 37 years - and both times this failed to entice the Southern states back into the Union so they could fund the government that was not acting in their best interests.
On March 2, 1861, the 36th U. S. Congress minus the seven seceded states of the Deep South passed by a two-thirds majority the proposed "Corwin Amendment" to the Constitution after extensive lobbying on the amendment's behalf by President-elect Lincoln. Had it been ratified by the requisite number of states before the war intervened and signed by President Lincoln who looked favorably on it as a way to lure the Southern states back into the Union, the proposed 13th Amendment would have prohibited the U. S. government from ever abolishing or interfering with slavery in any state.
The proposed 13th Amendment read: "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions there of, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." Note that this amendment was designed to be unrepealable (i.e. "No amendment shall be made...")
This exposes that claims the Union went to war in 1861 to free the slaves were and are lies. It also undermines claims that the South seceded to preserve the institution of slavery. If that had been the South's goal then what better guarantee did it need than an unrepealable amendment to the Constitution to protect slavery as it then existed?
In December, 1862, shortly before Lincoln's hypocritical "Emancipation Proclamation," during his State of the Union address Lincoln proposed gradual compensated emancipation with slavery lasting another 37 years until 1900. Again, this failed to lure the Southern states back into the Union.
If the South had seceded to preserve slavery and the Federal government was willing to permanently preserve slavery why would they refuse that offer? If the South was still fighting to preserve slavery after the shedding of blood and the Federal government offered them 37 years to wean themselves off of slavery why would they pass up that chance?
The simple answer is that the South was not fighting to preserve slavery except as a corollary issue.
On the other hand, the Federal government had made clear by the proposed Corwin Amendment and by the offer of gradual compensated emancipation that it was not fighting to end slavery. After all, there were slaves in the North (Union) before, during, and AFTER the war and Northern states had their own "Black Codes" that were in place before the war and endured long after the war. Under the specifications of the "Emancipation Proclamation" the status of slaves in Union slave states, areas of the Confederacy under Union control, and even the Confederate states of Tennessee remained unchanged until December, 1865, some eight months after the end of the war and until the ratification of the the 13th Amendment.
In Illinois, not satisfied that a mere law could sufficiently protect them from Free Blacks and Free People of Color, the restrictive "Black Law" was made an amendment to the state constitution in 1856. This allowed for the arrest of any Free Black or Free Person of Color who remained in the state longer than ten days, when they could then be tried for a "high misdemeanor," fined, assessed court costs, and sold into slavery if they could not pay the fines and costs. Free Blacks and Free People of Color were being sold into slavery in Illinois during the Civil War even after the so-called "Emancipation Proclamation."
In contrast, even though Virginia had "Black Codes" on the books, the 1860 U.S. Census reported that there were 64,000 Free Blacks and Free People of Color living in that state. A review of the Census records shows that they owned houses, farms, businesses, and slaves. "
Interesting , I never had heard of the Corwin Ammendment
What do you suppose Messrs. Bragg, Polk, Pemberton, Buckner, Pillow, and Johnston would have said?
Probably that with rare exception, they were defeated by superior numbers, the issue that you seem to be avoiding. Or we can discuss Chickamauga if you like, where there was rough parity.
You really have no clue about anything west of the Shenandoah, do you?
Nice try. I'll cheerfully yield to your obvious expertise in the Western theater. I generally find myself too disgusted with the poor Confederate generalship there (though not with the fighting abilities of the ragamuffins). But I will remind you that the Trans-Mississippi, last time I looked, was also west of the Shenandoah. The Union army was kind enough to supply a Confederate army there, too.
Or if they had, the rebellion would have been put down much more quickly.
[sigh] The mind boggles. By all means, feel free to expain how numerical parity would have doomed the Confederates even sooner.
Interesting , I never had heard of the Corwin Ammendment
I feel slighted, sir! Please see message #646.
Just kidding. Thanks for the post.
Indeed so sir! I have not been as diligently reading this thread as necessary it would seem...(long thread!)
Well , it was news to me ,and I'm glad others know and are
further mentioning these facts. I should go back and read what the 'rebuttals' were ! There are always rebuttals and excuses, right?
Sort of like the New York Times
once more, call the NPS "lead park ranger" at Arlington House & ask her just HOW poor in "money" REL really was. (but then you don't have to call, as you KNOW i'm correct, don't you???)
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
otoh, had THAT happened the WHOLE of dixie's people might have risen in TOTAL REVOLT & actually won the LONG (& under those circumstances) & REALLY nasty war.
free dixie,sw
The Corwin Amendment was a non-starter from the beginning for two reasons. The first was, of course, the fact that the southern states had already rebelled and protected slavery and slave imports in their constitution. Did you expect them to call the whole thing off just because an amendment had been passed for the constitution that they just walked away from? The second is the fact that the Corwin amendment protected slavery where it currently existed and did not address the issue of allowing for the expansion of slavery to the territories. That was the primary bone of contention, the Republican opposition to new slave states and territories. The confederate constitution repudiated popular sovereignty and mandated that all future territories be open to slavery. Since the Republican administration was opposed to expansion, and the Corwin amendment did not protect it, there was no reason for the confederates to come back.
