150th Anniversary of the War for Southern Independence

[nate895]

If you want to be more ignorant about the war, read this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/13456_repjacksonleadsdrivetoinvestblacksincivilwar stressprimaryroleofslavery

This is one of those cases where you know the "academic consensus" might be different if it weren't for the fact that the Federal government dominates all aspects of education. From kindergarten through Ph.D programs, the Federales dominate funding and idea dissemination, in addition to the fact that the state governments operate most of the largest universities in the country. Now, Congressmen aren't satisfied with the K-12 propaganda machine and want to expand it to the wider public.

I really dislike when Union supporters act as if everyone from the South was fightin' to keep the black man down. The average Johnny Reb soldier didn't give a you-know-what whether some rich planter would get to keep slaves. Heck, some of the Southern generals were moderate abolitionists themselves. Then, on the other hand, you have some Southern loyalists who absolutely refuse to admit that some of the Southerners, including many of the most influential, wanted to perpetuate slavery for the time being.

The most annoying part of that debate is that it doesn't really matter anymore. We cannot change why bullets were fired 150 years ago. Don't get me wrong, I'm proud of the fact my ancestors fought for the South, and if the issue came up for a vote again, I'd be the first to vote for independence. I occasionally even advocate for it. However, I wouldn't do so out of some kind of misplaced loyalty to my ancestors to go out and risk my life (which, if you vote for secession, you better be willing to do if you're of fighting age) for the "Lost Cause." I'd vote for it because I want small local government, I have an attachment to where my family is from, and I much prefer the Southern founders (Jefferson, Madison, Washington, and Henry, okay, well, Virginian founders) to the Yankee ones (Hamilton, Adams, and even Franklin).

/rant by War of Northern Aggression Buff on the 150th anniversary of the shots being fired at Fort Sumter.

[SamuraisWisdom]

Why can't you call it the Civil War? The country split in two and fought each other, that's the definition of a civil war...

[WilliamC]

The South never should have fired on Fort Sumpter.

Kentucky and Maryland would probably have joined them in a few months, and if that happened war would have been next to impossible as DC would have been surrounded.

[WilliamC]

Why can't you call it the Civil War? The country split in two and fought each other, that's the definition of a civil war...

Actually it's not. A civil war is when both sides are fighting to control the entire country, like in Libya. The War Between The States was the Confederacy fighting for independence, with the albatross of slavery hanging onto it's neck though.

[CharlesTX]

Why can't you call it the Civil War? The country split in two and fought each other, that's the definition of a civil war...

A civil war is where two opposing groups are fighting for complete control of a country. The south didn't want to control the "union". The southern states wanted to break away from the northern states and form their own union.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

I read the article, obviously liberals, academics, statists, etc are gun ho to make sure ALL history books paint southerners and slavery loving racists ready to die to protect their plantations.

My whole thing is though, as a black man I just cant celebrate "The War of Southern Independence" Yes, I know the war wasn't all about slavery, yes I know the vast majority of northerners hated black people. I thin most black folks know this which is why there isnt much interest from black people when it comes to "celebrating" the Civil War." I can do nothing but respect people that fought for their property and their rights. But at the same time, I'm happy slaves were freed. Obviously this could have come about many other ways besides going to war. But what happened, happened. I just wish it could have happened in a more peaceful manner. I believe a lot of racism and hatred was bread from all the lives lost in the war. But, what can you do.

[acptulsa]

I don't know. An abolitionist was elected, and even though there was little he could do for blacks without Congressional support, slave states broke away for states' rights. This was obviously not the straw that broke the camel's back, but rather the felled oak which broke the camel's back. A peaceful solution would have taken decades longer. Would that have been more disruptive, destructive and disehartening? And there was no shortage of racism before the war.

The Enlightened Age was only that in comparison to what came before. We've come a long way since then. Thank God.

[fisharmor]

Problem: 13% of the population is in slavery 100% of the time.
Solution: Enforce legal doctrines which turn 100% of the people into slaves 50% of the time.
Progress!

[aGameOfThrones]

The war of northern aggression.

[Travlyr]

I read the article, obviously liberals, academics, statists, etc are gun ho to make sure ALL history books paint southerners and slavery loving racists ready to die to protect their plantations.

My whole thing is though, as a black man I just cant celebrate "The War of Southern Independence" Yes, I know the war wasn't all about slavery, yes I know the vast majority of northerners hated black people. I thin most black folks know this which is why there isnt much interest from black people when it comes to "celebrating" the Civil War." I can do nothing but respect people that fought for their property and their rights. But at the same time, I'm happy slaves were freed. Obviously this could have come about many other ways besides going to war. But what happened, happened. I just wish it could have happened in a more peaceful manner. I believe a lot of racism and hatred was bread from all the lives lost in the war.

I believe that a lot of racism and hatred is still perpetuated by the ruling class as a divide and conquer technique. That is why the government keeps track of 'race' on official forms.

And, of course America would have ended slavery peacefully, just like the rest of the world did. Chattel slavery was a centuries old expensive inefficient dying & despicable institution. Interchangeable parts, mass production, and the industrial age were rapidly changing the methods of production.

The "War Between The States" was fought so that the bankers could gain control of America's resources. The ruling class was watching their grasp on control over the people eroding in front of their eyes. The empire would have been nearly impossible to expand without America's resources, and fiat money, in hands of the elite. The Western states are still primarily owned by the Federal government while the Eastern states had already been dished out to individuals.

Some evidence of this comes from Salmon P. Chase the $10,000 poster child of the Federal Reserve debasing currency to fund the war... greenbacks. And the 14th Amendment that was 'ratified' under duress... which, btw, clearly states that the war debt 'shall not be questioned' because the war increased the public debt by 50 times or more. The bankers were taking no chances, so they used a constitutional amendment to get their money from the taxpayers.


Amendment 14 Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.


But, what can you do.
Together, we must End The Fed.

This book (http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Money-Civil-Federal-Reserve/dp/1589803981) is well researched and documented.
Blood Money: The Civil War and the Federal Reserve by John Remington Graham

[HOLLYWOOD]

Check this out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp5OkzH2HA8


Here's the UK (BBC) coverage...

