Civil War 150th (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message


Capt. Harlock -> Civil War 150th (1/11/2011 1:49:16 AM)

A little known event 150 years ago, that may be nothing less than the Genesis of the Confederacy:

And as it is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South, who may approve such purpose, in order to frame a provisional as well as a permanent Government upon the principles of the Constitution of the United States,
Be it resolved by the people of Alabama in Convention assembled , That the people of the States of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri, be and are hereby invited to meet the people of the State of Alabama, by their Delegates, in Convention, on the fourth day of February, A. D., 1861, at the city of Montgomery, in the State of Alabama, for the purpose of consulting with each other as to the most effectual mode of securing concerted and harmonious action in whatever measures may be deemed most desirable for our common peace and security.
And be it further resolved , That the President of this Convention be, and he is hereby, instructed to transmit forthwith a copy of the foregoing Preamble, Ordinance, and Resolutions to the Governors of the several States named in said resolutions.
Done by the people of the State of Alabama, in Convention assembled, at Montgomery, on this, the eleventh day of January, A. D., 1861.




ilovestrategy -> RE: Civil War 150th (1/11/2011 3:19:43 AM)

I love history! [:)]




Capt. Harlock -> RE: Civil War 150th (1/21/2011 8:21:53 PM)

150 years ago today:

I rise, Mr. President, for the purpose of announcing to the Senate that I have satisfactory evidence that the State of Mississippi, by a solemn ordinance of her people, in convention assembled, has declared her separation from the United States. Under these circumstances, of course, my functions are terminated here. It has seemed to me proper, however, that I should appear in the Senate to announce that fact to my associates, and I will say but very little more.
-- Jefferson Davis, Farewell Speech to the Senate


Actually, Davis said a fair amount more; those interested can find it at:
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=491
Note that Mississippi had actually seceded on January 9th, but we didn't have satellite television back then. . .




RangerX3X -> RE: Civil War 150th (1/21/2011 8:52:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

...but we didn't have satellite television back then. . .


And if General Lee had a hex based computer game to plot his battles instead of having to depend on dolts like Jeb Stuart, Strom Thurmond would still be President of the American Confederacy.

[sm=Tank-fahr09.gif]




Obsolete -> RE: Civil War 150th (1/21/2011 9:57:17 PM)

LOL..

BTW Ranger, what wargame was your avatar from?





Canoerebel -> RE: Civil War 150th (1/21/2011 10:08:39 PM)

Georgia seceded from the Union on January 18, 1861 - 150 years and three days ago. Some of you know that I'm a historian and a writer, and a proud Southerner, but this anniversary gives me nothing but sadness. For a mixture of reasons, some laudible and others lamentable, the South had set a course that would result in untold suffering for millions of people on both sides of the Mason-Dixon Line.




RangerX3X -> RE: Civil War 150th (1/21/2011 10:40:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Obsolete

BTW Ranger, what wargame was your avatar from?



It is from Highway to the Reich, the Arnhem: Historical Campaign scenario.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

...the South had set a course that would result in untold suffering for millions of people on both sides of the Mason-Dixon Line.



It can also be reasonably argued that the North had set that course.

I am not a racist, and I am not a southerner. I am a northerner who happens to live in the South. However, I am ALL about states rights.

Disclaimer: The word "northerner" was intentionally not capitalized whereas the word "South" was. If you are offended by this, please contact your local poison control center as soon as possible.




Lützow -> RE: Civil War 150th (1/21/2011 11:21:08 PM)

From a foreigner perspective the South was more sexy, with it's plantations, mansons and aristocratic style. That had something in common with old Europe. But then again I got my picture of this era from movies like 'Gone with the Wind'. [:D]




Fallschirmjager -> RE: Civil War 150th (1/22/2011 3:11:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lützow

From a foreigner perspective the South was more sexy, with it's plantations, mansons and aristocratic style. That had something in common with old Europe. But then again I got my picture of this era from movies like 'Gone with the Wind'. [:D]


