April: Confederate History Month

[zynner]

When I thought about and posted the Confederate Constitution thread, I didn't even realize that April is Confederate History month.

The so-called "Civil War" was actually not a civil war at all. It was a war between two nations. Here's an interesting article of why it was fought:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese273.html

The Civil War era is a fascinating topic because almost all of the things we are taught about it today are wrong.

(1) The Civil War was about slavery. False.
(2) The South started it. False.
(3) Abraham Lincoln was preserving the union. False.
(4) Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves. False.
(5) Abraham Lincoln became a dictator. True.
(6) The 14th Amendment was illegally passed under martial law. True.

Here's another interesting site that popped up on Google. Would make for interesting research to see if all the claims are true: http://members.cox.net/polincorr1/conpro4.htm (Surf around that guy's site if you want some interesting reading. How much is accurate would be interesting to know -- anybody read about this stuff from credible sources?)

~ zynner

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: zynner (1) The Civil War was about slavery. False.

It was completely about slavery, zynner. You can try to slick talk it anyway you like -- it was about federalism, it was about state's right or the right to another revolution -- but it all boils down to the same thing: the South's dependence on the institution of slavery and their potential loss of political power to defend that institution as the nation expanded westward.

Quote by: zynner (2) The South started it. False.

Sure they did. The Constitution made no provision for secession and it was an illegal rebellion, whether initially armed or not. The South compounded that by illegally seizing federal property, ending with the forced seizure of Fort Sumpter. There is only one condition under which rebellion is ever legal, zynner. If you win.

Quote by: zynner (3) Abraham Lincoln was preserving the union. False.

Of course he was. He put it most eloquently in his Gettysburg address. The creation of the United States as a democratic republic was a huge experiment, a form of government never before tried.. If parts of the federation can simply secede the moment they're unhappy with the will of the majority, then the experiment fails. What's to keep the North or the South from each splitting into two more countries, or splitting again over every little regional difference of opinion. If allowed to happen, then the very concept of "The United States of America" becomes meaningless, along with the concept of government for the people and by the people.

Quote by: zynner (4) Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves. False.

Well he personally freed at least SOME slaves, and in the end, all were freed from slavery. You can quibble about the degree of pragmatic political expediency involved, but in the end, the results were the same.

Quote by: zynner (5) Abraham Lincoln became a dictator. True.

I'm not gonna open that can of worms. :) Events today should serve to illustrate the debate over what constitutes a dictator.

Quote by: zynner (6) The 14th Amendment was illegally passed under martial law. True.

If you say so. And ratified by 3/4s of the several states.

.

[zynner]

Quote by: Sonart .It was completely about slavery, zynner.

It was started over economic issues (taxation), not slavery. The CSA even outlawed the importation of slaves. By 1860, slavery was being eliminated all over the world. Within that context, it doesn't even make sense to think the war was "about slavery."

The Constitution made no provision for secession and it was an illegal rebellion, whether initially armed or not.

The Declaration of Independence, Treaty of Paris (1783), Articles of Confederation and US Constitution all recognized the states as sovereign entities. The 10th Amendment clarifies that any power not delegated to the feds are reserved to the states and people.

If parts of the federation... along with the concept of government for the people and by the people.

Lincoln had no authority to decide the issue, so his speech is irrelevant.

Well he personally freed at least SOME slaves,

Not one.

If you say so. And ratified by 3/4s of the several states.

States were deprived of sufferage in the Senate and southern state legislatures were forced at gunpoint to vote for the 14th amendment. Therefore, the 14th was not passed in accordance with the Constitution.

~ zynner

[zynner]

BTW, the fact that the "Civil War" was fought over tariffs, not slavery, can be seen if you look into the facts leading up to the war.

War almost broke out in 1832 when South Carolina threated to seceed at that time. What was going on is, the South was paying most of the taxes (75%), but most of the tax money was spent in the North.

The North was a manufacturing economy while the South was agricultural. The South was dependen t on buying machinery. They could buy it from the North or Europe. But the importation tariffs from Europe were high. Why? Because the North had majority vote in Congress and they controlled both the tariff taxation rates and the spending.

The northern manufactureres priced their goods just under the cost of the total costs that the South would pay for European goods (price of goods, transporation costs, and tariff taxes). The northern manufacturing companies got windfall profits. The northern states got all the government spending for infrastructure. The South paid the bill. It was a wealth transfer from the South to the North.

War nearly broke out over this in 1832, when South Carolina threatened to seceed. The Compromise of 1850 attempted to solve this by having reasonable tariffs. But it didn't last.

The Republican Party put in its platform a plank for a new, high tariff (but not any abolition of slavery -- Lincoln wanted to protect slavery where it existed already). In 1861, the Morrill Tariff put a tax of 47% on imported goods, the highest tax in US history to that point. The South realized they could never be on equal footing. They would always be at the mercy of the North.

On March 4, 1861, Lincoln stated that he had no intention of intefering with slavery where it existed (he supported a proposed constitutional amendment to that effect). However, he would use force to collect the tariffs and hold the forts (the means to collect the taxes), if necessary.

Ft. Sumter, South Carolina, was a tax collection office, as well as a fort. Lincoln was told by his generals that the threat of force was useless because they would not be able to hold the forts. They could be taken over by the southern states, if it came down to it. Lincoln sent delegates to South Carolina and they told him that even so much as sending food to Ft Sumter as reinforcement would cause the South to fire as they would see it as an attempt to extract from them a tax they could not pay. Lincoln told the South he would not go to Sumter, but then he renegged and sent warships.