If Lincoln was such the humanitarian, then why did he make the claims/statements he did about slaves/Africans and why did he wait 3 years to delivery the Emancipation proclamation and Coincidentally, AFTER he found out the South was giving any slave his freedom, if he fights with the Confederacy against the Union. There's many documented instances of battalions of Confederate Black soldiers defending cities like Richmond, Atlanta, and Charleston.
The victors rewrite history to their populist opportunities, but now we have another version of slavery and it doesn't matter how comfortable the oligarchical-collectivism government system makes it for the individual, it's still a form of slavery and non compliance can imprisoned any citizen serf. Then the repercussions of a 100 years of bitterness and blame with those who continue to carry the burden of grudge.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13040351
11 April 2011 Last updated at 21:52 ET US Civil War 150th anniversary: How US remains divided


Historian Bernard Powers talks about the history of slavery and why it provoked South Carolina to become the first state to secede
Continue reading the main story (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13040351#story_continues_1)

'US not come to terms with racial history' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13022129)
Why I fly the Confederate flag (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13022128)
Southerners remember Confederacy (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12488150)


The US is commemorating the 150th anniversary of the country's most destructive conflict, the Civil War. In Charleston in the state of South Carolina, where the war erupted, the BBC's Paul Adams says Americans remain divided over the roots of the conflict to this day.
On a patch of open ground near Charleston, the US Civil War came vividly, noisily to life on a rainy Sunday in late March.
Re-enactors played out the 1864 Battle of Bloody Bridge, a victory for Southern, or Confederate, forces over Northern, or Union, troops.
The show was colourful and educational, too.
But here in the cradle of the Civil War, with its sesquicentennial just around the corner, this is a piece of painful history which continues to rankle.
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/52115000/jpg/_52115186_lineofmen304x171.jpg
Civil War re-enactments bring together enthusiasts from across the country
The war lasted four years, claiming the lives of more than 600,000 soldiers
and an unknown number of civilians. The South was defeated and slavery outlawed.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/51326000/gif/_51326978_civilwarmapus464x320_2.gif

[nate895]

I read the article, obviously liberals, academics, statists, etc are gun ho to make sure ALL history books paint southerners and slavery loving racists ready to die to protect their plantations.

My whole thing is though, as a black man I just cant celebrate "The War of Southern Independence" Yes, I know the war wasn't all about slavery, yes I know the vast majority of northerners hated black people. I thin most black folks know this which is why there isnt much interest from black people when it comes to "celebrating" the Civil War." I can do nothing but respect people that fought for their property and their rights. But at the same time, I'm happy slaves were freed. Obviously this could have come about many other ways besides going to war. But what happened, happened. I just wish it could have happened in a more peaceful manner. I believe a lot of racism and hatred was bread from all the lives lost in the war. But, what can you do.

I can totally get where you are coming from, but I hope you can get where I'm coming from. From the White Southern mentality, the Northerners came down and waged total war upon a whole people, basically starving and burning a whole population into submission. I rejoice in the fact that the slaves were freed, but that joy that I feel for that is tempered by the pain of the South's totally destroyed economy, which was primarily due to the fact that the South (particularly west of the Appalachians) was pillaged for 4 years, and it took a long time for the industrial revolution to really get up and running in the South and improve the economic conditions.

Another thing is that I hope that we can eventually get past racism. It happened, and that should never be forgotten, but it needs to be forgiven and whites, blacks, Asians, etc. need to realize that we are all being oppressed by a massive Federal leviathan. Even though I want to keep our current U.S. as it is with a smaller Federal government as the Founders originally intended, I cannot help but feel like we have let a dragon out of a cage so to speak, and there is nothing we can do but tear the Union asunder in order to have liberty. The only way that's ever going to happen is if all the different people groups in the United States figure out their beef is not with each other, it is with a Federal monster that likes to take sides.

[bwlibertyman]

Is this true?

The disagreement persists, despite Abraham Lincoln's observation, in his inaugural address of 1861, that slavery was "the only substantial dispute".

[nate895]

Is this true?

The disagreement persists, despite Abraham Lincoln's observation, in his inaugural address of 1861, that slavery was "the only substantial dispute".

It is very clear from the get go that he believed that slavery was the issue, or at least the only major one. I am not sure he used those words, but that was the gist of his rhetoric. However, we cannot take the words of the leader of one side of an issue as the source of authority on the cause of the war. It would behoove Lincoln to make the war about slavery in order to give himself the moral high ground. Few people would fight for the mere purpose of preserving a political union, particularly compared to how many the North needed to win. However, you might fight to preserve a union if you think the only thing Johnny Reb is fighting for is the right to keep slaves, even if you aren't a hardcore abolitionist.

[Fox McCloud]

Why can't you call it the Civil War? The country split in two and fought each other, that's the definition of a civil war...

No, it's not. The South seceded and formed its own country---for it to be a civil war, it has to be two (or more) factions vying for power in the same political union.

This wasn't the case with the south (again, since they were not the United States anymore), so it's impossible for it to be a civil war.

[acptulsa]

Such a fine line. I don't think the term civil war is all that inaccurate. After all, one side was fighting for control of part of the former country, and the other side was fighting to maintain control over all of it.

At the time, it was called 'the war of northern aggression' or 'the war to maintain the union'. Both are somewhat unwieldy.

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

This day means a great deal to me not only as a history buff but as the descendent of men who were there when the first shots were fired and who were there with Lee, Johnson and Waite when their forces surrendered and men who lost their lives on fields of battle or in the barbaric Union prison camps. I listen to a lot of period music and even play some as well but these three stand out the most to me on this day: Battle Cry Of Freedom

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTBswxoaGIE

Everybody's Dixie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfE7dGyONks

and I'm a good ole Rebel


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRFCsOXxIz0&feature=related

[fisharmor]

It is very clear from the get go that he believed that slavery was the issue, or at least the only major one. I am not sure he used those words, but that was the gist of his rhetoric. However, we cannot take the words of the leader of one side of an issue as the source of authority on the cause of the war.

Actually, I'd rather like to.
So would DiLorenzo.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo206.html

[Grubb556]

Did the Emanicipation Proclamation not apply to the slave states that were loyal to the Union ?

[acptulsa]

Did the Emanicipation Proclamation not apply to the slave states that were loyal to the Union ?

