Mobilizing the navy to blockade the south sounds more like the acts of a nation at war rather than an insurrection. Furthermore, reconstruction would not have been acceptable unless congress were treating the Confederates as a conquered foreign nation.
At some point, there's a de facto reality that whatever you want to call the southern states you have to prepare for the what they are doing.
Who said anything about executions? I said Jefferson Davis was not even ever tried. Francis Lieber was presented with evidence against Davis by the War Department and his response was, "Davis will not be found guilty and we shall stand there completely beaten".
Its a good question. I wonder, had Lincoln lived, if this would've played out like this? As I noted in my other post, A Johnson was more interested in private humiliation than public trials. If the Chief Executive is warring with Congress (remember, AJ was impeached) then it makes such prosecutions pretty hard.
No mercy was given. None.
After the Whiskey Rebellion? Yes there was. Washington released one of the primary leaders and most of those found guilty of anything were trivial, and a couple were pardoned.
The men were imprisoned, where one died, while two, including Philip Vigol (later spelled Philip Wigal), were convicted of treason and sentenced to death by hanging. Washington, however, pardoned them on the grounds that one was a "simpleton," and the other, "insane."[7]
*bold mine
Source
Secretary of State Seward met with them.
Well, I stand to be corrected about some of the cabinet. If you have a source, I'd love to read it and learn more.
That said, it doesn't change the fact that simply demanding something doesn't make your side right. As you know the cops all the times meet w/ hostage takers and "hear their demands". Does that mean the hostage takers are credible (I'm not saying this is exactly apples to apples, but I hope you see my point)
You have a well thought out post, but this is one area where you are incorrect. The USA charged tariffs on manufactured goods from England to help factories in the north compete. England then charged tariffs on their chief import from the USA, Cotton. Thus were the Southern states forced to finance the industrial growth of the north. They were in fact being financially raped.
I'm not saying that nothing ever happened that gave more benefit to the north. Give and take is part of life and sometimes things favored the north, but more often than not, they favored the south.
The thing is its not some kind of evil northern conspiracy. It is the evolution of the economy (as foreseen by Hamilton some 70 years earlier). We were moving into a manufacturing age and, as the US had always done, we wanted protective tariffs to help young industry grow. By default, of course, those parts of the country that import more will bear more of a burden.
But, here, as in my reply to JohnHSOG, the problem was that the south did NOT want to develop industry. It was counter to their social values, traditions, and economic temperment.
Additionally, tariff policy had trended toward being more and more Southern friendly since the nadir of the "
Tariff of Abominations" (ironically a tariff pushed secretly by the southerner Calhoun).
Finally, in
1857 the south got with the passage of an extremely friendly tariff. The 1857 tariff was put forth by a southern, passed by a southern-friendly Congress that didn't want to offend the south, and signed by a Southern-friendly president.
So, in 1860, when the south was leaving the Union they had the MOST FAVORABLE tariff they'd had in decades.
Now, in 1860, there was a higher tariff that was in consideration, but southerns killed it in the Senate. So, ironically, by leaving, this protectionist tariff then passed due to their absence. By quitting they screwed themselves.
Also, keep in mind that when the cotton trade is hurt, it also hurts northerners. The ships that carry the cotton, the men who sail them, and many of the accountants/managers are northern.
Another irony was that the south destroyed their own dominant world position in cotton by initiating the Civil War.
If they were just putting down a rebellion explain the legality of reconstruction & the events surrounding a lack of a trial for Jefferson Davis.
There's a de facto reality here. What else are you supposed to do when the war is over? One of this magnitude? You have to find a way to govern and try and "put Humpty Dumpty back together again". Reconstruction is a big mess because of the competition between Lincoln (and moreso Johnson) and the Radical Republicans. Once Lincoln was killed, the Radicals were able to push their agenda and they had a very different outlook toward the south and reconstruction than Lincoln had.
It doesn't even slightly resemble the American Revolution, for example.
