Confederate flag is still being used

What do you mean Indiana? For awhile they had the country in their pockets.

 

You're correct about Anderson, but the Corps of Engineers had men at Sumter prior to secession.

 

I don't think any of us honestly could say we would have had empathy for the Native Americans back in those days. Here in Virginia you can visit the sites of the earliest Indian massacres where entire settlements were wiped out. If you lived out on the frontier, your life was in constant peril. When you went out in the woods or fields in the morning, you never knew if you would make it back to your cabin alive in the afternoon. On top of that, I think we've all heard the stories about the atrocities the Indians inflicted on their hapless victims - men, women and children alike.

While some tribes were peaceful and others had shifting alliances amongst the Europeans and Americans, other tribes were engaged in nothing short of a war of annihilation/genocide against European and American settlers (not to mention one another). It was this incessant violence that led Andrew Jackson to conclude that we simply could not live together, and it was from that conclusion he based the policies that he carried out against the Natives that were controversial then and widely condemned today.

It's easy for us to see sit here safely removed from the time and mortal danger and condemn the likes of Jackson, but for the people who lived in constant, violent contact with hostile Indians, those measures were deemed absolutely necessary if one was to survive. You're absolutely right - it is literally impossible for us to put ourselves in those peoples shoes and moccasins.

 

True. The thrust of my post was more to show that Lincoln kept the Senate in the dark and, using a false pretext, unilaterally launched his mission to Fort Sumter. It was seen at the time for what it was and Lincoln's own words reveal his true aim.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail, and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result." ~ Lincoln to Gustavus Fox, in a letter dated May 1 1865.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The following quotes are from editorials in Northern newspapers and speak for themselves.

"Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor." ~ Providence Daily Post, April 13 1861

"We are to have civil war, if at all, because Abraham Lincoln loves a [the Republican] party better than he loves his country.... [He] clings to his party creed, and allows the nation to drift into the whirlpool of destruction." ~ The Providence Daily Post, April 13 1861

"If this result follows – and follow civil war it must – the memory of ABRAHAM LINCOLN and his infatuated advisors will only be preserved with that of other destroyers to the scorned and execrated.... And if the historian who preserves the record of his fatal administration needs any motto descriptive of the president who destroyed the institutions which he swore to protect, it will probably be some such as this: Here is the record of one who feared more to have it said that he deserted his party than that he ruined the country, who had a greater solicitude for his consistency as a partisan than for his wisdom as a Statesman or his courage and virtue as a patriot, and who destroyed by his weakness the fairest experiment of man in self-government that the world ever witnessed." ~ The American Standard, New Jersey, April 12, 1861, the very day the South moved to reclaim Fort Sumter.

"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." ~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861.

"We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it. ~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.

 

Yeah, I saw where you posted that crap last year in the CivilWarTalk forums.

You were beaten down pretty handily.

 

One must place oneself into the context of the times to really be able to understand them. Excellent post. No one knows what they will do in any situation until they come face to face with it and must act. Putting history into 21st century context, morals or mores, hindsight based on what we believe today or the way our society is today vs. societies of history will leave you with a very skewed view of history.

Besides it is the victors who write history and most of it is from a one sided view.

 

Hardly. I knew that site was crap when I found myself having to define what a paragraph is for some of your 'brilliant scholars'.

Speaking of beatdowns, check out the 'March, 1861' thread there. Even Brass Napoleon and one of the mods had to admit I owned one of your long-term members.

 

Well, I think all of us who are familiar with this subject know that Lincoln's enemies weren't confined south of the Mason-Dixon Line. Furthermore, I think it can be said that the Copperheads and their ilk didn't necessarily have this country's best interests at heart, either. At the very least, I think we have to view their claims with the same skepticism that they heaped on Lincoln and his motives.

As for keeping the Senate in the dark, I think that is the prerogative of any president. As the Constitution makes clear, the president is Commander in Chief, and as has been pointed out earlier, Fort Sumter was United States territory. Lincoln was well within his rights (or more precisely, powers) to resupply, garrison and defend that fort as he saw fit. I don't see how the Senate's disposition regarding this matter, much less that of the governor of South Carolina, is even remotely relevant to that fact. We may disagree with Lincoln's decision, but that's an entirely different matter.

 

Lincoln could invoke war powers without Congress declaring war?

We may be used to that kind of abuse these days, but in 1861 it was another matter altogether.