I'm not recalling that there were any of those. But the Proclamation applied to all states that were in the Union.

[fisharmor]

Did the Emanicipation Proclamation not apply to the slave states that were loyal to the Union ?
It did not.

Also little known facts:
The 13th Amendment was ratified December 6, 1865 - the surrender at Appomattox was on April 12, 1865.
The 13th Amendment does not "abolish slavery". It makes slavery illegal 'except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted'.

[acptulsa]

It did not.

Really? You sure?

Learn something every day.

[Mini-Me]

How about "The War of Two Monstrous American Central Governments Throwing Hoards of 'Expendable' Human Beings at Each Other"?

Lincoln was a tyrant, and the only thing he really cared about was keeping the union together, i.e. under centralized control. The Confederate government was run by insane hypocrites who wanted their freedom from the North but had no problem with chattel slavery (and their slavery obsession was one of the biggest reasons the North was harassing them anyway). Everyone seems to want to take a side on the Civil War and defend it to the death, but I frankly don't think either side deserves to be lionized. Both governments involved were abominable and evil, for different reasons.

[fisharmor]

I'm not recalling that there were any of those. But the Proclamation applied to all states that were in the Union.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090127134704AAEfdJk
"Delaware, Maryland, Missouri West Virgina and Kentucky were the slave states that did not secede from the Union."
Of course, West Virginia broke off from Virginia without following any legal procedure, but they were with the Union, so fuck it, that's ok.

[nate895]

How about "The War of Two Monstrous American Central Governments Throwing Hoards of 'Expendable' Human Beings at Each Other"?

'Cause defending yourself from a monster is indefensible.

I don't think you realize that the South was facing that hadn't been faced since ancient times: The attempt to fully subdue a people and quash all spirit of resistance. The South had no choice but to respond the way it did, even though the states only under intense pain colluded with the Confederate government, and that was after it was too late.

[fisharmor]

West Virginia broke off from Virginia without following any legal procedure

I knew I had read this before:

Section 14. Government should be uniform. That the people have a right to uniform government; and, therefore, that no government separate from, or independent of, the government of Virginia, ought to be erected or established within the limits thereof.


Pretty sure that's original text.
So yeah, not only was there no law (and still does not exist any law) forbidding the secession of the southern states -
- there was also a law specifically prohibiting West Virginia seceding from Virginia.
So the next time someone tells you that the south had no right to secede, you're all armed to tell that person where to get off.

[Mini-Me]

'Cause defending yourself from a monster is indefensible.

I don't think you realize that the South was facing that hadn't been faced since ancient times: The attempt to fully subdue a people and quash all spirit of resistance. The South had no choice but to respond the way it did, even though the states only under intense pain colluded with the Confederate government, and that was after it was too late.

My edited post more clearly lays out my thoughts here. The South's moment of moral failure came before the North invaded. They seceded over harassment from the North, which is all fair and good, except for one minor little detail...their evil, hypocritical obsession with chattel slavery was a big reason the North was harassing them in the first place. The Civil War wasn't entirely about slavery, because ending slavery was not the Lincoln administration's goal...but it was still the biggest catalyst, and the South could have avoided all of it if they weren't so hellbent on enslaving people.

The North should not be lionized, because what they did was horrific...but the South was equally despicable. Note that when I refer to the North and South, I'm referring to the governments.

[fisharmor]

because ending slavery was not the Lincoln administration's goal...but it was still the biggest catalyst

"The civil war was about slavery" = "They hate us for our freedoms"

Both statements are equally intellectually honest.

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

The EP also exempted areas of the Confederacy that were under Union control as well as areas that were still in the union (through choice or force). In fact Lincoln saw slaves outside of the Oval Office window every day so nobody can say he just forgot they existed. The EP was nothing more than a political ploy to keep England and the majority of the rest of Europe from giving official recognition to the Confederacy. Lincoln also found himself with a major problem after he intercepted known British ambassadors to the Confederacy and had them imprisoned. England responded by sending troops to the Canadian border and organizing them for an invasion into New England. So Lincoln suddenly decide the war was now a moral crusade against evil slave holders because he knew the people of England would revolt in the streets if they thought their government was fighting to preserve slavery as abolitionism was the cause du jour of England (and the bulk of Europe) at the time.

[Mini-Me]

"The civil war was about slavery" = "They hate us for our freedoms"

Both statements are equally intellectually honest.

I didn't say the Civil War was about slavery. I said slavery was the catalyst. Without it, the tension between the North and South never would have escalated so far. Is that really incorrect to say? Lincoln's motivation was not noble but tyrannical in nature...but that still doesn't make the South admirable. It just makes them both scorn-worthy. I just don't understand the urge to pick a side and defend it to the death.

[nate895]

My edited post more clearly lays out my thoughts here. The South's moment of moral failure came before the North invaded. They seceded over harassment from the North, which is all fair and good, except for one minor little detail...their evil, hypocritical obsession with chattel slavery was a big reason the North was harassing them in the first place. The Civil War wasn't entirely about slavery, because ending slavery was not the Lincoln administration's goal...but it was still the biggest catalyst, and the Southern states could have avoided all of it if they weren't so hellbent on enslaving people in the first place.

Most Southerners, outside of the Slavocrats, had an ultimate goal of ending slavery. There were many influential Slavocrats in the Confederate Government, but they were not the majority, and Jefferson Davis (their leader, mind you) was by no means a Slavocrat. Jefferson Davis even educated his slaves in the law by holding trials for his slaves instead of just punishing them according to his will. I'm not defending slavery, but we cannot go back to a time and convict a people of heinous sin when they lived in entirely different circumstances. That would be like convicting us 150 years from now for not ending Social Security right away.

Yes, slavery was (and still is) a bane upon humanity, but that does not mean that all those who held slaves were morally repugnant people and negates anything else that they do. Despite the fact that the Founders owned slaves, they had great ideas about the role of government. The same might be said for many of the people who led the Southern Confederacy, and many of them were beginning to realize by the end of the war that they should get rid of slavery in order to maintain their independence. However, they realized it too late, and here we are 150 years later paying for it with a monster in Washington, D.C.

