Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register


States rights and slavery - Other Civil War Talk - Civil War Talk - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1 Page:  First Page Previous Page  ...  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next Page Last Page  
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Fri Dec 21st, 2007 01:14 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
181st Post
ole
Member


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

  back to top

Anticipating the secession vote on May 23rd, he then made preparations for an invasion of Virginia involving thousands of troops.

Five weeks after his call for militia he has thousands of troops? Or did you mean the Manassas invasion? Remember that at this time he was very much afraid of an attack on Washington. Beauregard's troops at Manassa Junction couldn't have made him sleep better.

Using the 1st Virginia as a source to cite is no better than using me as a source.

ole



 Posted: Fri Dec 21st, 2007 01:44 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
182nd Post
Texas Defender
Member


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

  back to top

Ole-

  I'm beginning to think that you're right about the 1st Virginia.  :D

  Lets see- they mentioned the 1st Michigan and the 11th NY Zouaves. I don't know if there were actually eleven regiments coming across that evening, but it doesn't take many regiments to make: "thousands of troops."  ;)

  Lets look for something else out there. Ah, heres one:


Cronology of the Civil War

  It says that on 24 May, 10,000 troops invaded Virginia and occupied Alexandria. Ten thousand sounds like about eleven regiments to me.

  Hey, I know that the site loses credibility because the authors can't spell, "Chronology," but at least it isn't a LR site.  :P
 

 

Last edited on Fri Dec 21st, 2007 02:40 am by Texas Defender



 Posted: Sat Dec 22nd, 2007 01:15 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
183rd Post
ole
Member


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

  back to top

TD:

I'm not convinced that there were 10,000 troops, but let's not forget that these regiments were militia -- not necessarily 1,000 per regiment. Could be, though.

At least your "cronology" site didn't say "demanded.";)

ole



 Posted: Sat Dec 22nd, 2007 01:31 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
184th Post
Texas Defender
Member


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

  back to top

Ole-

  While we aren't sure that there were 10,000 troops coming into Virginia on that night, I think its safe to say that there were: "thousands."

  You shouldn't have expected that the folks doing the: "Cronology" site would have said that Lincoln: "demanded" troops from Virginia and the other states. After all, the group doing the "Cronology " site is in Albany, NY. ;)

  Its a matter of perspective. As I said previously- history is told from a point of view.



 Posted: Sat Dec 22nd, 2007 01:32 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
185th Post
ole
Member


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

  back to top

I'll be searching for it as soon as I've read the boards. Probably have it tomorrow.

I've been looking in the intervals between "honey-dew" directives. Haven't found the specific wording yet, but I know it's out there.

Did find something I'd forgotten, though. It wasn't Floyd's directive. Don Carlos Buell was sent down there to evaluate the situation. He concluded that Anderson's situation was more serious than anyone realized. He recommended that, if Anderson felt threatened, he ought to consolidate in the most defensible of the three facilities. Then he wrote out that advice in a memorandum, a copy of which he gave to Anderson. He brought another copy back to Washington and gave it to Floyd. A day or two later, Floyd got around to reading it. He may have just glanced at it or misunderstood it, but he endorsed it with his approval. When Buchanan read it, he suggested to Floyd that "defensible" ought to be mollified. By then, it was too late.

So Anderson's move to Sumter wasn't unauthorized. He was operating under the most recent communication he had with a representative of the War Department.

So far as violating the "gentlemen's agreement" between Buchanan and SC Commissioners, have you had any luck in finding that?

ole



 Posted: Sat Dec 22nd, 2007 03:28 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
186th Post
ole
Member


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

  back to top




Its a matter of perspective. As I said previously- history is told from a point of view.



And, I would hope, without changing the words overmuch. C'mon, Defender, you know the difference between "demand" and what power Lincoln could actually exercise -- he wanted each state to furnish it's share of 75,000 troops. And, he had to ask. The point of view that changes the words to connote otherwise has a bias.