 

Lincoln didn't invoke war powers at Fort Sumter. If anyone was out of line, it was Francis Pickens.

 

Is that chucklehead response the best you've got? I suppose it is.

Maybe you should mosey back on over to CW talk and live vicariously through their brilliant scholars. You can bask in their glow and pretend you're brilliant, too!

 

I've never even visited the south ( I'd like to someday) and this whole flag thing is silly. Also I would wager that we see less of it because people have been pushed to conform. If your strong enough to stand proud for something go for it. You know whats in your heart.

 

What, then, would you call ordering up 75,000 troops, suspending habeas corpus and invading Virginia all without consulting Congress?

Oh, yeah, and that Fort Sumter thingie.

Saying Lincoln invoked war powers is, if anything, being generous in characterizing his actions.

 

Yes. See Prize Cases - US Supreme Court.

 

What does the symbol (flag) represent?

Do you want a Swastika flying over your State Capitol or even a local elementary school? (If not, then why not?)

 

To me it is just a flag and people from the south are proud of where they're from. Let me put it another way. Here in California the northern part of the state wants to form it's own state of Jefferson. People up here have been flying State of Jefferson flags for years and may always fly them. They are proud of where they come from.

Racist are everywhere flying many different flags. My plan is not to be judgmental over some one flying the confederate flag.

 

Suppressing a rebellion.

What you seem to be overlooking is the fact that the United States never recognized the "Confederate States of America" as an independent and sovereign nation. That went for every other nation on the planet, as well.

Have you ever read Grant's Memoirs? One of the things you recognize during the course of reading of that book is that Grant always refers to the confederates as rebels.

I would argue otherwise. I think it's absurd to characterize the supplying and garrisoning of one's own forts as a war power.

 

I feel the same way.

Granted, white supremacists and racists co-opted the flag for their own purposes (especially in the past), but to many people it is nothing more than a symbol of Southern identity and pride.

That being said, the only flag that flies over this Southerner's house is this one:

 

^^^^^ An 1863 decision that upheld the blockade of Southern ports.

What about invading Virginia?

Suspending habeas corpus? (Taney had a problem with that)

 

Okay. Display the Confederate Flag or a Swastika, but don't expect all to find it acceptable. That would be prudent.

Both represent a certain ATROCITIES, that should never be embraced by decent human beings.

 

Virginia was invaded by Federal forces without committing any belligerent acts. It seceeded only after Lincoln ordered up troops to fight against Americans, along with 3 other states.

Lincoln was told this would happen if he made any moves on Sumter. His actions exacerbated the problem.

I'm quite aware that Lincoln refused to acknowledge the seceeded states. That is why he refused to see a Confederate peace delegation before hostilities began. Again, this only exacerbated the problem.

When Congress did reconvene in July, 1861, Lincoln addressed the members and acknowledged that it was up to them to determine if his acts in their absence were proper. With Republicans controlling both houses, acquiescence was a foregone conclusion.

 

I will display what ever I'm proud of. I'm not from the south and have no connection with the swastika so I will not be displaying them, but if I was from the south, I'm the kind of guy that probably would have a confederate flag and I am not a racist. I may get a State of Jefferson flag.

 

That's not the case, Woogs. Virginia's seizure of the U.S. arsenal at Harper's Ferry was a belligerent act, and one could argue that the secession of the Commonwealth qualified as an act of belligerence. The pro-secessionist authorities in Richmond and everyone who was clamoring for war knew what they were getting Virginia into, as did the Unionists in western Virginia who promptly seceded from the rest of the state and created West Virginia.

Lincoln didn't victimize Virginia. We willingly brought calamity on our own heads knowing that the war would be fought in our own front yards.

Be as all that may or may not be, the South did its best to exacerbate the situation, as well. As I pointed out earlier, both sides were to blame.

Incidentally, we just got through commemorating the 150th anniversary of the end of the Civil War here in Virginia a couple of weeks ago. I'd say that was the only thing worth celebrating about the Civil War.

 

We could slice and dice this forever. For me, though, I would say that Lincoln had in his power the path of war or the path of peace. History shows the path he chose.

Speaking of Virginia, Lincoln had a meeting with Col. John Baldwin on April 4. Baldwin was a member of the Virginia convention and a self-professed Union man.

He testified about that meeting. It's an interesting and revealing read.

http://vshadow.vcdh.virginia.edu/personalpapers/documents/augusta/p3baldwininterview.html#baldwin2