[Mini-Me]

Most Southerners, outside of the Slavocrats, had an ultimate goal of ending slavery. There were many influential Slavocrats in the Confederate Government, but they were not the majority, and Jefferson Davis (their leader, mind you) was by no means a Slavocrat. Jefferson Davis even educated his slaves in the law by holding trials for his slaves instead of just punishing them according to his will. I'm not defending slavery, but we cannot go back to a time and convict a people of heinous sin when they lived in entirely different circumstances. That would be like convicting us 150 years from now for not ending Social Security right away.

Yes, slavery was (and still is) a bane upon humanity, but that does not mean that all those who held slaves were morally repugnant people and negates anything else that they do. Despite the fact that the Founders owned slaves, they had great ideas about the role of government. The same might be said for many of the people who led the Southern Confederacy, and many of them were beginning to realize by the end of the war that they should get rid of slavery in order to maintain their independence. However, they realized it too late, and here we are 150 years later paying for it with a monster in Washington, D.C.

I agree that we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. For instance, the Founding Fathers were wise about the role of government (or at least much wiser than the vast majority of people since), even the slave-owners. In hindsight, we can see that they were extremely unwise to form a singular union with the gigantic and contentious issue of slavery still unresolved...but there's the rub: We still CAN morally condemn the slavocrats, because the very fact that slavery was already controversial back then demonstrates that YES, they should have known better. All of the Enlightenment writings on liberty and individual rights demonstrate that they DID know better, and the better men of the time were already making passionate abolitionist arguments. Simply put, they were just too morally repugnant to do the right thing, much like war profiteers of today are simply too morally repugnant to do the right thing.

I can forgive some of them, who at least recognized the wrongness of their hypocrisy and moved toward abolition. For many, like Thomas Jefferson, the forgiveness simply goes without saying. I can even forgive the ones who were struggling with the issues. On the balance, most of them were people who tried to do the right thing, but who had moral failings as well. However, I absolutely cannot forgive the worthless cretins who fought tooth and nail for their "right" to own slaves. I'm referring to the "slavocrats" as you called them. From the moment the ink dried on the Constitution, these petty tyrants sealed the nation's fate. They ENABLED the federal leviathan, because they enabled Lincoln, and why? Was it in the name of a noble cause that backfired? No, it was because they were too evil to allow slavery to end, because their own petty self-interest trumped everything, including the most fundamental rights of other people. My opinion of their personal character could not be lower (actually, it could; I should never underestimate the ability of evil people to get worse).

Will our descendants judge us for Social Security? Perhaps, and maybe they should. At the very least, they should judge most of us for our stupidity in supporting such a program, if not for our ill-formed morals in doing so. However, no matter how devastating Social Security (etc.) is because of its size and scope, it will still have a more plausible moral defense hundreds of years from now than perpetuating chattel slavery did hundreds of years ago.

[nate895]

I can forgive some of them, who at least recognized the wrongness of their hypocrisy and moved toward abolition...and I can even forgive the ones who were struggling with the issues. On the balance, most of them were people who tried to do the right thing, but who had moral failings as well. However, I absolutely cannot forgive the worthless cretins who fought tooth and nail for their "right" to own slaves. I'm referring to the "slavocrats" as you called them. From the moment the ink dried on the Constitution, these petty tyrants sealed the nation's fate. They ENABLED the federal leviathan, because they enabled Lincoln, and why? Was it in the name of a noble cause that backfired? No, it was because they were too evil to allow slavery to end, because their own petty self-interest trumped everything, including the most fundamental rights of other people. My opinion of their personal character could not be lower.

Will our descendants judge us for Social Security? Perhaps, and maybe they should. At the very least, they should judge most of us for our stupidity in supporting such a program, if not for our ill-formed morals in doing so. However, no matter how devastating Social Security (etc.) is because of its size and scope, it will still have a more plausible moral defense hundreds of years from now than chattel slavery did hundreds of years ago.

What I'm saying is that most Southerners, even the ones who owned slaves, had a moral problem with it. Not all, but most, including the President of the Confederate States. The South simply did not have a solution as to what they were going to do with a third of their population. Virginia debated this problem after Nat Turner's rebellion, and they could not come up with a solution everyone was comfortable with. The best solution that involved abolition from a practical standpoint was to distribute the gradually freed slaves across the Union where they could find jobs, but that involved dispersing slaves away from their owners, and most owners had familial affection towards their slaves, so that was not an acceptable solution to most.

Put yourself in a Southern leader's shoes: You have a third of the people you are a leader of in bondage. Most likely, you don't like this. However, the only solutions that present themselves are either torturous emotionally or painful economically. What are you supposed to do? That might be easy for us to answer standing here almost 150 years after the slaves were freed, but what if you were actually a Southern politician?

[Mini-Me]

What I'm saying is that most Southerners, even the ones who owned slaves, had a moral problem with it. Not all, but most, including the President of the Confederate States. The South simply did not have a solution as to what they were going to do with a third of their population. Virginia debated this problem after Nat Turner's rebellion, and they could not come up with a solution everyone was comfortable with. The best solution that involved abolition from a practical standpoint was to distribute the gradually freed slaves across the Union where they could find jobs, but that involved dispersing slaves away from their owners, and most owners had familial affection towards their slaves, so that was not an acceptable solution to most.

Put yourself in a Southern leader's shoes: You have a third of the people you are a leader of in bondage. Most likely, you don't like this. However, the only solutions that present themselves are either torturous emotionally or painful economically. What are you supposed to do? That might be easy for us to answer standing here almost 150 years after the slaves were freed, but what if you were actually a Southern politician?

The Southern population's willingness to free slaves would have been extremely easy to test: Free them by law, and see if they voluntarily choose to remain with their former owners of their own accord. Freedom means freedom, not forced separation. If the former slaves had chosen to leave, that would have said something about how much they appreciated being forced to stay for their own good. If they had chosen to stay, perhaps the families might have been able to come to mutually beneficial arrangements with their former slaves through negotiation instead of, you know...forcing them to remain on the plantation and bow to their will, under penalty of law. Maybe they could have <gasp> actually paid wages (the horror!). If that was economically unviable, then maybe both parties would have voluntarily agreed to some variation of their previous arrangement...but with the option to leave if they saw a better opportunity or didn't like their treatment. Options are a good thing. Freedom is a good thing.