Now, back to the 10,000. I doubt it, as I said, and I will look into it. As I am looking into another thing or three at the moment, I could use some help with the numbers involved. We are talking about the invasion of Virginia, aren't we? As a seeker of truth, however partisan, I can trust you to be honest. I'm still trying to find the actual wording of Buell's memorandum for Anderson and the basis of the gentlemen's agreement.:?

ole

Last edited on Sat Dec 22nd, 2007 03:30 am by ole



 Posted: Sat Dec 22nd, 2007 03:37 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
187th Post
ole
Member


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

  back to top

While we aren't sure that there were 10,000 troops coming into Virginia on that night, I think its safe to say that there were: "thousands."

Obviously there were more than a hundred. In context, however, the statement implies overwhelming force and aggression. If all the site could say was "thousands," it raises the suspicion that it had no idea how many there really were. In short, thousands is a cop-out for research.

You shouldn't have expected that the folks doing the: "Cronology" site would have said that Lincoln: "demanded" troops from Virginia and the other states. After all, the group doing the "Cronology " site is in Albany, NY.

Never did contend that yankees were literate. Just that they were a bit more careful with their hyperbole.

ole



 Posted: Sat Dec 22nd, 2007 05:08 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
188th Post
Texas Defender
Member


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

  back to top

Ole-

   I have no enthusiasm for semantic nitpicking over how to characterize Lincoln calling for 75,000 troops. Call it a : "'polite request" if you wish. Call me biased if you wish. Be happy.

  As for which regiments invaded Virginia on 24 May, perhaps the ORs will list them. I can tell you what some of them were.

  According to this Arlington Historical Society source, eight regiments under Colonel Mansfield crossed the river on the 24th.

 

  Arlington (Va.) Historical Society | Learn | Snapshots | The Civil War in Arlington

  It says the first regiment was commanded by W.H. Wood (USMA 1845). That would have been the 17th US Infantry.

  Next was the 7th NY (Heintzelman). The third was the 11th NY Zous (Ellsworth). They showed up in Alexandria. Also coming that way was the 1st MI (Wilcox).

  Also present was the 1st NJ (Montgomery).

Union - New Jersey Infantry (Part 1)

  We also know that the 8th NY (Sandford) occupied Arlington House shortly after the invasion.

  Okay- we're up to six. Next, we'll look at: 'suspects." Here is a GOVERNMENT source:

Arlington House The Robert E Lee Memorial - Union Occupation:  1861-1865 (U.S. National Park Service)

  The very first sentence says: "On May 24, 1861, in the wake of Virginia's decision to secede from the Union, THOUSANDS of U.S. troops marched across the Potomac River....." Whether it was 10,000 or not I'm just not that curious about. My posting said only : "thousands," and there WERE thousands. I doubt that you can determine the precise number, anyway.

  Anyway, your attention is invited to the : "References " section, where other regiments are mentioned by Sandford, who was  apparently running things in the area around Arlington. It mentions other regiments, besides the 7th NY, which we know was in the initial invasion. By the 26th of May, the following regiments are identified in the area- 5th NY, 28th NY, 3rd US Infantry, 8th NY, and 69th NY. (By the 31st, you can add the 25th NY).

  This doesn't prove that these additional regiments were part of the initial invasion force, but that seems plausible to me. Some of them almost certainly were. Lets see- 11 regiments by the 26th at least. Again, I'm not that curious to learn their exact strength. Certainly, they didn't have to fight any battles to overcome the resistance at Arlington House.

  As a side note, here is a website devoted the winners of the Medal of Honor.

Civil War Congressional Medal of Honor Recipients - 1st Civil War Casualty Col. Elmer Ephraim Ellsworth

  By a stranfge coincidence, it says that eleven regiments invaded on the 24th. In fact, the wording is very similar to the same events listed in the"discredited" 1st Virginia site.

 

  Virginia: Spring 1861

  Apparently, there was some copying going on. Why do I suspect that the 1st Virginia copied from the CMH site, instead of the other way around? :D

  Have we beaten this to death yet?

Last edited on Sat Dec 22nd, 2007 05:51 am by Texas Defender



 Posted: Sat Dec 22nd, 2007 03:41 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
189th Post
ole
Member


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

  back to top

Have we beaten this to death yet?