People owned like property toiling out in fields gets me off too. [8|]




ilovestrategy -> RE: Civil War 150th (1/22/2011 7:25:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lützow

From a foreigner perspective the South was more sexy, with it's plantations, mansons and aristocratic style. That had something in common with old Europe. But then again I got my picture of this era from movies like 'Gone with the Wind'. [:D]



And don't forget the Southern food, simple and fattening! I grew up in Louisiana. Fried chicken and rice with gravy, hot water cornbread, and my favorite......................SWEET TEA! I think I just had a religious experience! [&o]




Capt. Harlock -> RE: Civil War 150th (1/23/2011 12:24:59 AM)

quote:

I am not a racist, and I am not a southerner. I am a northerner who happens to live in the South. However, I am ALL about states rights.


States' rights is an interesting cause, and I applaud those who genuinely believe in it. But it needs to be noted that the Southern states violated the rights of the Northern states at least as badly as vice versa -- for they denied the right of the Northern states *not* to be a part of slavery. For the best example, review the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, IMHO the vilest law that the U.S. Federal government has ever carried on its books. The full text is available here:

http://www.nationalcenter.org/FugitiveSlaveAct.html

But it's a bit wordy to plow through. A good summary is available here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850




HansHafen -> RE: Civil War 150th (1/23/2011 7:23:59 PM)

This subject usually never gets covered with actual facts. Like more than 90% of southerners never owned any slaves, northern merchants transported and financially gained from selling slaves to the south, warlike black africans attacked other black africans to get prisoners to sell to merchants as slaves etc. Plenty of guilt to spread around.  




Canoerebel -> RE: Civil War 150th (1/24/2011 3:10:27 PM)

I researched and wrote an article on the "90% of southerners never owned slave" position a few years ago. I was surprised by what I learned.

It's true that approximately 90% of white southerners didn't owned slaves, but that is a misleading statistic for at least three reasons.

First, while only 10% of white southerners owned slaves, another 40% to 60% of white southerners were either married to, or the children of, that 10%. I researched two Confederate infantry companies in this regard - one drew men primarily from a major town in a slave-owning area; the second came from a remote mountain valley were there were relatively few slaves. In both instances, the percentage of the soldiers who owned slaves in those two companies was nominal (10% or less). However, the percentage of their fathers who owned slaves was much, much higher - about 25% for the mountain company, and nearly 50% for the town men. And those statistics were on the low side - if I couldn't find proof postive that a soldier owned a slave or was the son of a slave owning father, I assumed he he wasn't. If I had been able to track down more of those who I couldn't confirm, I got a strong feeling that the percentages would actually be much higher - probably more like 50% to 75% of Confederate soldiers had a direct interest in the perpetuation of slavery, either because they owned a slave, their fathers did, or because they were involved in a directly related occupation (one soldier, for instance, was the son of an overseer on a large plantation).

2. Nearly all southerners had a vested interest in the perpetuation of slavery. The economy was highly dependent upon slavery, so a threat to it was a threat to the welfare of the southern people - even those who weren't members of slave-owning families. And that threat had really rattled southerners. Population growth in the north was threatening to unbalance political power. If more free states were admitted to the Union than slave, the South would have a minority in the United States Senate, the only political body that stood between it and political impotence (the North already controlled the House of Representatives, had just taken the Presidency, and had the power to appoint anti-slavery justices to the Supreme Court. So the South was about to lose the political strength to protect itself from the North, and this scared most southerners to death.

3. While slave owners were only 10% of the white southern population, they dominated political office in the south. In other words, nearly all political power was excercised by slave owners. It should come as no surprise, then, that when a grave threat to political balance and the economy arose, southerners reacted with passion and ultimately violence.

I need to say that I am a southerner and proud of it. I love the South. I appreciate and honor the men who served their country. I recognize why they fought and the complexity of the issues that existed. I agree that a strong constitutional argument can be made that a member can withdraw from a union voluntarily created. I concur that state's rights is an important constitutional concept designed to limit the power (and abuses) of the central government. But while we southerners sincerely and with good reason raise a toast to state's rights, we must acknowledge that we were in the wrong when it came to human rights.




