Robert E. Lee's Birthday

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

Actually given a few more years and the south would have ended slavery in and of itself. There were many plantation owners that were coming to this conclusion before the war broke out. I wish I could remember the names of the books that I read that goes into great detail about it as it would have shed some light. But again as for history books...the victor always gets to write them . Also for those saying that the war was all about slavery then why did it take a couple of years after the war started to write the emancipation proclamation? it would seem that this would have happened right away...also can anyone else explain how Lincoln broke federal law at the outbreak of war? Hint...has to do with Maryland... Just curious...I grew up mostly in Illinois and I seem to remember reading a lot about Lincoln in our state's history....and although he didn't care for slavery, it wasn't big on his priority list....now of course those books have probably been rewritten from when I was in grade school...but all the same...

Bash away...

[AUDub 11,147]

Actually given a few more years and the south would have ended slavery in and of itself. There were many plantation owners that were coming to this conclusion before the war broke out. I wish I could remember the names of the books that I read that goes into great detail about it as it would have shed some light. But again as for history books...the victor always gets to write them <_</> . Also for those saying that the war was all about slavery then why did it take a couple of years after the war started to write the emancipation proclamation? it would seem that this would have happened right away...also can anyone else explain how Lincoln broke federal law at the outbreak of war? Hint...has to do with Maryland... Just curious...I grew up mostly in Illinois and I seem to remember reading a lot about Lincoln in our state's history....and although he didn't care for slavery, it wasn't big on his priority list....now of course those books have probably been rewritten from when I was in grade school...but all the same...

Bash away...

Read the thread and the one from last year. Much of what you asked has been explained.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Funny neither Ben or TexT, being experts on REL, the Civil War. and secession haven't answered the "question" I posed in #70 above re........what were the first states(s) to even consider secession?

[AUDub 11,147]

Funny neither Ben or TexT, being experts on REL, the Civil War. and secession haven't answered the "question" I posed in #70 above re........what were the first states(s) to even consider secession?

Been arguing with Weegs about climate change. Didn't notice you'd asked.

An attempt at secession was put down in Maryland prior to the war. Is that the answer you were looking for?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Nope.

Maybe you and TexT should collaborate. I'm off to bed so be back tomorrow.

[AUDub 11,147]

Nope.

Well, I won't Google it. You got me here. What's the answer you are looking for?

EDIT:

Maybe you and TexT should collaborate. I'm off to bed so be back tomorrow.

Honestly, the best I can offer to do is give you a list of states in which it was discussed and see if you're willing to tell me which one was the particular one you're looking for. I figured Maryland because it was immediately prior to the war. If that's not it, I'm lost.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Nope.

Well, I won't Google it. You got me here. What's the answer you are looking for?

EDIT:

Maybe you and TexT should collaborate. I'm off to bed so be back tomorrow.

Honestly, the best I can offer to do is give you a list of states in which it was discussed and see if you're willing to tell me which one was the particular one you're looking for. I figured Maryland because it was immediately prior to the war. If that's not it, I'm lost.

It was South Carolina. Home state of John C. Calhoun that for years and years previous to the civil war lead and issued threats of succession to deal with policy in the US government involving tariff and slavery issue.

A group of 7 or 8 followed S. Carolina shortly after their succession. Then Ft. Sumter occurred and you had another group succeed following shortly after Sumter.

It's been quite sometime since I studied the Civil War. I had great interest in it when younger due to the fact that one of my ancestors was a general in the Army of Northern Virginia.

[AUDub 11,147]

Nope.

Well, I won't Google it. You got me here. What's the answer you are looking for?

EDIT:

Maybe you and TexT should collaborate. I'm off to bed so be back tomorrow.

Honestly, the best I can offer to do is give you a list of states in which it was discussed and see if you're willing to tell me which one was the particular one you're looking for. I figured Maryland because it was immediately prior to the war. If that's not it, I'm lost.

It was South Carolina. Home state of John C. Calhoun that for years and years previous to the civil war lead and issued threats of succession to deal with policy in the US government involving tariff and slavery issue.

A group of 7 or 8 followed S. Carolina shortly after their succession. Then Ft. Sumter occurred and you had another group succeed following shortly after Sumter.