This exposes that claims the Union went to war in 1861 to free the slaves were and are lies.
I would agree with that completely. The Union went to war because war was forced upon them when the south fired on Sumter. The primary Northern goal was always preservation of the Union and not an end to slavery. It was the south that went to war in 1861 over slavery, not the North.
If the South had seceded to preserve slavery and the Federal government was willing to permanently preserve slavery why would they refuse that offer? If the South was still fighting to preserve slavery after the shedding of blood and the Federal government offered them 37 years to wean themselves off of slavery why would they pass up that chance?
Maybe because they were in the middle of a war, were not interested in ending slavery through compensated means or any other means, and expected slavery to continue a lot longer than 37 years? Accepting the offer meant giving up their nation, something they had been waging bloody war to achieve. Return meant a gradual, compensated end to slavery but it was an end nevertheless. Compensated emancipation plans had been floated before the war and had faled because the south was not interested in ending slavery under any terms. Why would that change? Slavery was something that they expected to continue for generations, a gift they planned to hand on to their children.
The simple answer is that the South was not fighting to preserve slavery except as a corollary issue.
Every southern leader of the time would disagree with you.
Under the specifications of the "Emancipation Proclamation" the status of slaves in Union slave states, areas of the Confederacy under Union control, and even the Confederate states of Tennessee remained unchanged until December, 1865, some eight months after the end of the war and until the ratification of the the 13th Amendment.
Because slavery could only be ended through constitutional amendment, an amendment that Lincoln also lobbied heavily for. The Emancipation Proclamation didn't outlaw slavery in the south, merely freed those slaves there. A fine legal line, but a line all the same. It drew it's authority from the Confiscation Acts which allowed property used to support the rebellion to be seized without compensation. The Northern states were not engaged in an illegal rebellion so the government had no authority to free slaves there.
In Illinois, not satisfied that a mere law could sufficiently protect them from Free Blacks and Free People of Color, the restrictive "Black Law" was made an amendment to the state constitution in 1856. This allowed for the arrest of any Free Black or Free Person of Color who remained in the state longer than ten days, when they could then be tried for a "high misdemeanor," fined, assessed court costs, and sold into slavery if they could not pay the fines and costs. Free Blacks and Free People of Color were being sold into slavery in Illinois during the Civil War even after the so-called "Emancipation Proclamation."
You are aware, of course, that even more restrictive laws were in place in every southern states? No condemnation for them?
In contrast, even though Virginia had "Black Codes" on the books, the 1860 U.S. Census reported that there were 64,000 Free Blacks and Free People of Color living in that state. A review of the Census records shows that they owned houses, farms, businesses, and slaves. "
The census actually shows there were 58,042 free blacks. Fewer free blacks than there were in Maryland, and only 1100 more than there were in Pennsylvania. And for every free black in Virginia there were 8 slaves. And those laws weren't on the books, they were part of the constitution. A slave freed in Virginia had 12 months in which to leave the state or he could be sold back into slavery. Freed blacks bought relatives in order to keep them from being banished. A free black who left Virginia to go to school was barred from every living in the state again. I'm not aware of any Northern state which had laws like that.
A DIRECT violation of the Constitution. Attempts by the military to adopt such tactics were held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court before the war. That same court held that the Constitution is a law for rulers (Presidents) and men (commoners) at ALL times, under ALL circumstances.
A fine legal line? An unconstitutional one.
If a BLACK entered Illinois, they had 30 days to vacate the state, else they were fined up and deported. If unable to pay he fine, they were sold into indentured servitude (up to 99 years of service). That's yankee slavery in action. I know it's a "fine line", but it seems like that's the way yankees operate.
And if memory serves, said black was to be horsewhipped up to 39 lashes. Imagine that, horsewhipped by Yankees, simply because they were black.
The Ohio Blacks Laws of 1804/1807 mandated that blacks entering the state post bonds of $500 (a huge sum). Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa and Oregon all enacted various bond requirements (up to $1000) and laws preventing immigration of blacks.
Where did the massacre of your family members take place, and when?
SW: don't you WISH your nitwitted, SELF-righteous post fooled anyone, who has an IQ over 50?????
I think you know from this, Colonel, that you hit it right on the head. He reserves this type of "nobody's fooled" response for only the best posts. It's his version of "I know you are, but what am I?"
One word, and it's a word that's not an excuse: McClellan.
Had Lincoln fired McClellan early, it would have been a very different war.
And don't forget John Bell Hood.
if you want all the known details (there is MUCH that i assume nobody LIVING knows), i've posted them at least twice on other threads.
free dixie,sw
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.