Thoroughly. Wait! I think I saw it twitch.:cool: Thanks for getting to the bottom of it and saving me the time.

ole



 Posted: Thu Dec 27th, 2007 04:25 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
190th Post
ole
Member


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

  back to top

Finally found a bit on the "gentlemen's agreement" in Detzler's Allegiance:

The next day, when Buchanan met again with them [SC commissioners], they handed him their written understanding of what had been said. Buck read it carefully and made only one objection. They had written that there would be no assault on the forts "provided" that there were no changes in the forts' status. The president told them that he did not approve of that word since it seemed to bind his hands. They, less sophisticated than he in diplomatic parlance, struck the word out. They tried hard to get some clear promise from him about the forts; then, unable to get one, they rose to leave. As they made their good-byes, Buchanan said amiably that this arrangement was essentially "a matter of honor between gentlemen," that written docoments were unnecessary. We understand each other," he said. (footnote) Perhaps they did; perhaps not.

Remarkably, Buchanan was unaware, while speaking to the delegation of Carolinians, that his government had just sent a man named Major Don Carlos Buell to Charleston on a mission that would alter forever any "agreement" the president may have made.

This does not appear to be a solemn pledge to be broken at the peril of perpetual dishonor. Anderson knew nothing about it.

ole

Last edited on Thu Dec 27th, 2007 07:33 pm by ole



 Posted: Sat Dec 29th, 2007 12:50 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
191st Post
Regina
Member


Joined: Wed Nov 1st, 2006
Location: Connecticut USA
Posts: 65
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I'm reading the book "Young Patriots--The Remarkable Story of Two Men, Their Impossible Plan and the Revolution That Created the Constitution" by Charles Cerami (Madison and Hamilton).  The author makes very interesting points on the "states' rights" issues that influenced the Constitutional Convention as well as the "slavery" issues.

One passage reads:

          Madison tried his hand at pacification, saying quietly that if a union should finally be formed, they would find that this rivalry between large and small states was hardly an issue at all, especially as compared with the real clash between northern and southern states.  It was the first time anything this ominous had ever been said in an official setting--a forecast of the Civil War, which was over seventy years away.  He did not use the word "slavery," but put it this way:  "The great danger to our general government," he said prophetically, "is the great southern and northern interests of the continent being opposed to each other."  In saying this, he showed how desperately anxious he was to win a compromise on the present issue, for he risked offending the South Carolinians.

I didn't realize, until I read this book, that as far back as the forming of the union, South Carolina had threatened to secede over the slavery issue.

Also, writing of Abraham Baldwin from Georgia, he says "Deeply religious as he was, he did not approve of slavery but he thought each state should be left alone to create policies that suited its situation.  And he really saw no future for Georgia unless it had some years of slavery to build up enough wealth..."

He also wrote this which I'm sure is true:

          People who were passionately anxious to see a large, strong national government were inclined to unfairly ridicule or attack the very term "states' rights" as if it were an immoral ambition.  In the case where emphasis on states' rights was actually a sly way of insusting on the right to conduct slavery, there was good reason to deplore it.  But many Americans who detested slavery still loved their own states and preferred not to see them drained of all power.

 

 

 

 

 



 Posted: Tue Jan 1st, 2008 04:23 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
192nd Post
39th Miss. Walker
Member
 

Joined: Tue May 1st, 2007
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 80
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

In the early 1800's 1820'2 through about the 1840's, there was a debate within the states as well as Federally over the concept of States Rights and Nationalist.
The States Rights point of view was a very strict interpretation of the Constitution where the Nationalist view was of a stronger central government and a more liberal interpretation.
This mostly came soon after the War of 1812. Reasoning being that the Federal Government had to keep and fund a central militia for the protection of all the states.
The Congress added roads as a military necessity and for the "General Welfare" of the Country. This led to "Internal Improvements" which were then opposed by the States Rights group as unconstitutional. Particularly when they only benefited the North.
South Carolina was very divided over this issue. Some like John C. Calhoun, who we today think of as States Rights were for many years Nationalist and opposed the doctrine of States Rights as put forward by William Smith.
All of this begain to change with a couple of things; the Tariffs, protectionism for Northern Industries and the slavery question.
If anyone is interested I can go into more detail later.



