Lee, Virginia, and the Union

DiogenesLamp: "Anderson occupied Fort Sumter for many months after South Carolina seceded.
The difference between the two is that the British made it clear that they would leave."

Brits occupied New York in force from 1776 until 1783.
Only at the end did they agree to leave and Washington never attacked them.

DiogenesLamp: " But thank you for conceding my point that continued British occupation of an entrance to an important harbor, would not be tolerated. "

Well... "tolerated" is one thing, "started a war over" is something very different.
Stalin couldn't tolerate western troops in Berlin, but he was smart enough not to start a war over it, hence the Berlin Airlift.

The fact is our Founders tolerated a lot from hostile British forces even years after they promised to leave, and our guys were smart enough not to start a war over it, however irritated they felt.

DiogenesLamp: "Look, I already know you don't comprehend how necessity is subjective, so I don't see any point in discussing it with you further."

No, there's nothing subjective about it, it's a matter of fact and law, as defined in our Declaration of Independence.
It's not about somebody's feeeeeeeeeeeeling, but about illegal actions by a despotic government.

DiogenesLamp: "As has been pointed out to you countless times, the Canadians, who were under exactly the same condition as the colonies, didn't believe Independence was a 'necessity.' "

But of course they were not treated anywhere near as despotically as Americans.
Indeed, Brits gave them special treatment over Americans and so Canadians, British and French, had good reason to fear Americans more than Brits.

Consider: our Declaration's list of injustices is about two dozen long.
I've reviewed them again, and challenge you to cite historically where even one was also visited as negatively on Canadians.

DiogenesLamp: "People can judge for themselves what they believe is necessary."

Sure, but no Founder ever proposed or supported an unlimited "right of secession" by anyone, anywhere, any time, for any reasons or for no particular reasons, at pleasure.

That is strictly a fantasy of DiogenesLamp's very strange mind.

I’ll never forget the time when you came into one of these “f***ing war” (your words) threads announcing that Lincoln had declared in his first Innaugural that he was behind “making slavery express and irrevocable”. Perhaps you’ll recall that it was I who set you straight on what Lincoln really said.
Let me remind you: Lincoln stated that he had no problem with the Corwin Ammendment becoming “express and irrevocable” (not Slavery, as you were saying, but the Ammendment). The Ammendment merely reiterated what was already policy, i.e., that the Federal Government would never interfere with the Sovereignty of States when it came to their domestic institutions, up to and including Slavery.
You have evolved from your first misinterpretation to your new re-misinterpretation. Now you claim that the meaning is that the North approved of and promoted Slavery in the South, thereby losing their “moral” high ground. You go even further by saying that by backing The Corwin Ammendment the North intended for Slavery to last in perpetuity. Which is the same as saying that the Southern Slave States would never/ever evolve to the point of abolition. That is not a nice thing to say about the South. Hint: For four score and seven years the entire country was engaged in the highly problematic issue of the peculiar institution. I’m sure you are most adept at recalling the incessant reinterpretations of the Fugitive Slave Clause, which ended up with Taney declaring that blacks never had been, weren’t then and never could be “citizens”.
Would it be at all possible for you to consider that Lincoln’s intention, by promoting the Ammendment, was to preserve (not Slavery) but the United States of America?

Pelham: "And colonial Colonel Washington still broke his oath to the Crown by taking up arms and rebelling against it."

A wife's pledge to love, honor & cherish her husband does not necessarily survive the onset of his abuse or infidelity.
That was clearly the case for former Virginia Militia Col. George Washington, who resigned his commission in 1754.

In the case of US Army Col. RE Lee, the facts are not so clear.
When Lee resigned his commission to immediately accept appointment as General in the Virginia state militia, no such acts as 1776 Colonists suffered had been committed by the Union, and Virginians themselves would not vote to finalize secession for another month.
In Lee's case it's more like a wife who divorces claiming her husband was unfaithful, then immediately remarries.
Legal? Possibly, but unseemly? You bet.

Pelham: "President Jackson thought the same.
Charles Francis Adams Jr concluded otherwise in his Shall Cromwell Have A Statue."

I don't remember Charles Adams' specific problem, but the Adams family generally loved Southerners -- it's why John Adams nominated George Washington to be Commander in Chief in 1775 and why John Quincy Adams left his Dad's Federalist party to join Jefferson's Democrats.
So my first guess is that Charles was simply following his family's tradition.