He baited the South into firing on Ft. Sumter and that sparked the war. It was about the tariffs.

~ zynner

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: zynner It was started over economic issues (taxation), not slavery.

No taxation without representation, eh? Well, I suppose if you're going to rewrite history, it helps to use the right role model.

Quote by: zynner The CSA even outlawed the importation of slaves. By 1860, slavery was being eliminated all over the world. Within that context, it doesn't even make sense to think the war was "about slavery."

The IMPORTATION of slaves. Not the sale or ownership. The CSA desperately wanted Great Britain to recognize their government, and Britain was virilently anti-slavery. Just wouldn't do to have the British Navy breaking the Federal Naval Blockade in the service of slave ships. Which was a moot point anyway, since Lincoln trumped the South with the Emancipation Proclamation, thus keeping the British from recognizing the South.

And while slavery was being eliminated all over the world, it was not being eliminated in the South because the Southern economy depended on it, regardless of whether abolitionist sentiment was sloooooooooooooooooooooowwwly gaining some support.

Quote by: zynner The Declaration of Independence, Treaty of Paris (1783), Articles of Confederation and US Constitution all recognized the states as sovereign entities. The 10th Amendment clarifies that any power not delegated to the feds are reserved to the states and people.

Yeah, I daresay the Declaration of Independence justifies rebellion since it was a declaration OF rebellion. Much has been made regarding the 2nd Amendment, that the Founders saw it as a guarantee of the rights of citizens to rebel against their own government. I'm sure the Founders would feel comfortable paying such lip service, since they'd already claimed the moral authority to rebel against their previous (British) government. I also daresay, however, that Washington, Madison, Jefferson, et al would not have continanced armed rebellion against THEIR governments. Odd how things change when the shoe of authority is on the other foot.

The 10th Amendment??? That's a bit of a stretch, zynner.

Quote by: zynner Lincoln had no authority to decide the issue, so his speech is irrelevant.

Sure he did....

Article II; Section 2 -- "The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;"

Article I; Section 8 -- "The Congress shall have power... to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;"

Quote by: zynner Not one.

Since the Emancipation Proclamation freed only those slaves from Confederate states, and since many slaves who escaped from those states were employed as free men in the service of the Union Army, you could make an arguement that made just as much sense as saying the 10th Amendment authorised secession.

.

[Sonart]

.

Zynner...Here are some of the various Declarations of Secession, explaining why these states were leaving the Union:

SOUTH CAROLINA

"The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue."

=======================================
GEORGIA

"The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property,"

=======================================
MISSISSIPPI

"In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."

=======================================
TEXAS

"Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?"

=======================================
ALABAMA

"Whereas, the election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of president and vice-president of the United States of America, by a sectional party, avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama, preceded by many and dangerous infractions of the constitution of the United States by many of the States and people of the Northern section, is a political wrong of so insulting and manacing a character as to justify the people of the State of Alabama in the adoption of prompt and decided measures for their future peace and security, therefore:

And as it is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South, who may approve such purpose, in order to frame a provisional as well as permanent Government upon the principles of the Constitution of the United States,"

=======================================
VIRGINIA

"The people of Virginia in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under said Constitition were derived from the people of the United States and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression, and the Federal Government having perverted said powers not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slave-holding States:"


Viewing these, I'm at a loss that you can still insist the war wasn't about slavery.

Oh, and by the way... Lincoln did in fact free all the slaves. He did it by the act, as Commander in Chief, of winning the Civil War.


.

[underbear1]

If at first you don't suceed, try, try, try again.
I'm sick of carrying those loser red states.

[bishop]

i've always liked the notion of seeing the northeastern states join together into their own mini-country...

[tman_ndsu08]

Good. Have your socialist paradise with 90% income tax.

I'll be out of there in a microsecond.

[Lilith]

"The servitude of the African race to the white race..." "the first settlement of the wilderness by the white race..." Now that's a damn shame.

You know several years ago, I took care of this paitent who's last name was Derossett, dear little old white lady from a very wealthy and classy family....Well one night I'm watching the History channel and this Civil War episode comes on about this General Derossett(I may have the last name misspelled, but close enough), he was a General in the Confederate army, from Virgina, and I get to thinking, Hey, that's so and so's last name and isin't her family originally from Virgina? Well, sure enough, it was so, the General was this little lady's deceased husband's great-great-great grandpappy or some such. They we're Virgina Bluebloods, could trace the bloodline all the way back to the Founding. Mighty proud of that. It's a small world after all......

[bishop]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Good. Have your socialist paradise with 90% income tax. I'll be out of there in a microsecond.

fine with me... you can heard up all the buffalo you like in your boondock paradise.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: bishop fine with me... you can heard up all the buffalo you like in your boondock paradise.

I think I'll live in a large metropolis with an unlimited supply of market goods at my finger tips while enjoying the rock bottom prices for services that only a free market can provide.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: underbear If at first you don't suceed, try, try, try again. I'm sick of carrying those loser red states.

I suppose there's always the question of who's carrying who. :rolleyes: For all that the south remains the poorest part of the country, the Republican 'Southern Strategy' has given them an inordinate amount of political power.

There was a joke in the 80's that 30 years later, Japan had finally won WWII. A cynic might suggest the same thing about the South. :eek:

Quote by: tman I'll be out of there in a microsecond.

Please don't feel obligated to hang around on our account, tman.

.