It's been quite sometime since I studied the Civil War. I had great interest in it when younger due to the fact that one of my ancestors was a general in the Army of Northern Virginia.

I know that. He asked for the first states to consider secession, not the first state to actually do it.

EDIT: I did Google it. Secession did come up over a tariff dispute in 1807 in the Maryland statehouse. It's hard to tell what he's asking. Are we confining the question to the period immediately prior to the war?

EDIT: It also came up in 1804 in New England. Again, hard to tell what he's asking.

[TexasTiger 12,835]

Nope.

Well, I won't Google it. You got me here. What's the answer you are looking for?

EDIT:

Maybe you and TexT should collaborate. I'm off to bed so be back tomorrow.

Honestly, the best I can offer to do is give you a list of states in which it was discussed and see if you're willing to tell me which one was the particular one you're looking for. I figured Maryland because it was immediately prior to the war. If that's not it, I'm lost.

It was South Carolina. Home state of John C. Calhoun that for years and years previous to the civil war lead and issued threats of succession to deal with policy in the US government involving tariff and slavery issue.

A group of 7 or 8 followed S. Carolina shortly after their succession. Then Ft. Sumter occurred and you had another group succeed following shortly after Sumter.

It's been quite sometime since I studied the Civil War. I had great interest in it when younger due to the fact that one of my ancestors was a general in the Army of Northern Virginia.

I know that. He asked for the first states to consider secession, not the first state to actually do it.

EDIT: I did Google it. Secession did come up over a tariff dispute in 1807 in the Maryland statehouse. It's hard to tell what he's asking. Are we confining the question to the period immediately prior to the war? :dunno:/>

EDIT: It also came up in 1804 in New England. Again, hard to tell what he's asking.

You've been lured into trivial pursuit.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Nope.

Well, I won't Google it. You got me here. What's the answer you are looking for?

EDIT:

Maybe you and TexT should collaborate. I'm off to bed so be back tomorrow.

Honestly, the best I can offer to do is give you a list of states in which it was discussed and see if you're willing to tell me which one was the particular one you're looking for. I figured Maryland because it was immediately prior to the war. If that's not it, I'm lost.

It was South Carolina. Home state of John C. Calhoun that for years and years previous to the civil war lead and issued threats of succession to deal with policy in the US government involving tariff and slavery issue.

A group of 7 or 8 followed S. Carolina shortly after their succession. Then Ft. Sumter occurred and you had another group succeed following shortly after Sumter.

It's been quite sometime since I studied the Civil War. I had great interest in it when younger due to the fact that one of my ancestors was a general in the Army of Northern Virginia.

I know that. He asked for the first states to consider secession, not the first state to actually do it.

Ah, consider. I'd have to look that up myself. Guessing S. Carolina isn't the answer for that question, though they did threaten to do it for thirty years or so before they actually did. Probably from the Northeast.... Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island or something like that.

[AUDub 11,147]

Nope.

Well, I won't Google it. You got me here. What's the answer you are looking for?

EDIT:

Maybe you and TexT should collaborate. I'm off to bed so be back tomorrow.

Honestly, the best I can offer to do is give you a list of states in which it was discussed and see if you're willing to tell me which one was the particular one you're looking for. I figured Maryland because it was immediately prior to the war. If that's not it, I'm lost.

It was South Carolina. Home state of John C. Calhoun that for years and years previous to the civil war lead and issued threats of succession to deal with policy in the US government involving tariff and slavery issue.

A group of 7 or 8 followed S. Carolina shortly after their succession. Then Ft. Sumter occurred and you had another group succeed following shortly after Sumter.

It's been quite sometime since I studied the Civil War. I had great interest in it when younger due to the fact that one of my ancestors was a general in the Army of Northern Virginia.

I know that. He asked for the first states to consider secession, not the first state to actually do it.

EDIT: I did Google it. Secession did come up over a tariff dispute in 1807 in the Maryland statehouse. It's hard to tell what he's asking. Are we confining the question to the period immediately prior to the war?

EDIT: It also came up in 1804 in New England. Again, hard to tell what he's asking.