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


 Posted: Wed Jan 2nd, 2008 06:36 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
194th Post
39th Miss. Walker
Member
 

Joined: Tue May 1st, 2007
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 80
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

The Tariffs were designed to do two things. Fund the Federal Government, (pay the National debt, fund internal improvements) and to protect domestic industries. However there was debate as to what industries the Tariffs would impact and how much. From the 1820's to the 1830's some tariffs increased to as much as 50% of the actual value of the good.
This wasn't just a burden on the people, but it sought to protect domestic producers as well.
At the same time there was still an ongoing debate about Jeffersonian vs Hamiltonian doctrine.
Basically the Jefferson doctrine espoused an agrarian society where the Hamiltonian doctrine espoused a Central Banking type system.
The debate on States Rights vs Nationalism boiled down to the interpretation of the Constitution particularly the phrases ..."to lay and collect taxes.....provide for the common defense and general welfare"...
The Nationalist believed a few roads could be of use militarily. The States Rightist believed few roads could be used militarily, hence were not for either common defense nor for general welfare. They were against the piecemeal funding of local projects. Since all of the proposed projects were in the North they were further against taxes being taken from the South to fund projects to benefit only the North. They were also against these piecemeal projects even if they were in the South. Projects like highways and canals.
As the number and scope of projects grew so did their cost. This caused the National Debt to not be paid off no matter how high the tariffs were raised to.
There was also the added question that if the National debt was paid where would the excess monies go? The concept of National debt and expenditures was to raise only enough money as was needed for the appropriations. Any excess then would be divided by all of the states, thereby not only funding the internal improvements but also funding the Northern states from the coffers of the Southern States.
Keep in mind here the Tariffs were not on the producers but the importers and/or consumers. So the Northern industries got the benefit of the tariffs in protectionism as well as the benefits from it's fundings.
In the early days of the tariffs the cotton and rice producers were also hit with a severe depression lasting many years. So here they were getting less for their crops and having to pay ever higher tariffs to support Northern projects which they believed were unconstitutional to boot.
Add to this the very real fear of foreign retaliation.
The cotton producers were fearful that the high tariffs would cause large cotton producers like England to seek supplies elsewhere like Egypt and India.
So in effect what they were facing was higher cost of imported, domestic and foreign, goods, a depressed price for their exports and ever higher tariffs to pay for Northern internal improvements, along with the fear of losing their markets.
The States Right doctrine was, as previous posted, for a very strict interpretation of the Constitution. Any deviation was in their minds unconstitutional, no matter the subject.
States during this period were considered Sovereign entities and as such anything not specifically spelled out in the Constitution was specifically the domain of the States.

During the 1820's had the very real fear of and actual slave insurrections. Nat Turner, Denmark Vesey and the Charleston Riots of 1826.
In all of these cases it was felt outside agitation was at least partly a cause. In response in Charleston was passed the Seaman's Act. Basically what this act did was to try and limit the interaction of free black seamen with the resident slave population. All free black seamen on ships visiting Charleston were to be held in jail until their ships left port.
Long and short of it, the matter was taken before the Federal Government and Supreme Court that ruled the act illegal. South Carolina refused to back down and sought to nullify the ruling. Despite threats from the Federal Government Charleston and South Carolina did not back down and enforced the act. It was in their minds an act of nullification and a case of States Rights to decide this question, not the Federal Government. Round one to South Carolina.
It was during this time the American Colonization Society in 1827 asked Congress for an appropriation. Essentially they were an anti slavery group that expressed the desire to send all free blacks back to Africa.
The South feared this was only a smokescreen and only the beginning of a larger debate, and were adamantly opposed. The opposed this for a number of reasons. First they were afraid of the eventual abolishment of slavery by the Northern majority. Secondly they were afraid of any agitation of the slaves which could lead to another slave insurrection. The agitation coming in the form of they hearing of this Federal debate. Finally that many in the South and especially the States Rights faction opposed any debate in Congress, as once you debate the question on a National scale you have removed the question and rights of the individual states. In their eyes a degradation of the rights reserved to them under the Constitution.
This in effect was the first real joining of the States Rights and the slavery question.