Pelham: "And while Buchanan thought secession was unlawful he also thought it un-Constitutional for a President to send the army to wage war on a State."

That's true, until Fort Sumter.
Then Buchanan understood secession to be rebellion and publicly supported Lincoln's war efforts:

"...the assault upon Sumter was the commencement of war by the Confederate states, and no alternative was left but to prosecute it with vigor on our part."

To fellow Pennsylvania Democrats Buchanan urged: "join the many thousands of brave & patriotic volunteers who are already in the field".[82]"

Pelham: "SCOTUS never had a chance to rule on any of it and Lincoln settled the legal issue by the venerable argument of might makes right."

In fact, SCOTUS did rule on some issues during & after the war, always in the Union's favor.

DiogenesLamp: "Corwin Amendment."

Exactly my point -- you misunderstand, misinterpret and abuse it for your own nefarious purposes.

Once again: Corwin began as a Democrat effort to hold their own party together, and the nation, supported by 100% of Democrats, opposed by most Republicans in Congress it failed utterly due to lack of Lincoln's support.

And yet, typical of Democrats, you want to blame Lincoln-Republicans for your own team's misdeeds.

Utterly meaningless nitpick as the "amendment" was entirely about making slavery permanent so long as any state wanted it.

Exactly my point -- you misunderstand, misinterpret and abuse it for your own nefarious purposes.

I had never heard of it until a few years ago, and my first reaction was "You gotta be sh*tting me! Lincoln did what?"

It's a curious thing that I had never heard of it before, because i've read lots of history books in the past, and for some funny reason, they never saw fit to mention that LINCOLN WAS PROMOTING AN AMENDMENT TO PROTECT SLAVERY!

This was another one of those things that made me realize people had been lying to me my whole life about the civil war. Once you start recognizing that they are lying to you, it becomes easier to spot more lies which they have told you, like the "star of the west" incident.

Undercover troop carrying operation. First belligerent act of the war by the Union government. Wasn't the confederates that fired at them either, but a bunch of cadets at the Citadel who were not part of the Confederate army. (at that time.)

And now I realize that "slavery" is just "Look! Squirrel!"

DiogenesLamp: "I had never heard of it until a few years ago, and my first reaction was "You gotta be sh*tting me!
Lincoln did what?" "

But Lincoln did not do "what", and only your hate-filled mind would imagine he did.
Democrats did "what", and "what" failed because Lincoln refused to support it.
When Lincoln did fully support the 13th Amendment, it was quickly passed and ratified.

DiogenesLamp: "It's a curious thing that I had never heard of it before, because i've read lots of history books in the past..."

But you've never read any actual history books, you've only ever drank the Kool-Aid from Lost Cause propaganda.
That's the reason you know nothing factual and are full of wild nonsense ideas.

DiogenesLamp: "LINCOLN WAS PROMOTING AN AMENDMENT TO PROTECT SLAVERY!"

Lincoln "promoted" nothing, only transmitted it as required by the Constitution.
Lincoln's refusal to "promote" is why it failed ratification.

Typical of Democrats: some Trumps met with a Russian for 20 minutes, talked about adoptions in Trump Tower before the 2016 election, and that's all the evidence some Democarts need to claim: see, see, see... Russian coluuuuuuuuuuusion!
Lincoln transmitted a proposed Democrat amendment and Democrats claim: see, see, see... PROMOTED SLAVERY!

No, it's just Democrats being their insane selves.

DiogenesLamp: "This was another one of those things that made me realize people had been lying to me my whole life about the civil war. "

So now you're going to spend the rest of your life lying about the Lost Cause?

DiogenesLamp on Star of the West incident: "Undercover troop carrying operation.
First belligerent act of the war by the Union government.
Wasn't the confederates that fired at them either, but a bunch of cadets at the Citadel who were not part of the Confederate army. (at that time.) "

Confederates firing on the Star of the West in January 1861 was just one war-like action among many they committed in the months & weeks before Fort Sumter.
It produced outrage in the North, see my post #386 above for more.

But Lincoln did not do "what", and only your hate-filled mind would imagine he did.

I am reminded of that black comedian who upon being discovered by his wife having sex with another women declared:

"Who are ya gonna believe? Me or your lyin eyes?"

I was just telling a friend this morning about this guy I argue with online who says the Corwin Amendment doesn't mean what it says, and that Lincoln didn't support it anyways.