You've been lured into trivial pursuit.

I get that. Intentionally vague questions are like crack to me.

[AUDub 11,147]

Nope.

Well, I won't Google it. You got me here. What's the answer you are looking for?

EDIT:

Maybe you and TexT should collaborate. I'm off to bed so be back tomorrow.

Honestly, the best I can offer to do is give you a list of states in which it was discussed and see if you're willing to tell me which one was the particular one you're looking for. I figured Maryland because it was immediately prior to the war. If that's not it, I'm lost.

It was South Carolina. Home state of John C. Calhoun that for years and years previous to the civil war lead and issued threats of succession to deal with policy in the US government involving tariff and slavery issue.

A group of 7 or 8 followed S. Carolina shortly after their succession. Then Ft. Sumter occurred and you had another group succeed following shortly after Sumter.

It's been quite sometime since I studied the Civil War. I had great interest in it when younger due to the fact that one of my ancestors was a general in the Army of Northern Virginia.

I know that. He asked for the first states to consider secession, not the first state to actually do it.

Ah, consider. I'd have to look that up myself. Guessing S. Carolina isn't the answer for that question, though they did threaten to do it for thirty years or so before they actually did. Probably from the Northeast.... Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island or something like that.

Well, my first guess was Maryland, thinking he was confining it to the period immediately prior to the war and thinking of the Baltimore Riots. South Carolina is definitely a better guess, but I decided against it thinking he wouldn't go with the obvious one, it being the state that seceded first.

Even then, there was discussion of secession on other states much earlier. Massachusetts in 1804 and Maryland 1807, mentioned above after I edited the post you quoted.

tl;dr I'm overthinking this random vague question from a Lost Cause apologist and need to go to damn sleep.

[quietfan 233]

The debate over slavery accelerated after the Mexican War, and it wasn't just slavery in the old southern states, but the question of slavery in the new territories. Of course, Article I, Section 9a and the second half of the opening sentence of Art. I, Sec. 2c of the Constitution exist because its writers basically punted on the question for the sake of union. The question of slavery in the territories was a consideration as territories east of the Mississippi and later the Louisiana Purchase achieved statehood. However, the vast new tracts the U.S. acquired from the war with Mexico and the Northwest Compromise with Great Britain inflamed the debate. Southerners (at least those in power, i.e., largely wealthy slave owners...the poor in the South had little voice in the debate) feared the creation of new slave-free states would lead to them being outnumbered in Congress. Northerners in turn feared the addition of too many slave states. The Missouri Compromise cooled things down for a little while, until the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Dred Scott SCOTUS ruling rendered the Missouri Compromise moot.

Anyway, the debate was not just about preserving slavery in the Old South, but expanding it in the new territories as well. In any case, slavery was a dying institution. Most Western nations had already outlawed it, the national demographics were trending against it, and even a significant portion in the South were opposed to it. I believe arguments like "The Civil War was about states' rights, not slavery" are strained or red herrings. The primary, and only significant, right being debated was the right to own slaves. The primary reason for secession was to protect the perceived state right to legalized slavery. Other differences between the agricultural South and the industrial North probably could have been settled without secession or war.

On to treason:

Article 3, Section 3a: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." Not only Lee, but every Confederate soldier who fought against the Union was obviously guilty of treason by this definition. Yes, they claimed and believed they were fighting for a new country/government, not committing treason. But since the U.S. government did not recognize that new government (nor did any other nation) or the right to secede, it was still treason as far as U.S. law pertains. But then, while Benedict Arnold returned to the fold of the Crown and was forgiven for his brief dalliance with the "treasonous rebels", George Washington was guilty of treason by British law. (Moral: If you're going to commit treason, you'd best end up on the winning side!)

As for secession:

After Virginia seceded, Virginians in the mountainous northwest of the state seceded from Virginia, or formed a separate "pro-Union" government which was recognize as the lawful legislature of the state by Congress, allowing for the creation of West Virginia under Article V, Section 3a. Conversely, while the border states of Kentucky and Missouri never officially seceded, in each state a minority of pro-secession voices formed their own "governments-in-exile", which the Confederacy recognized, explaining why there is a star for each (13 stars total) on the Confederate "Stars and Bars" even though they never actually left the Union.