That's my answer now, and that's what my answer would have been 150 years ago as a Southern politician. I guess I couldn't have been a hardcore libertarian back then, but I would have been a classical liberal, and that's close enough. Especially if slaves and owners were so fond of each other, why would the logistics ever have been a problem for high and mighty central planners to have to solve? If such an answer would have made me unelectable, that wouldn't have said much about the South's desire to free their slaves.

In any case, my beef isn't with the Southern population. Regardless of the century in question, I'm not one to condemn entire populations. My beef is with the assholes in power who clung to slavery so long (with no damn excuse for it) that they let things escalate so far. They could have simply abolished slavery (in the above manner) and waited to see if the harassment from the North stopped. If it did, great. If not, they could have seceded without the North having had any moral justification/excuse for invading.

[Legend1104]

Here is the thing. Secession does not equal civil war. Those are two seperate events. Most southerners hoped to leave in peace. Many of the orginial southern states to leave may have left for many different reasons (including but not limited to slavery issues) but to say the civil war was about slavery does not work because secession and the civil war were different events i.e. one did not have to lead to the other. The civil war was started because lincoln did not want the south to leave the union. That is what he said, that is the reason.

[heavenlyboy34]

I believe that a lot of racism and hatred is still perpetuated by the ruling class as a divide and conquer technique. That is why the government keeps track of 'race' on official forms.

And, of course America would have ended slavery peacefully, just like the rest of the world did. Chattel slavery was a centuries old expensive inefficient dying & despicable institution. Interchangeable parts, mass production, and the industrial age were rapidly changing the methods of production.

The "War Between The States" was fought so that the bankers could gain control of America's resources. The ruling class was watching their grasp on control over the people eroding in front of their eyes. The empire would have been nearly impossible to expand without America's resources, and fiat money, in hands of the elite. The Western states are still primarily owned by the Federal government while the Eastern states had already been dished out to individuals.

Some evidence of this comes from Salmon P. Chase the $10,000 poster child of the Federal Reserve debasing currency to fund the war... greenbacks. And the 14th Amendment that was 'ratified' under duress... which, btw, clearly states that the war debt 'shall not be questioned' because the war increased the public debt by 50 times or more. The bankers were taking no chances, so they used a constitutional amendment to get their money from the taxpayers.




Together, we must End The Fed.

This book (http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Money-Civil-Federal-Reserve/dp/1589803981) is well researched and documented.
Blood Money: The Civil War and the Federal Reserve by John Remington Graham

+rep

[awake]

The Civil war did not end slavery. Sure, it coincided with the inevitable; that a man should not be able to own another, but it did nothing to stop the state from doing so. I can't own another human being against their will, I would be arrested, the state however never bats an eye when it tells you to hand over half your production or else.

Slaves had free healhcare too.

[Theocrat]

The Civil War did not free the slaves. It simply extended the plantation. Now we're all slaves of the federal government.

[Matt Collins]

I'm happy slaves were freed. Obviously this could have come about many other ways besides going to war. But what happened, happened. I just wish it could have happened in a more peaceful manner. I believe a lot of racism and hatred was bread from all the lives lost in the war. But, what can you do.I think if the invasion of the South to prevent their independence hadn't have happened, slavery would've peacefully ended not long after that as it did in almost the rest of the western world. A variety of reasons lead me to that conclusion, both humanitarian, and economic.

[Matt Collins]

The war of northern aggression.
But war was never declared was it? :confused:

[Matt Collins]

"War between the states" doesn't hold up either. Why? Because they were not individual states, they were national governments, the northern national (supposedly federal) government and the southern national (federal) government. States were never at war with each other... their national governments were.


The most neutral phrases are "the invasion of the South" or "the 'war' for/against Southern independence"

[Legend1104]

The South will rise again. I just hope it isn't out of the ashes of the USA.

[K466]

"War between the states" doesn't hold up either. Why? Because they were not individual states, they were national governments, the northern national (supposedly federal) government and the southern national (federal) government. States were never at war with each other... their national governments were.


The most neutral phrases are "the invasion of the South" or "the 'war' for/against Southern independence"

Good points Matt. Tom Woods calls it the "War between the states" in the PIG to American History, but I think something along the lines that you suggested is more accurate and neutral.

[cajuncocoa]

"War between the states" doesn't hold up either. Why? Because they were not individual states, they were national governments, the northern national (supposedly federal) government and the southern national (federal) government. States were never at war with each other... their national governments were.


The most neutral phrases are "the invasion of the South" or "the 'war' for/against Southern independence"

Good point!

[Matt Collins]

Good points Matt. Tom Woods calls it the "War between the states" in the PIG to American History, but I think something along the lines that you suggested is more accurate and neutral.
I got it from Kevin Gutzman in the PIG to the Constitution.

[jmdrake]

I think if the invasion of the South to prevent their independence hadn't have happened, slavery would've peacefully ended not long after that as it did in almost the rest of the western world. A variety of reasons lead me to that conclusion, both humanitarian, and economic.

Matt, if you believe that you must have never heard of the convict lease system. Shortly after the civil war some southern states set up a system where black men and women could be arrested for fake crimes like vagrancy, put in prison, and then leased out to local industry. (The men typically worked in coal mines at least in the Birmingham area. Women typically worked on farms). So neither economics nor "humanitarianism" ended slavery in the south even after the civil war. The convict lease system lasted until the 1920s. It was somewhat better than the old slave system in that children couldn't be convicted like that, and there was an easier opportunity to "vote with your feet" and move north.

[K466]

I got it from Kevin Gutzman in the PIG to the Constitution.

Haven't been able to read that one yet. Hoping to do that soon.

[heavenlyboy34]

Matt, if you believe that you must have never heard of the convict lease system. Shortly after the civil war some southern states set up a system where black men and women could be arrested for fake crimes like vagrancy, put in prison, and then leased out to local industry. (The men typically worked in coal mines at least in the Birmingham area. Women typically worked on farms). So neither economics nor "humanitarianism" ended slavery in the south even after the civil war. The convict lease system lasted until the 1920s. It was somewhat better than the old slave system in that children couldn't be convicted like that, and there was an easier opportunity to "vote with your feet" and move north.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/murphy/murphy130.html

MR. RUSSERT: I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. "According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery."
REP. PAUL: Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn't have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the — that iron, iron fist.
MR. RUSSERT: We'd still have slavery.
REP. PAUL: Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I'm advising that it should have been done is do like the British Empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years? I mean, the hatred and all that existed. So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.