DTurtle -> RE: Civil War 150th (1/24/2011 7:46:57 PM)

That is very interesting, Canoerebel.

Is there any public source that could be cited to support what you just said (for the next time someone throws that 10% figure out there)?

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerX3X

I am not a racist, and I am not a southerner. I am a northerner who happens to live in the South. However, I am ALL about states rights.

Yes, they seceded because of states' rights - the states' right to keep the institution of slavery. I like the "Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union" the best, because it is so explicit:
quote:

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.

I don't think anything has to be added to that.




RangerX3X -> RE: Civil War 150th (1/24/2011 8:19:52 PM)

Nothing has to be added to that. But please don't continue the false assumption that every one who believes in and actively supports states rights is some one who also believes in and supports slavery. That would be a gross mistake.

Anyway, with the nullifications that are being passed into law by various states, the US Supreme Court is essentially disregarded, thus making all the lawsuits moving through the system with regards to ObamaCare meaningless. Even Abraham Lincoln ignored the Supreme Court when it suited his needs.

The right of a people of a state to throw off the shackles of a federal tyranny trumps all. And that is simply something that many cannot get their arms around.




Perturabo -> RE: Civil War 150th (1/24/2011 10:43:23 PM)

Didn't they lose any moral rights to self-rule when they decided to serve evil by allowing slavery?




HansHafen -> RE: Civil War 150th (1/24/2011 11:27:32 PM)

So, I was correct. Only about 10% of southerners owned slaves. So the "thrown out" percentage was correct. Thanks. Were the northern merchants that bought slaves in Africa evil too? Were the northern seamen who sailed the northern ships to and from Africa with the horrible conditions in the holds of the ships evil too? Were the black Africans who sold their prisoners into slavery evil too?

I don't defend slavery as it was terrible and horrible. Nor do I defend any of the others involved in the trade.

But there is a rising question about government involvement in all of our lives again from the local level all the way up to the feds. We are basically tax units for all levels of government. Are we getting our monies worth? Hell no we aren't and the waste, fraud, graft and theft is destroying our system. There is going to be another revolution or a devolution if the currect trajectory isn't corrected.




HansHafen -> RE: Civil War 150th (1/24/2011 11:33:18 PM)

The southern states tried to let the northern states not be a part of it by leaving the union. Then the union invaded the south to keep its taxing units in the union.




Missouri_Rebel -> RE: Civil War 150th (1/25/2011 12:08:17 AM)

Here is Missouri's Order Of Secession. Nowhere is slavery mentioned.


AN Act declaring the political ties heretofore existing between the State of Missouri and the United States of America dissolved.
WHEREAS, the Government of the United States, in possession and under control of the sectional party, has wantonly violated the compact originally made between said government and the State of Missouri, by invading with hostile armies the soil of the State, attacking and making prisoners the militia whilst legally assembled under the State laws, forcibly occupying the State capital, and attempting, through the instrumentality of domestic traitors, to usurp the State government, seizing and destroying private property, and murdering with fiendish malignity peaceable citizens, men, women, and children, together with other acts of atrocity, indicating a deep settled hostility toward the people of Missouri and their institutions; and
WHEREAS, the present administration of the government of the United States has utterly ignored the Constitution, subverted the government as constructed and intended by its makers, and established a despotic and arbitrary power instead thereof, Now, therefore,
Be it enacted by the general assembly of the State of Missouri, as follows:
That all political ties of every character now existing between the government of the United States of America and the people and government of the State of Missouri, are hereby dissolved, and the State of Missouri, resuming the sovereignty granted by compact to the United States upon admission of said State into the Federal Union, does again take its place as a free and independent republic amongst the nations of the earth.
This act to take effect and be in force from and after its passage.
Passed by the Senate, Oct 28, 1861 Passed by the House, Oct 30, 1861
Signed by Governor Claiborne Fox Jackson, Oct 31, 1861
Confederate Congress admits Missouri as the 12th state of the Confederacy, Nov 28, 1861.


