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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?
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.
After 16 years, Civ II still has me in it's clutches LOL!!!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!
Louisiana seceded from the Union. In fairness to Missouri_Rebel, their ordinance also did not mention slavery:
[font="Times New Roman"]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.[/font]
Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?
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]
" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley
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:
[font="Times New Roman"]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[/font]
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."
Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?
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.)
Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?
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.
Beta Tester - Brother Against Brother
Beta Tester - Commander: The Great War
Beta Tester - Desert War 1940-42
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.)
Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?
The Montgomery Convention named Jefferson Davis as provisional President of the Confederated States. (He would be formally elected without opposition later.) They also named Alexander Stephens provisional Vice President. This was an interesting choice, given that Stephens had given an eloquent speech to the Georgia Legislature urging them not to secede. He had also corresponded with Abraham Lincoln: their surviving letters are a model of civilized discussion and debate. (Future posters to this thread take note.)
Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?
Abraham Lincoln left Springfield, Illinois, to become the 16th and quite possibly the greatest president of the United States.
Jefferson Davis left his plantation in Mississippi to become the first and only president of the Confederated States.
By another historic coincidence, both men had been born, not in the states in which they became famous, but in Kentucky. The distance between their birthplaces is roughly the same as the distance between Washington D.C. and Richmond.
Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?
150 Years ago on February 13th: (it's still the 13th where I am, but the 14th is creeping around the globe:
Delegates, who had been elected on February 4, gathered in Richmond, Virginia, to consider the issue of secession. The convention rejected immediate secession, but remained in session. (The pro-secessionists clearly outnumbered the Unionists.)
Although Texas had expected several other states would join her, she would in fact be the last state to leave the Union until after Fort Sumter. Neither side realized it, but the great contest was now a waiting game, as North and deep South states vied to influence the border states. Including Delaware, more slave states were still in the Union than out of it, and the Confederacy badly wanted the population and production of the upper South states. The richest prize of all was, of course, Virginia. (Which was somewhat larger at that time than it is today, since West Virginia had not yet been created.)
Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?
150 years ago today, Jefferson Davis was inaugurated:
[font="Times New Roman"]Gentlemen of the Congress of the Confederate States of America:
Called to the difficult and responsible station of Executive Chief of the Provisional Government which you have instituted, I approach the discharge of the duties assigned me with an humble distrust of my abilities...
...As a consequence of our new constitution, and with a view to meet our anticipated wants, it will be necessary to provide a speedy and efficient organization of the several branches of the executive departments having special charge of our foreign intercourse, financial and military affairs, and postal service. For purposes of defence, the Confederate States may, under ordinary circumstances rely mainly upon their militia; but it is deemed advisable, in the present condition of affairs, that there should be a well instructed, disciplined army, more numerous than would be usually required for a peace establishment.
I also suggest that for the protection of our harbors and commerce on the high seas, a navy adapted to those objects be built up...
...freed from sectional conflicts which have so much interfered with the pursuits of the general welfare, it is not unreasonable to expect that the States from which we have parted may seek to unite their fortunes with ours under the government we have instituted. For this your constitution has made adequate provision, but beyond this, if I mistake not the judgment and will of the people, our reunion with the States from which we have separated is neither practicable nor desirable.
[/font]
Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?
Abraham Lincoln traveled to Washington in a roundabout way, first stopping at major cities such as New York and Philadelphia. (He would eventually enter Washington itself almost in secret.) Here is an excerpt from a speech he gave at Independence Hall:
[font="Times New Roman"]... But if this country cannot be saved without giving up that principle, I was about to say I would rather be assassinated on this spot than surrender it. Now, in my view of the present state of affairs, there need be no bloodshed or war. There is no necessity for it. I am not in favor of such a course, and I may say, in advance, that there will be no bloodshed unless it is forced upon the government . . .[/font]
Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?
It would be great to have a brand new hex-based Computer wargame of the battle of Gettysburg. The game would have Battalion sized units each equipped with realistic firearms, and uniforms. The map would be a work of art.
Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated as the 16th President of the United States. Chief Justice Roger Taney, author of the infamous Dred Scott decision, had considered refusing to administer the oath of office, but bowed to tradition. Lincoln then gave one of the immortal speeches of American history:
[font="Times New Roman"]Fellow-Citizens of the United States:
In compliance with a custom as old as the Government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly and to take in your presence the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States to be taken by the President "before he enters on the execution of this office."
I do not consider it necessary at present for me to discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement.
Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
"Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."
I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause—as cheerfully to one section as to another.
There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution—to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause "shall be delivered up" their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?
There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by State authority, but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or to others by which authority it is done. And should anyone in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept?