It does seem curious to me that the same forces that pushed through and ratified the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments after the war didn't also address the question of states' right of secession by amendment. Perhaps they felt amending the Constitution post-War to ban secession was tantamount to conceding that the right existed before said amendment, making the Southern act valid/legal.

End of my soliloquy...I'm going to bed.

'Night, all!

[AUloggerhead 2,229]

As for secession:

After Virginia seceded, Virginians in the mountainous northwest of the state seceded from Virginia, or formed a separate "pro-Union" government which was recognize as the lawful legislature of the state by Congress, allowing for the creation of West Virginia under Article V, Section 3a. Conversely, while the border states of Kentucky and Missouri never officially seceded, in each state a minority of pro-secession voices formed their own "governments-in-exile", which the Confederacy recognized, explaining why there is a star for each (13 stars total) on the Confederate "Stars and Bars" even though they never actually left the Union.

It does seem curious to me that the same forces that pushed through and ratified the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments after the war didn't also address the question of states' right of secession by amendment. Perhaps they felt amending the Constitution post-War to ban secession was tantamount to conceding that the right existed before said amendment, making the Southern act valid/legal.

End of my soliloquy...I'm going to bed.

'Night, all!

That part about WV isn't quite right. There is a US Constitution Article re admitting new states: Article 4 Sect 3: http://www.usconstit...nst_A4Sec3.html

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the <a href="http://www.usconstit...ary.html#JURIS" style="background-color:transparent;">Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

The entire state of VA voted on the secession question in favor of secession something like 125k to 20k, or 6:1. So, when you look at the history of how WV came into being as a new state, one has to question the constitutional legality of such a maneuver. Even prominent legislators in the Congress addressed the conundrum. http://www.wvculture.org/history/journal_wvh/wvh30-1.html

Check out Abraham Lincoln's rationalization:

We can scarcely dispense with the aid of West Virginia in this struggle, much less can we afford to have her against us, in Congress in the field. Her brave and good men regard her admission into the union as a matter of life and death. They have been true to the union under many severe trials. The division of a state is dreaded as a precedent but a measure expedient by a war is no precedent for times of peace.

It is said that the admission of West Virginia is secession, and tolerated only because it is our secession. Well, if we call it by that name, there is still difference enough between secession against the constitution and secession in favor of the constitution. I believe the admission of West Virginia into the union is expedient.

[DKW 86 7,419]

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

TexT and Ben.......the first states to even consider secession were Mass. and Maine, way before the Civil War. Class example of reacting before reading closely (which is common in here but I admit it was a little tricky.

[AUDub 11,147]

TexT and Ben.......the first states to even consider secession were Mass. and Maine, way before the Civil War. Class example of reacting before reading closely (which is common in here but I admit it was a little tricky.

Yeah, I found it after I Googled. You'd stumped me.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Ben....wasn't really trying to stump you but make a point. I just wish the whole forum could calm down, be a little more civil and have a little fun like this more often. I include my self in that and have been working at it. I'm just posting less and not responding as much.

[quietfan 233]

As for secession:

After Virginia seceded, Virginians in the mountainous northwest of the state seceded from Virginia, or formed a separate "pro-Union" government which was recognize as the lawful legislature of the state by Congress, allowing for the creation of West Virginia under Article V, Section 3a. Conversely, while the border states of Kentucky and Missouri never officially seceded, in each state a minority of pro-secession voices formed their own "governments-in-exile", which the Confederacy recognized, explaining why there is a star for each (13 stars total) on the Confederate "Stars and Bars" even though they never actually left the Union.

It does seem curious to me that the same forces that pushed through and ratified the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments after the war didn't also address the question of states' right of secession by amendment. Perhaps they felt amending the Constitution post-War to ban secession was tantamount to conceding that the right existed before said amendment, making the Southern act valid/legal.

End of my soliloquy...I'm going to bed.

'Night, all!