Perturabo, do you forget that both Delaware and Maryland were slave states that fought for the north? And do you also forget that almost all the states fighting for the north were former slave states? Try to wrap your head around that and let the adults discuss history without your one-line jabs. The things perpetrated by the north against the citizens of Missouri were horrendous.  I suggest you look at Missouri General Order 11.

Canoerebel- that argument is false as it would legally take 2/3 the senate to overturn slavery, something the South would not have to worry about for many many years .


“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable – a most sacred right”- Abe Lincoln





RangerX3X -> RE: Civil War 150th (1/25/2011 5:12:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

Didn't they lose any moral rights to self-rule when they decided to serve evil by allowing slavery?


Perturabo you are only trying to flame the board, much as you attempted to do when supporting a price increase in Matrix games, just to come to find out by your own admission you do not actually own or play any Matrix games (of late).

Any person who equates states rights with slavery approval is both uninformed and grossly uneducated, and as such I simply dismiss any comment they (i.e. you) have to make regarding the subject.




Perturabo -> RE: Civil War 150th (1/25/2011 12:41:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerX3X


quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

Didn't they lose any moral rights to self-rule when they decided to serve evil by allowing slavery?


Perturabo you are only trying to flame the board, much as you attempted to do when supporting a price increase in Matrix games, just to come to find out by your own admission you do not actually own or play any Matrix games (of late).

How did it make my argument about a possibility of raising prices invalid? I don't buy western games for these prices solely because paying for games is basically paying for work of developers, not for any raw materials and why should I pay western prices for someone else's work on this work market, when I can't go to employer and demand western prices for my work? It would be illogical. It has nothing to do with my ability to buy stuff for these prices.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerX3X

Any person who equates states rights with slavery approval is both uninformed and grossly uneducated, and as such I simply dismiss any comment they (i.e. you) have to make regarding the subject.

I don't equate state rights with slavery approval. I equate slavery approval with loss of state rights. Simply, any state that legalizes abominable crimes like slavery can't be allowed to be a self-governing entity. Of course it doesn't mean that the North wasn't serving evil too. Which of course automatically cancels any it's moral rights to try to stop states from seceding.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansHafen

Were the northern merchants that bought slaves in Africa evil too? Were the northern seamen who sailed the northern ships to and from Africa with the horrible conditions in the holds of the ships evil too? Were the black Africans who sold their prisoners into slavery evil too?

Of course.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansHafen

But there is a rising question about government involvement in all of our lives again from the local level all the way up to the feds. We are basically tax units for all levels of government. Are we getting our monies worth? Hell no we aren't and the waste, fraud, graft and theft is destroying our system. There is going to be another revolution or a devolution if the currect trajectory isn't corrected.

There won't be any revolution. There will only be a boot stomping on a human face forever.




Capt. Harlock -> RE: Civil War 150th (1/25/2011 8:15:51 PM)

quote:

Here is Missouri's Order Of Secession. Nowhere is slavery mentioned.


True enough, but it also needs to be remembered that Missouri did not effectively secede from the Union. It was a unique case: the ordinance of secession was passed by a rump legislature called by the pro-Southern governor after he had fled the capital. Originally, a special convention was called to decide on the question of secession, and the convention voted in favor of Union. This is the reason most historians consider the Confederacy as having consisted of eleven states. (The Confederacy itself claimed thirteen: Kentucky as well as Missouri.)




ilovestrategy -> RE: Civil War 150th (1/25/2011 11:19:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

Didn't they lose any moral rights to self-rule when they decided to serve evil by allowing slavery?


I can't say it was serving evil. It was a different time back then. Was it wrong? Of course it was. But I can't think of them as people serving evil. They were a product of their time. Until the latter part of the 19th Century slavery had been around since the beginning of civilization.

People in later generations always criticize the morals of generations prior to them. Hell, people today act like the Japanese were innocents pushed to war. The British Empire is called evil now a days. I have a 29 year old cousin that thinks Truman was evil for dropping the bomb.