Then I can only assume that you've been reading books geared for children, since any serious book about the Secession Crisis in the Winter of 1860-61 talks about the Corwin Amendment. Or is it just that the books don't scream, "LOOK! LOOK! ABRAHAM LINCOLN WANTED SLAVERY TO NEVER END!!!!!" and take a more nuanced view of the politics of the time and what Lincoln saw as his responsibility and limitations of office?

"LOOK! LOOK! ABRAHAM LINCOLN WANTED SLAVERY TO NEVER END!!!!!" and take a more nuanced view of the politics of the time...

Once again people want to misrepresent my position. I have little doubt that Abraham Lincoln wanted slavery ended, but my point is that his wheeler dealer proclivities made the issue just another bargaining chip he could use to achieve what he wanted, which in this case was to keep the Southern states fueling the European trade, with the money filtering back through New York and Washington DC, and more importantly, not undoing all the protectionism they had managed to successfully impose on the continent.

His support for the Corwin amendment was to advance the goal he really wanted, and when he felt that goal would be advanced by protecting slavery, he was willing to do so.

What makes this whole thing significant is the widespread belief among so many people that the war was about slavery. This Corwin amendment clearly demonstrates that the war was *NOT* about slavery, and that slavery was really incidental to the war.

and limitations of office?

Somehow he found it within himself to overcome those very limits that constrained him previously. Though the law didn't change, his willingness to break it obviously did.

”I had never heard of it until a few years ago,....”

How could you not have read and understood Lincoln’s First Innaugural until a few years ago? Are you an American? How old are you? How long have you been interested in American history? I can’t wait till you get to the Cornerstone Speech by Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate Republic. That speech, given before the troubles at Sumter, was a “State of the Confederacy” address. Here’s an idea, instead of continuing to belabor the point of “Why did the Evil and Tyrannical North send it’s great Armada to attack the innocent South?” I want you to address ‘why did the South secede’? Hint: it is all spelled out in the Cornerstone Speech. Spoiler alert: the ‘cornerstone’, upon which the Confederacy was based, was .........SLAVERY and that by Nature’s Law and by God’s given right, it was the moral high-ground for the white man to enslave the black man. Why did the South secede? I know that you like to argue that that is irrelevant, that “the why” doesn’t even matter! That it is preposterous to even think that way! You argue that the Slave States could opt to leave the United States of America for whatever reason, even for no reason at all! You don’t want to hear about it, or even go there. Methinks thou dost protest too much. Did those States leave for a secret reason? Or perhaps, in your intensive several years of research you may have stumbled upon their stated purposes for seceding? Why did the South secede, in your own words? TIA

How could you not have read and understood Lincoln’s First Innaugural until a few years ago?

Nobody gives a crap about old Presidential addresses until they find a reason to care about them. Finding out that the "Man who freed the slaves" was originally going to insure slavery persisted, is such a reason.

That single fact overturns everything I thought I knew about the Civil War for most of my life. I used to believe it was a war for freedom. I used to think it was a moral and just war.

Finding out that the asserted central cause is in fact a sham, has opened my eyes to just how much lying has been done about all aspects of the Civil War.

Now I don't believe any of the usual claims about it. I now question every single one of them, and you know what? They turn out to be lies too!

Expansion of slavery? BULLSH*T! Found out that can't happen. It was about controlling congress to favor the New York protectionist coalition.

Opposition to slavery as a moral cause? BULLSH*T! Most people opposed it for labor/wage reasons, and didn't give a crap about the slaves as people.

North paying most of the Taxes? BULLSH*T! The South was paying the vast majority of the taxes, let alone all the gouging and protectionism costs they were also paying.

Yup. Keep finding out a lot of the stuff i've read and been taught all these years is in fact a lot of misleading bullsh*t. Now it is clear to me that our current "Deep State" Crony Capitalist, Washington Insider Influence Cartel and big Media Empire, are merely the descendants of the power structure created in the relationship between New York and Washington DC that has existed since the runup to the Civil War.

“Utterly meaningless nitpick as the "amendment" was entirely about making slavery permanent so long as any state wanted it.”

Well that is certainly a great concession on your part. I have noticed that you do now add qualifiers to the meaning of the amendment. That is a far cry from when you came into one of these threads proclaiming that Lincoln proclaimed in his First Inaugural “that he had no issue with making Slavery express and irrevocable!”. I think that you, me, and Abe have a pretty good idea of “which States wanted Slavery”.

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.