That part about WV isn't quite right. There is a US Constitution Article re admitting new states: Article 4 Sect 3: http://www.usconstit...nst_A4Sec3.html

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the <a href="http://www.usconstit...ary.html#JURIS" style="background-color:transparent;">Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

The entire state of VA voted on the secession question in favor of secession something like 125k to 20k, or 6:1. So, when you look at the history of how WV came into being as a new state, one has to question the constitutional legality of such a maneuver. Even prominent legislators in the Congress addressed the conundrum. http://www.wvculture...vh/wvh30-1.html

Check out Abraham Lincoln's rationalization:

We can scarcely dispense with the aid of West Virginia in this struggle, much less can we afford to have her against us, in Congress in the field. Her brave and good men regard her admission into the union as a matter of life and death. They have been true to the union under many severe trials. The division of a state is dreaded as a precedent but a measure expedient by a war is no precedent for times of peace.

It is said that the admission of West Virginia is secession, and tolerated only because it is our secession. Well, if we call it by that name, there is still difference enough between secession against the constitution and secession in favor of the constitution. I believe the admission of West Virginia into the union is expedient.

Yep, I mis-typed or mis-noted the Article of the Constitution dealing with the admission of new states. It was Article IV, Sec 3, not Article V as I originally said.

Otherwise I think we're both saying essentially the same thing:

After the majority of Virginians and the Richmond government voted for secession, a small group of pro-Union Virginians met in Wheeling, W.V. and declared themselves the true "Restored" government of Virginia, declaring that the existing Richmond government having forfeited its legitimacy vis-a-vis the U.S. through the act of secession. Meanwhile in Washington, there was considerable debate over how to get the West Virginians back into the Union without calling it "secession" from the rest of the state.(The Union still not wanting to recognize secession as a legal right.)

However, since the Constitution permitted the creation of new states from the territory of old states with "the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned", Congress could exploit this loophole: Treat the "Restored" Legislature in Wheeling as the "legitimate" Virginia state legislature, and create the state of West Virginia constitutionally with the consent of the Wheeling group. A clever way to dodge the issue of secession, if you ask me!

(Your last link is particularly informative. Thanks!)

[quietfan 233]

When I first saw this it looked like a reclining llama to me. I could not for the life of me make the connection to the topic.

But once I recognized it as beating a dead horse, I thought: "Couldn't that pretty much apply to every thread in this forum?"

I mean, I don't think any of us really expect to change anyone's mind in an internet forum.

I post merely for fun and I sometimes learn things. Judging from many other threads & posts, it seems we have some members who also find sniping and insults fun...although I fail to see the pleasure in such.

[TexasTiger 12,835]

When I first saw this it looked like a reclining llama to me. I could not for the life of me make the connection to the topic.

But once I recognized it as beating a dead horse, I thought: "Couldn't that pretty much apply to every thread in this forum?" :rolleyes:/>

I mean, I don't think any of us really expect to change anyone's mind in an internet forum. ;)/>

I post merely for fun and I sometimes learn things. Judging from many other threads & posts, it seems we have some members who also find sniping and insults fun...although I fail to see the pleasure in such.

You added facts and meaningful insight. He was just jealous and taking it out on that poor horse.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

When I first saw this it looked like a reclining llama to me. I could not for the life of me make the connection to the topic.

But once I recognized it as beating a dead horse, I thought: "Couldn't that pretty much apply to every thread in this forum?"

I mean, I don't think any of us really expect to change anyone's mind in an internet forum.

I post merely for fun and I sometimes learn things. Judging from many other threads & posts, it seems we have some members who also find sniping and insults fun...although I fail to see the pleasure in such.

Yep. Nope. Yep. Yep. Nope......Wait, what?

[AU-HANDLEY-TIGER 205]

States had more power at the time than the Federal Government , I have read Lee stated he would honor Virginia's decision to withdraw from the union,

Amusing factoids Lincoln helped start the Republician Party after the vote to pass the Kansas Nebraska Act , and when the War started Lee didnt own slaves but Grant did.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Handley.....and Sherman rounded up 300 slaves in a street circle in Savannah and slaughtered them because he suspected they were loyal to their owners.

[AUDub 11,147]

Handley.....and Sherman rounded up 300 slaves in a street circle in Savannah and slaughtered them because he suspected they were loyal to their owners.

Link?