Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > Other Civil War Talk > West Virginia, did the US allow what they said the South couldn't do?


West Virginia, did the US allow what they said the South couldn't do? - Other Civil War Talk - Civil War Talk - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1 Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  Next Page Last Page  
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rating:  Rating
AuthorPost
 Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 01:12 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
21st Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

It should be clear that the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 made war inevitable, regardless of what actions the southerners took regarding federal property. His re-election sealed the fate of the Confederacy.

Ooof! It was not Lincoln hisself, it was the election of a republican. Any other republican carring that platform would have sufficed. The republican platform made it clear that expanding slavery into the territories would not be tolerated. Abe was picked over Cameron and others because he was moderate.

The south seceded because a republican president was elected. And it did its damndest to make sure that there was no democratic candidate to oppose him. And the idea that there was no facility in any of the southern states to vote republican starts to smell a little.

Secession was a given before the election. That was just the frosting on the cake.

ole



 Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 01:30 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
22nd Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Ole-

  I don't think that there was some giant plot to throw the election of 1860. The southern democrats did not see eye to eye with Mr. Douglas, and the party was split. That allowed Mr. Lincoln to be elected. That led to secession, I agree.

  But it was the particular republican who was elected, Abraham Lincoln, who decided that there would be war, because he would not accept secession. He had the option of letting the: "wayward sisters" leave. Of course, he would never have done so.

  So- if you wish, we can spread the blame around. There was a war because the southerners were the southerners, and Mr. Lincoln was Mr. Lincoln.



 Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 01:48 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
23rd Post
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352


Joined: Sat Dec 2nd, 2006
Location: South Of The North 40, Minnesota USA
Posts: 1065
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Texas Defender wrote: Johan-

  Do you really believe that the Lincoln Administration would have allowed actions filed by states wishing to secede from the Union to be heard without any retaliation? Do you really believe that Abraham Lincoln would have abided by a Supreme Court decision allowing the states to secede?  Yes, I don't believe the men who constructed Secession had any intention of going to any kind of court, that wasn't what they were interested in.

  The historical events of 1861 suggest otherwise. In the case of Maryland, elected officials of the city of Baltimore and of the state legislature were arrested to prevent any kind of convention from meeting to decide on the question of secession. (There was a good chance at the time that Maryland would not have voted to secede).  Do you recall what Lincoln had to do to even make it to DC?  I think he had every reason to worry, and to take actions to prevent treason and a very real threat of the seizure of DC and the overthrow of a duly elected US govt.  Yes, I insist on calling it treason because I am a firm believer in Blackstones definition of the word as it was the definition used by the men who studied Law at the time.

  Like President Jackson did a generation earlier, President Lincoln chose to completely ignore actions by the Supreme Court that impeded him. (Ex parte Merryman, for one). He said very clearly that he would not accept secession. The southerners took him at his word.  Yet they seceded prior to his coming to office, they struck before reasoned argument would or could be used.

  It would seem likely to conclude that if, lets say, the last four states that seceded had instead peacefully petitioned the US Supreme Court for permission to do so, then the officials of those states would have been treated the same way that the ones in Maryland were.  I don't think so, it needed a spark.  Those last four waited until violence erupted to step off the fence.  Davis needed Ft Sumter and the guaranteed action of Lincoln to either make the US look weak or overbearing.  Either way he had a win win.

  If poor old Roger Taney and his court had been allowed to hear the cases , and had decided that secession was legal, then that elderly gentleman would probably have spent the last three years of his long life in a military prison.  Yet Taney never spent a day in jail did he and his dislike and works against LIncoln and his administration were anything but friendly.

  It should be clear that the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 made war inevitable, regardless of what actions the southerners took regarding federal property. His re-election sealed the fate of the Confederacy.  I can agree w/ that, I believe however that the Democrats engineered their own defeat in 1860 knowing a Republican would give them the ammunition they needed for a Secession bid.

 

Was Lincoln right?  I don't know for certain but I do think he was right to fight instead of rolling over onto his back and surrendering.  I firmly believe that his wait and see policy was working, Secession popularity was fading it was seen by many as an effete joke before Ft Sumter when all were forced to understand that the CS was serious about it and were willing to go to war to get what they wanted.



 Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 01:56 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
24th Post
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352


Joined: Sat Dec 2nd, 2006
Location: South Of The North 40, Minnesota USA
Posts: 1065
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I've been reading alot about Logan and the 1860 Democratic Convention and that gave me reason to look at some other things and writings from it. From the start Southern Democrats seemed to be purposefully sabotaging any solidarity w/ Northern Democrats. There was to be no comprimise from the start. I do believe there was a conspiracy w/ both unknowing and knowing assistance of quite a few 1860 Southern Democrats and I do believe Davis was well and truly in the thick of it. Was he the originator? I don't believe so, but looking at 140 year old political machinations and trying to figure it all is not my cup of java.

Now I apologize to all if I hijacked my thread... wanted to make sure all knew where I was coming from.

Javal, I do apologize for bringing modern politics into the thread and board. I hate it when others do it and here I did it. Bad Shane, no Scotch... ok maybe no donut; gotta have my Black Label.



 Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 01:57 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
25th Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

TD:

There is ample, albeit inconclusive, evidence that the fire-eaters did sabotage the democratic convention so as to guarantee a republican victory.