Am I glad the South lost? Even though I'm a Southerner I'm glad slavery is no more. It was wrong. It time for it to end. But them serving evil? No.




Sarge -> RE: Civil War 150th (1/26/2011 12:25:49 AM)

Funny that no one ever talks about the Norths open policy of indentured servitude.





Capt. Harlock -> RE: Civil War 150th (1/26/2011 8:57:15 PM)

150 Years ago today:

Louisiana seceded from the Union. In fairness to Missouri_Rebel, their ordinance also did not mention slavery:

AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of Louisiana and other States united with her under the compact entitled "The Constitution of the United States of America."

We, the people of the State of Louisiana, in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the ordinance passed by us in convention on the 22d day of November, in the year eighteen hundred and eleven, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America and the amendments of the said Constitution were adopted, and all laws and ordinances by which the State of Louisiana became a member of the Federal Union, be, and the same are hereby, repealed and abrogated; and that the union now subsisting between Louisiana and other States under the name of "The United States of America" is hereby dissolved.

We do further declare and ordain, That the State of Louisiana hereby resumes all rights and powers heretofore delegated to the Government of the United States of America; that her citizens are absolved from all allegiance to said Government; and that she is in full possession and exercise of all those rights of sovereignty which appertain to a free and independent State.

We do further declare and ordain, That all rights acquired and vested under the Constitution of the United States, or any act of Congress, or treaty, or under any law of this State, and not incompatible with this ordinance, shall remain in force and have the same effect as if this ordinance had not been passed.

Adopted in convention at Baton Rouge this 26th day of January, 1861.




stuman -> RE: Civil War 150th (1/26/2011 10:06:49 PM)

quote:

And don't forget the Southern food, simple and fattening! I grew up in Louisiana. Fried chicken and rice with gravy, hot water cornbread, and my favorite......................SWEET TEA! I think I just had a religious experience!



[:D]




Capt. Harlock -> RE: Civil War 150th (1/29/2011 7:24:17 PM)

150 Years ago today:

For once, a state came into the Union instead of going out. The territory of Kansas was finally admitted as a state, with the Senate approving the fourth of the state constitutions which had been proposed:

We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges, in order to insure the full enjoyment of our rights as American citizens, do ordain and establish the Constitution of the State of Kansas

Many historians consider the "bleeding Kansas" struggle to have been the single biggest factor in causing the split between North and South. In the words of George MacDonald Fraser, it "put gunsmoke on the breeze, and the whole of America sniffed it in -- and didn't find the odour displeasing."




Capt. Harlock -> RE: Civil War 150th (2/1/2011 8:14:40 PM)

150 Years ago today:

The Texas legislature passed its Ordinance of Secession. Although many history books identify this as the date Texas left the Union, it's a bit more complicated. Texas was the first state to actually submit the question to popular referendum, which happened later in the month, and the Ordinance declared itself effective on the 2nd day of March.

(This is apparently what prevented Texas delegates from attending the opening of the Confederate convention mentioned at the start of this thread.)




Slick Wilhelm -> RE: Civil War 150th (2/4/2011 6:05:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarge

Funny that no one ever talks about the Norths open policy of indentured servitude.




Oh, okay Sarge. I'll bite. I promised myself that I wouldn't get suckered into this thread, but I'm always interested in being educated by revisionist historians.

Please tell me about this open policy of indentured servitude in the north, and how it caused the Civil War.




Capt. Harlock -> RE: Civil War 150th (2/4/2011 8:12:50 PM)

150 Years ago today:

The delegates of South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana met in Montgomery. On the same day, the delegates of a number of Northern states met with the "Border" states (Southern states not yet having seceded) for a peace conference in Washington D.C., presided over by former President John Tyler.

Confounding the usual belief in Northern efficiency, The Montgomery conference would agree on a constitution and set up a government with breathtaking speed. The Washington conference would go nowhere, in part because of Northern refusal to accept the Crittenden Compromise. (Which was quite right on their part, when you consider that it would have made Guam, Puerto Rico, and other possessions slave territory at this moment.)




Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.101563E-02