[nate895]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/murphy/murphy130.html

MR. RUSSERT: I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. "According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery."
REP. PAUL: Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn't have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the — that iron, iron fist.
MR. RUSSERT: We'd still have slavery.
REP. PAUL: Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I'm advising that it should have been done is do like the British Empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years? I mean, the hatred and all that existed. So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.


You mean it's better to find a peaceful solution, even if it takes time and effort? But I want my way now!

Seriously, some statists sound more like toddlers than adults.

[Galileo Galilei]

The whole point of joining the Union was to protect the states from foreign aggression. The South foolishly left the safety of the Union and were quickly gobbled up by a superior military power.

[nate895]

The whole point of joining the Union was to protect the states from foreign aggression. The South foolishly left the safety of the Union and were quickly gobbled up by a superior military power.

Might makes right, apparently. Excuse me if I'm not exactly proud that the Federal regime I live under invented modern total war and starved a whole people into submission.

[Galileo Galilei]

Might makes right, apparently. Excuse me if I'm not exactly proud that the Federal regime I live under invented modern total war and starved a whole people into submission.

err, it not right, it is reality. The South left the Union. Once they left the Union, it was none of their damn business whether Lincoln followed the Constitution. You actually think that defense of a nation can be done by yelling to the invader "Might ain't right!"? How'd that work out for Poland when Hitler invaded?

[nate895]

err, it not right, it is reality. The South left the Union. Once they left the Union, it was none of their damn business whether Lincoln followed the Constitution. You actually think that defense of a nation can be done by yelling to the invader "Might ain't right!"? How'd that work out for Poland when Hitler invaded?

So they should have taken it while they were in the Union? Should we just give up when we meet a superior force on the battlefield? I'm sorry, but I have more spirit of resistance in me than a Frenchman. I don't give up fights just because the odds are against me.

[Galileo Galilei]

So they should have taken it while they were in the Union? Should we just give up when we meet a superior force on the battlefield? I'm sorry, but I have more spirit of resistance in me than a Frenchman. I don't give up fights just because the odds are against me.

If the South had stayed in the Union, no invasion would have succeeded or has ever succeeded. It would even have been attempted. I hazard a guess that you still don't understand the concept of the Union, when the states banded together they could protect themselves from foreign invaders. The ancient Greeks did the same thing. United we stand, divided we fall, ever heard that one?

[jmdrake]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/murphy/murphy130.html

MR. RUSSERT: I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. "According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery."
REP. PAUL: Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn't have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the — that iron, iron fist.
MR. RUSSERT: We'd still have slavery.
REP. PAUL: Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I'm advising that it should have been done is do like the British Empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years? I mean, the hatred and all that existed. So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.


Did you even read what I wrote before you reflexively posted this? Slavery didn't end in the south even after the civil war. The convict leasing system took its place. Further Lincoln tried compensated emancipation. I pointed that out when the Tim Russert interview came out as a way for Dr. Paul to defend himself against the attacks of "You want to pay the bad guys to stop being bad guys". Since Lincoln tried to do it, it was not "racist" of Ron Paul to suggest it. But on the flip side since Lincoln tried to do it and FAILED (except in Washington D.C.) that means that it's not as easy as people think.

Anyway, I've posted this before, but I'll post it again.


Abraham Lincoln

Compensated Emancipation
Historian Olivier Frayssé noted Mr. Lincoln's support for compensated emancipation dated to the 1840s. "Lincoln came down in favor if indemnifying the owner of a slave stolen by the English in 1814 and against the abolition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia and a fortiori against the abolition of slavery there. After the campaign in the summer of 1848 and the rise of anti-extensionist pressure Lincoln's position evolved. When a new case to indemnify a slaveholder appeared, Lincoln began by voting in favor of a 'bill for the relief of the legal representatives of Antonio Pacheco,' who had lost a slave during an Indian war, before voting, in vain, against it. Was this a significant change in Lincoln's position on the property rights of slaveholders? Perhaps it was merely a defensive reaction in response to the bitterness of the strictly sectional debate because this position was contradicted by the rest of Lincoln's attitude. He always insisted that the emancipation of slaves should be compensated financially and should be voluntary. This might have been, then, a sort of parliamentary 'war measure,' foreshadowing another war measure taken by the commander in chief 1862.1

Historian John Hope Franklin wrote of President Lincoln : "In the fall of 1861 he attempted an experiment with compensated emancipation in Delaware. He interested his friends there and urged them to propose it to the Delaware legislature. He went so far as to write a draft of the bill, which provided for gradual emancipation, and another which provided that the federal government would share the expenses of compensating masters for their slaves. Although these bills were much discussed, there was too much opposition to introduce them."2 With less than 2000 slaves in the whole state, Delaware seemed like an ideal laboratory for President Lincoln's idea, but Congressman George Fisher was unable to get state legislative approval for the idea.

Meanwhile, the President worked a compensated emancipation plan for all slave-owning states. In early 1862, President Lincoln told abolitionist Mocure D. Conway that southerners "had become at an early day, when there was at least a feeble conscience against slavery, deeply involved commercially and socially with the institution. He pitied them heartily, all the more that it had corrupted them; and he earnestly advised us to use what influence we might have to impress on the people the feeling that they should be ready and eager to share largely the pecuniary losses to which the South would be subjected if emancipation should occur. It was the disease of the entire nation, all must share the suffering of its removal."3

President Lincoln told New York businessman-journalist James R. Gilmore: "The feeling is against slavery, not against the South. The war has educated our people into abolition, and they now deny that slaves can be property. But there are two sides to that question. One is ours, the other, the southern side; and those people are just as honest and conscientious in their opinion as we are in ours. They think they have a moral and legal right to their slaves, and until very recently the North has been of the same opinion. For two hundred years the whole country has admitted it and regarded and treated the slaves as property. Now, does the mere fact that the North has come suddenly to a contrary opinion give us the right to take the slaves from their owners without compensation? The blacks must be freed. Slavery is the bone we are fighting over. It must be got out of the way to give us permanent peace, and if we have to fight this war till the South is subjugated, then I think we shall be justified in freeing the slaves without compensation. But in any settlement arrived at before they force things to that extremity, is it not right and fair that we should make payment for the slaves?"4
.
.
.
http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/inside.asp?ID=35&subjectID=3

[jmdrake]

You mean it's better to find a peaceful solution, even if it takes time and effort? But I want my way now!