And we agree that it was the election of Abraham Lincoln that set off secession. But it could have as easily been Cameron or any other republican because the platform of the republican party did have a plank that opposed expansion in the territories. This plank was the killer.

I still do not understand why the question of expansion was so crucial. The territories were not hospitable to the use of slaves. Cain't grow cotton in Kansas. Or Nebraska. Or New Mexico. Or Arizona. It was more like, "You can't tell me what I can't do." Even though it was a specious argument.

So then we come back to the idea that there was a powerful will to secede, no matter what. Reason had nothing to do with it. Lincoln's election had nothing to do with it.

ole



 Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 01:57 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
26th Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Last edited on Sat Jan 5th, 2008 02:05 am by ole



You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 02:04 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
28th Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Bad mouse. Gonna have to go to Staples tomorrow.

ole\



 Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 02:08 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
29th Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

That would be too good to be true, Bama. Only in our dreams.

ole

Last edited on Sat Jan 5th, 2008 02:10 am by ole



You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 02:12 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
31st Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Johan-

  Of course, those who chose secession didn't go to any court, because they felt that they didn't have to. Their position was that they had a Constitutional right to leave the Union.

  I've never seen any evidence of any plot to overthrow a duly elected US Government. If there had been, there might have been an actual civil war, instead of the war we call by that name now. The southerners weren't trying to destroy the US Government, only to leave it.

  I don't see how a :"reasoned argument" could have been made between those who chose to secede and Mr. Lincoln. Seven states seceded before he took office. If he had accepted that action, I have no idea what other states might have done. But those states were bent on leaving, and he was bent on forcing them to stay. That is why they came to blows.

  You see the Ft. Sumter incident as a : "win-win" for Mr. Davis. I see it as a total disaster for the Confederate cause. I believe that if Mr. Davis was here now, that he would agree with me.

  Chief Justice Taney never spent a day in jail, but I have read some sources that maintain that Mr. Lincoln considered having him arrested. It was much easier to arrest and imprison many thousands of others. Putting the Chief Justice behind bars would not have been a good political move. Mr. Taney eventually had to back down on ex parte Merryman, and he had no power after that. Without the cooperation of the Legislative Branch, the Judiciary cannot rein in an Executive branch that abuses its powers.

  I do not believe that the southern democrats purposely blew the 1860 election, as I stated earlier. But thery could not reconcile with the northern democrats. As a result, the party was split. So, Mr. Lincoln was the result. There are many examples in American History where politicians have refused to make compromises, and ended up with a result much more deleterious to their cause than the compromise would have been.

 

 

 

 



 Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 02:13 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
32nd Post
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352


Joined: Sat Dec 2nd, 2006
Location: South Of The North 40, Minnesota USA
Posts: 1065
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

West Virginia provided the US 17-18 Regiments of Infantry, 8 Batteries of Arty and 6-7 Regiments of Cavalry. More troops than Rhode Island, New Hampshire or Vermont which were states well and truly in the heart of the situation. West Virginians who served certainly didn't think they were part of an illegally formed state but part of the US.

I don't think they saw the hypocricy; I think they saw themselves fighting to preserve & defend their country.



 Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 02:13 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
33rd Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

So how do we make slave state senators from states that can't support slaves?

ole



 Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 02:16 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
34th Post
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352


Joined: Sat Dec 2nd, 2006
Location: South Of The North 40, Minnesota USA
Posts: 1065
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Bama46 wrote: We are all in agreement....Let Chicago Go!...In fact, if it doesn't want to, ....Make It!
Foot n fist tooth n nail send em home in a pail!  Ra Ra Ra.  Bama you start a movement to expel Chicago from Illinois and I'll help or at least donate the first dollar!



You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post


You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 03:39 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
37th Post
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352


Joined: Sat Dec 2nd, 2006
Location: South Of The North 40, Minnesota USA
Posts: 1065
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Please... tarriffs are a smokescreen. Someone please refresh my memory was the average $2 or $3 per citizen of the US. $2 or $3... most on goods the average Southerner & Northerner had nothing to do w/. In short the tarriffs are pure smoke.

Prefer Staples to Office Max or Office Depot but can't agree w/ you more. Heck $6 at Best Buy and you'll probably see a DVD you can't talk yourself out of.



You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 05:00 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
39th Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Staples, Office Max and Office depot are closer than McGrath's. When I want some envelopes or pens or those little pointy stickies, I go to the closest  place. With a v10 as my casual vehicle, I don't traipse around lightly.

ole



 Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 05:26 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
40th Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Then those damned southern rednecks leave the union! they are responsible for what 70..80% of the tarriffs collected to fund the government and now that money is gone.. WTH? How am I gonna run a government with no money...and how am I gonna keep the Repbulican party going?

I've been waiting for years for someone to show me how the southerners paid 70 or 80 percent of the tariffs. It has been established that the tariffs were paid by the consumer. Now how does 30 percent of the population of a country consume 80 percent of the imported goods?

The money collected from southern ports was not the point. It was a piddly sum compared to what was collected from northern ports. It was a matter of law. If Charleston and New Orleans and Savannah refused to collect duties, how could the collection be enforced in New York, Philadelphia and Boston?

ole



 Current time is 08:06 amPage:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  Next Page Last Page  
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > Other Civil War Talk > West Virginia, did the US allow what they said the South couldn't do?
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.4759 seconds (29% database + 71% PHP). 33 queries executed.