GDG- Re: Abe Lincoln - secessionist???

[Biggsk at aol.com]

Margaret,
 
Thanks for the other sentence to Lincoln's statement.  More  below:

>>>>>>Yes, it is legitimate, but it does not  contradict Lincoln's position 
on secession.  It is from the  then  Congressman Lincoln's speech on the 
Mexican War to the House of  Representatives.  He is discussing how to determine the 
boundary between  Texas and Mexico since, with Texas's admission to the 
Union, that boundary  became part of the boundary between the United States and 
Mexico. It's  interesting that, whoever initially selected the quote, omitted the 
sentence  immediately preceding the quote. That sentence is, "The extent of 
our  territory in that region depended, not on any  treaty-fixed boundary,  
(for no treaty had attempted it,) but on revolution."  (Emphasis in the  
original). The right of revolution of oppressed people is a natural right,  accepted 
by the Founding Fathers and by Lincoln, and not one granted by  legislation or 
constitution.  The corollary is that nations have the  right of self-defense 
and are not obligated to commit suicide at the first  resistance.  >>>>
The Republic of Texas and the border with Mexico after the Texas War of  
Independence, was not yet at the Rio Grande River.  In fact, it was so  fluid, 
with both sides claiming borders, there was 2-3 year war fought over it  in the 
early 1840's.  Like the independence fight, this, too, drew men from  across 
the USA to come to Texas and fight Mexico, including the Racoon Hunters  from 
Columbus, GA who lost their flag to Mexican forces at Lipantitlan,  Texas/Mexico 
in 1842.  The flag remains in Mexico today along with  several other Texas 
unit colors captured in the war.  I believe it was the  outcome of the Mexican 
War that settled the border along the Rio Grande.
 
That being said, it seems to me that the only statement of Lincoln's entire  
paragraph that has to do with borders is the line that you included, whereas 
the  rest does not seem to matter to that subject at all.  Supposedly, the  
admission of Texas into the Union in 1845 came with the proviso that the state  
could split into as many as five states should its people so decide.  Is  this 
part of what Lincoln talked about?
 
And, other than the fighting in the early 1840's that I mentioned, the  
Texas/USA  border he is talking about was not settled by any revolution of  the 
people - it was settled by near conquest of Mexico by the US Army.
 
>>>>The Founding Fathers, while they hoped for a peaceful  departure, 
realized that UK would and could resist violently. I have yet to hear  any defender 
of secession point to a single act on the part of the government of  the United 
States (of which the slave states' senators, representatives, and  some very 
supportive presidents through Buchanan) that would qualify as  oppression  The 
so-called right of secession is claimed as a constitutional  right to which 
the national government has no legal right to  oppose.>>>>
 
>From your point of view in the early 21st Century there might not be any  
points of oppression.  But from the point of view of the South in 1860-1861  (and 
even as far back as the Nullification Crisis), there indeed was!  The  
perception that the Republicans were going to eliminate slavery and that  protective 
tariffs would continue being the two biggest, come right to mind from  their 
point of view.  Both are covered in Dew's book on the slave  state 
commissioners (although only one of them mentioned the tariffs) and in the  press and 
words of the secessionists themselves.  

>>>Any  defender of secession relying on that quote would have to excoriate 
the  Confederacy for its attempt to regain control of the northwest counties of 
 Virginia and its brutal suppression of the Unionist uprising in East  
Tennessee.>>>>

 
Considering that those counties of Western Virginia were part of a state  
that seceded (and where my ancestor was from), from their point of view it was  
dealing with the Unionist elements in the state, which was also invaded in the  
Summer of 1861 by the Union and fought over by no less than three campaigns  
that year alone.
 
I live in Tennessee and know very well about East Tennessee and have read  
the several books on the topic.  I also know that the Unionists there were  not 
squeaky clean themselves and, as happens in both civil wars and wars of  
religion, serious things were done by BOTH sides in East Tennessee.
 
There is also a recent book on Middle Tennessee (itself split between north  
and south, although more south than East TN)  written by now retired  history 
professor Dr. Michael Bradley called, "With Blood and Fire: Life Behind  The 
Lines In Middle Tennessee, 1863-1865."  Using Union Army Provost  Marshal 
records as the basis for much of his research, Bradley found that the  Union Army, 
under Gen. Robert Milroy, ran hit squads all over Middle Tennessee,  
eliminating pro-South farmers (often on bogus tips from Unionist neighbors so  they 
could get their land once they had been dealt with) and other  pro-Southerners, 
burning property because of political leanings, executions  without trials and 
much more.  Union Army General Orders #100 (April 24,  1863) offered the rules 
of war protection to guerrillas and those attacking  Union troops in occupied 
places, and these were regularly ignored in Middle  Tennessee by both Gen. 
Eleazar Paine and Milroy, to name but two.
 
Again, neither side has much to be proud of here, but the seriousness  of 
what Milroy did is more than a bit higher up the "scum scale" in my  book.
 
I again appreciate you taking the time to add the missing sentence.
 
Greg Biggs 



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.