Again: In any law upon this subject ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not in any case surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States"?
I take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules; and while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed than to violate any of them trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional.
It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a President under our National Constitution. During that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens have in succession administered the executive branch of the Government. They have conducted it through many perils, and generally with great success. Yet, with all this scope of precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted.
I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.
Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."
But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.
It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.
I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.
In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices.
The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union. So far as possible the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection. The course here indicated will be followed unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper, and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised, according to circumstances actually existing and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections.
That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the Union at all events and are glad of any pretext to do it I will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word to them. To those, however, who really love the Union may I not speak?
Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones you fly from, will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake?
All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right plainly written in the Constitution has been denied? I think not. Happily, the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate nor any document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.
From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the Government must cease. There is no other alternative, for continuing the Government is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them, for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this.
Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new union as to produce harmony only and prevent renewed secession?
Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible. The rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.
I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.
One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive-slave clause of the Constitution and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, can not be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction in one section, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other.
Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country can not do this. They can not but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you can not fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you.
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I can not be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the National Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have referred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this if also they choose, but the Executive as such has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present Government as it came to his hands and to transmit it unimpaired by him to his successor.
Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with His eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal of the American people.
By the frame of the Government under which we live this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief, and have with equal wisdom provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals. While the people retain their virtue and vigilance no Administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly can very seriously injure the Government in the short space of four years.
My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you in hot haste to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new Administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty.
In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."
I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.[/font]
Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?
Because of the importance of Virginia, the Richmond Enquirer had quite possibly the most important editorial page in America at that moment. There, at least, the reaction to Lincoln's speech was not positive.
[font="Times New Roman"]Mr. Lincoln's Inaugural Address is before our readers—couched in the cool, unimpassioned, deliberate language of the fanatic, with the purpose of pursuing the promptings of fanaticism even to the dismemberment of the Government with the horrors of civil war. Virginia has the long looked for and promised peace offering before her—and she has more, she has the denial of all hope of peace. Civil war must now come. Sectional war, declared by Mr. Lincoln, awaits only the signal gun from the insulted Southern Confederacy, to light its horrid fires all along the borders of Virginia. No action of our Convention can now maintain the peace. She must fight. The liberty of choice is yet hers. She may march to the contest with her sister States of the South, or she must march to the conflict against them. There is left no middle course; there is left no more peace; war must settle the conflict, and the God of battle give victory to the right!
We must be invaded by Davis or by Lincoln. The former can rally fifty thousand of the best and bravest sons of Virginia, who will rush with willing hearts and ready hands to the standard that protects the rights and defends the honor of the South—for every traitor heart that offers aid to Lincoln there will be many, many who will glory in the opportunity to avenge the treason by a sharp and certain death. Let not Virginians be arrayed against each other, and since we cannot avoid war, let us determine that together, as people of the same State, we will defend each other, and preserve the soil of the State from the polluting foot of the Black Republican invader.
The question, "where shall Virginia go?" is answered by Mr. Lincoln. She must go to war—and she must decide with whom she wars—whether with those who have suffered her wrongs, or with those who have inflicted her injuries.
Our ultimate destruction pales before the present emergency. To war! to arms! is now the cry, and when peace is declared, if ever, in our day, Virginia may decide where she will finally rest. But for the present she has no choice left; war with Lincoln or with Davis is the choice left us. Read the inaugural carefully, and then let every reader demand of his delegate in the Convention the prompt measures of defense which it is now apparent we must make.[/font]
In Washington DC, Abraham Lincoln sat down at his desk for his first working day as President. There he found unwelcome news: a report from Major Robert Anderson from Fort Sumter, stating that he and his men had only six weeks of rations left. The clock was ticking.
In Montgomery, Alabama, the national flag of the Confederacy was flown for the first time. There would be some changes over the years, but the first flag was the one known as "the stars and bars", and it was not the Confederate battle flag which has become the most famous emblem of the Confederacy. Instead, it was roughly based on the original "Betsy Ross" flag, but with only three horizontal bars:
Attachments
500pxCSA_FLAG.jpg (10.93 KiB) Viewed 363 times
Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?
I'm enjoying your "blow by blow" description of the run up to the war.
Just a question,
Chief Justice Roger Taney, author of the infamous Dred Scott decision, had considered refusing to administer the oath of office, but bowed to tradition. Lincoln then gave one of the immortal speeches of American history:
What's the reference for that ? I'm curious to see it - mainly due to the irony as later in the war Lincoln effectievly suspended habeas corpus and from recollection ignored Taney and the Supreme Courts efforts to enforce it - quite ironic.