Seriously, some statists sound more like toddlers than adults.

Excuse me, but what exactly what statists are you referring to? Anyway, Lincoln attempted compensated emancipation and failed. And yes, this was after the south already seceded. But the point is if the border states wouldn't sign on to the plan, what makes you think the rest of the confederacy would have?

[jmdrake]

So they should have taken it while they were in the Union? Should we just give up when we meet a superior force on the battlefield? I'm sorry, but I have more spirit of resistance in me than a Frenchman. I don't give up fights just because the odds are against me.

If you can get what you want without ever joining the battlefield then why take up arms against a superior force? South Carolina nullified the tariff of the abominations out of existence. The Morill tariff could never have passed except for secession. So if fighting tariffs was the cause, secession was a stupid plan.

[Pericles]

If you can get what you want without ever joining the battlefield then why take up arms against a superior force? South Carolina nullified the tariff of the abominations out of existence. The Morill tariff could never have passed except for secession. So if fighting tariffs was the cause, secession was a stupid plan.

That is why one of the contemporaries remarked - "South Carolina is too small to be a country and too large to be an insane asylum."

[nate895]

Excuse me, but what exactly what statists are you referring to? Anyway, Lincoln attempted compensated emancipation and failed. And yes, this was after the south already seceded. But the point is if the border states wouldn't sign on to the plan, what makes you think the rest of the confederacy would have?

You know, sometimes, when you have been pissed at someone else for long enough, you say no just because it's them. Maybe the South just didn't like the North anymore. It's not like they were ever best friends. The Southerners always thought of Northerners as a bunch of snooty Puritans, and the Northerners thought of all the Southerners as promiscuous. The alliance at the War for Independence was out of sheer pragmatism, not a sense of common identity. The Southerner remained skeptical of the Northern trader and Northerners continued to think of the South as a bunch of lazy planters.

Also, Lincoln's plans for emancipation always involved shipping the slaves off somewhere else, and most Southerners who had slaves actually liked them *gasp*. Furthermore, Lincoln only offered those plans after they were already shooting at each other over something more important to the South: Independence. The South held, at least from the time that shots were fired, that independence was more important than what happened to the slaves. Even the slavocrat Alexander Stephens proposed emancipation in exchange for independence in January 1865 (before the South thought its situation hopeless, btw), and that was the consensus amongst Southerners for some time before that. Many state legislatures had blacks serving in their militias from the outset, thinking it more important to fight for independence than keep them as slaves (there was a long tradition of freeing slaves who shed blood/fought for their masters).

[nate895]

If you can get what you want without ever joining the battlefield then why take up arms against a superior force? South Carolina nullified the tariff of the abominations out of existence. The Morill tariff could never have passed except for secession. So if fighting tariffs was the cause, secession was a stupid plan.

When did I say tariffs were the cause? I think they were an issue, but, as with many wars, there was a long relationship that broke down. It wasn't like Lincoln's election all of the sudden sparked something that wasn't there before. It just caused the pot to boil over. The South realized it had lost its political power and that it was going to remain the minor party. Why should they have stayed? They were not friends with the North, they were not well-represented in the federal government, and a Presidential candidate just got elected that wasn't even on the ballot in 10 Southern states. If a candidate can get elected without a single Southern vote, why wouldn't they feel a bit angry and left out? I know I'd be angry if that happened to me.

[Galileo Galilei]

"Hurrah! Old Abe Lincoln has been assassinated! It may be abstractly wrong to be so jubilant, but I just can't help it. After all the heaviness and gloom of yesterday this blow to our enemies comes like a gleam of light."

Emma LaConte's diary, age 17, April 21, 1865

http://docsouth.unc.edu/fpn/leconteemma/leconte.html

[heavenlyboy34]

You know, sometimes, when you have been pissed at someone else for long enough, you say no just because it's them. Maybe the South just didn't like the North anymore. It's not like they were ever best friends. The Southerners always thought of Northerners as a bunch of snooty Puritans, and the Northerners thought of all the Southerners as promiscuous. The alliance at the War for Independence was out of sheer pragmatism, not a sense of common identity. The Southerner remained skeptical of the Northern trader and Northerners continued to think of the South as a bunch of lazy planters.

Also, Lincoln's plans for emancipation always involved shipping the slaves off somewhere else, and most Southerners who had slaves actually liked them *gasp*. Furthermore, Lincoln only offered those plans after they were already shooting at each other over something more important to the South: Independence. The South held, at least from the time that shots were fired, that independence was more important than what happened to the slaves. Even the slavocrat Alexander Stephens proposed emancipation in exchange for independence in January 1865 (before the South thought its situation hopeless, btw), and that was the consensus amongst Southerners for some time before that. Many state legislatures had blacks serving in their militias from the outset, thinking it more important to fight for independence than keep them as slaves (there was a long tradition of freeing slaves who shed blood/fought for their masters).

This^^ Thanks for posting, sir. +rep

[jmdrake]

You know, sometimes, when you have been pissed at someone else for long enough, you say no just because it's them. Maybe the South just didn't like the North anymore. It's not like they were ever best friends. The Southerners always thought of Northerners as a bunch of snooty Puritans, and the Northerners thought of all the Southerners as promiscuous. The alliance at the War for Independence was out of sheer pragmatism, not a sense of common identity. The Southerner remained skeptical of the Northern trader and Northerners continued to think of the South as a bunch of lazy planters.


And that's really "adult" isn't it? I mean really, for all the talk about "statists" acting like children, this is funny. Oh, and the south was made up of a bunch of "statists" as well. The worst kind in fact. They were in general not at all interested in "states rights" when it came to things like fugitive slave laws. In that case it was the northern states who engaged in nullification.