 Posted: Thu Jan 3rd, 2008 04:49 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
195th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

That's a different interpretation of the ACS then any I have heard before. Most attacks came from abolitionists.

Many anti-slavery people felt slavery would be strengthened by sending the freedmen to Liberia and hence removing the most potent of the anti-slavery abolitionists.

Of course, the freedmen were not real enthusiastic themselves about leaving their native land, though over 10,000 eventually emigrated.


HankC



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


 Posted: Thu Jan 3rd, 2008 05:31 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
197th Post
ole
Member


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

  back to top

It was in their minds an act of nullification and a case of States Rights to decide this question, not the Federal Government. Round one to South Carolina.

Seems a bit strange to celebrate a law keeping black mariners out of a port city because they might contaminate the local slave population. It was, of course, a protest against tariffs.

The opposed this for a number of reasons. First they were afraid of the eventual abolishment of slavery by the Northern majority.

In 1827, there was no Northern majority. The fear of being outvoted began to arise in the late '40s and didn't become a justified fear until the mid '50s.

Guess I should quote the whole post rather than bits and pieces. Be back later.

ole



 Posted: Thu Jan 3rd, 2008 06:04 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
198th Post
39th Miss. Walker
Member
 

Joined: Tue May 1st, 2007
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 80
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

The Seaman's Laws were not a protest against the Tariffs. It was simply what it was, a law to keep black seamen from mixing with the local blacks. There was still very much a fear of what had happened in the slave revolts in Santo Domingo. Some of the participants in that slave revolt were seamen aboard trading vessels sailing into Charleston.
As I posted above this came on the heels of of actual insurrections in the South.
When I say round one to South Carolina, it is not meant as a celebration, rather it was the first time a law was passed, refuted by the Federal Government and then the illegality of the law nullified by South Carolina's refusal to back down.
Also as you study the nullification controversy in the early 1800's you should come to the conclusion the Lowcountry planters were a bit paranoid, of a black uprising, northern abolitionists, and loss of market.
Also keep in mind the Southern economy was a free market economy, with the South selling their goods on the open market while the Northerners were protected by the tariffs.
It is enough to make someone paranoid!

Actually the height of the Nullification Controversy was in the 1816-1836 time period. It was through this Northern "majority" that the tariffs were passed.
This is not to imply that Southerners didn't vote for some tariffs as well.
Some of their votes were a way of trying to make the tariffs so odious as to cause the original backers and some industries to push for abolishment of the tariffs.

It was also during this time the very definitions of what our government was were being formed, hence the States Rights vs the Nationalists. There were States Rights advocates in the North as there were Nationalists in the South, although by the late 1820's most Nationalists in the South had become States Rights advocates, partially as a result of the defining of the government and the tariffs.
For a good read on how the South viewed our government and sovereignty find a copy of John C Calhoun's EXPOSITION. Here he makes the case for States Rights. His theory was that since the State Conventions ratified the Constitution only the State Conventions could change it. That the Supreme Court MAY review lower courts decisions but any question of the Constitutionality should come ultimately from the States themselves.
Ultimately each of us owes our allegiance to numerous sovereignty's, the city we live in, the state, and the nation. There has to be a clear definition and delineation. Here the States Right advocates said since they, the states. ratified the Constitution and since the Constitution reserved for the states all other rights not expressly assigned to the Federal government they not the Federal Government would be the final say.

Last edited on Thu Jan 3rd, 2008 06:06 pm by 39th Miss. Walker



 Posted: Fri Jan 4th, 2008 10:02 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
199th Post
ole
Member


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

  back to top

It is so telling that South Carolina and other slave-holding states were so afraid of rebellion that they had to enact such laws. The slave population was well over 50 per cent and they were terrified. What a quandary! Can't live without 'em. Can't live with 'em. It must have been hell warmed over.

ole



 Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 02:36 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
200th Post
39th Miss. Walker
Member
 

Joined: Tue May 1st, 2007
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 80
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Maybe it was Ole. Remember the old adage, don't shoot the messenger for the message.



 Current time is 04:51 amPage:  First Page Previous Page  ...  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next Page Last Page  
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.4584 seconds (10% database + 90% PHP). 28 queries executed.