Also, Lincoln's plans for emancipation always involved shipping the slaves off somewhere else, and most Southerners who had slaves actually liked them *gasp*. Furthermore, Lincoln only offered those plans after they were already shooting at each other over something more important to the South: Independence. The South held, at least from the time that shots were fired, that independence was more important than what happened to the slaves. Even the slavocrat Alexander Stephens proposed emancipation in exchange for independence in January 1865 (before the South thought its situation hopeless, btw), and that was the consensus amongst Southerners for some time before that. Many state legislatures had blacks serving in their militias from the outset, thinking it more important to fight for independence than keep them as slaves (there was a long tradition of freeing slaves who shed blood/fought for their masters).

Lincoln's plan did not involve "shipping slaves off". That's a revisionist nonsense. It was compensated emancipation along with voluntary repatriation for the slaves who wanted it! The idea that the south was against this because of the repatriation issue is just plain laughable. Here is the D.C. Emancipation Act, the only compensated emancipation act that actually passed and the model for all of the rest.

An Act for the Release of certain Persons held to Service or Labor in the District of Columbia

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons held to service or labor within the District of Columbia by reason of African descent are hereby discharged and freed of and from all claim to such service or labor; and from and after the passage of this act neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except for crime, whereof the party shall be duly convicted, shall hereafter exist in said District.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That all persons loyal to the United States, holding claims to service or labor against persons discharged therefrom by this act, may, within ninety days from the passage thereof, but not thereafter, present to the commissioners hereinafter mentioned their respective statements or petitions in writing, verified by oath or affirmation, setting forth the names, ages, and personal description of such persons, the manner in which said petitioners acquired such claim, and any facts touching the value thereof, and declaring his allegiance to the Government of the United States, and that he has not borne arms against the United States during the present rebellion, nor in any way given aid or comfort thereto: Provided, That the oath of the party to the petition shall not be evidence of the facts therein stated.

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That the President of the United States, with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint three commissioners, residents of the District of Columbia, any two of whom shall have power to act, who shall receive the petitions above mentioned, and who shall investigate and determine the validity and value of the claims therein presented, as aforesaid, and appraise and apportion, under the proviso hereto annexed, the value in money of the several claims by them found to be valid: Provided, however, That the entire sum so appraised and apportioned shall not exceed in the aggregate an amount equal to three hundred dollars for each person shown to have been so held by lawful claim: And provided, further, That no claim shall be allowed for any slave or slaves brought into said District after the passage of this act, nor for any slave claimed by any person who has borne arms against the Government of the United States in the present rebellion, or in any way given aid or comfort thereto, or which originates in or by virtue of any transfer heretofore made, or which shall hereafter be made by any person who has in any manner aided or sustained the rebellion against the Government of the United States.
.
.
.
Sec. 11. And be it further enacted, That the sum of one hundred thousand dollars, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, is hereby appropriated, to be expended under the direction of the President of the United States, to aid in the colonization and settlement of such free persons of African descent now residing in said District, including those to be liberated by this act, as may desire to emigrate to the Republics of Hayti or Liberia, or such other country beyond the limits of the United States as the President may determine: Provided, The expenditure for this purpose shall not exceed one hundred dollars for each emigrant.

[jmdrake]

When did I say tariffs were the cause? I think they were an issue, but, as with many wars, there was a long relationship that broke down. It wasn't like Lincoln's election all of the sudden sparked something that wasn't there before. It just caused the pot to boil over. The South realized it had lost its political power and that it was going to remain the minor party. Why should they have stayed? They were not friends with the North, they were not well-represented in the federal government, and a Presidential candidate just got elected that wasn't even on the ballot in 10 Southern states. If a candidate can get elected without a single Southern vote, why wouldn't they feel a bit angry and left out? I know I'd be angry if that happened to me.

Well the "It was about tariffs" is the usual argument. But "it was because we didn't get our way in the last election" is even more childish. The North doing the south in? It was a SOUTHERN president (Andrew Jackson) that sparked the nullification crisis! That's like the Georgia NAACP suing because there too many overwhelmingly white electoral districts. You are right about one thing. The political power of the South was waning. That's why they were so concerned about whether or not slavery would be allowed to expand to the new territories.

[Legend1104]

Funny. I got to teach my kids about the shelling of ft. Sumter today in my history class. After I explained it to them I actually had kids that said they did not like Lincoln anymore and some that supported seccession.

[Mini-Me]

Well the "It was about tariffs" is the usual argument. But "it was because we didn't get our way in the last election" is even more childish. The North doing the south in? It was a SOUTHERN president (Andrew Jackson) that sparked the nullification crisis! That's like the Georgia NAACP suing because there too many overwhelmingly white electoral districts. You are right about one thing. The political power of the South was waning. That's why they were so concerned about whether or not slavery would be allowed to expand to the new territories.

I'm liking this turn in the discussion, because I'm learning new things (either that or things I had forgotten). I never knew about Lincoln's attempts at compensated emancipation. Since you didn't rebut the claim that Lincoln made the offers after the fighting started, I assume that's actually the case? If so, I don't think it's fair to say the offers really "counted." Once the fighting started, or even after the Southern states seceded, the South was already "all in." There was just no way they would have gone back and accepted any offer, because the time for such offers was earlier. Lincoln might have even tried ramming such a measure through Congress* before any states had already decided to secede, given the South's political impotence. Then again, that might have sparked secession anyway, which follows your argument that it wasn't so simple. It would have been worth a try though, had emancipation been Lincoln's actual goal...but noooooooooo!

*If anyone cites unconstitutionality, may I remind you that this was Lincoln? ;)

[nate895]

Well the "It was about tariffs" is the usual argument. But "it was because we didn't get our way in the last election" is even more childish. The North doing the south in? It was a SOUTHERN president (Andrew Jackson) that sparked the nullification crisis! That's like the Georgia NAACP suing because there too many overwhelmingly white electoral districts. You are right about one thing. The political power of the South was waning. That's why they were so concerned about whether or not slavery would be allowed to expand to the new territories.

You totally ignored my main point: That the South had a multiplicity of reasons for seceding, the primary one being that they simply no longer wanted to be in a political union with the North. The South never liked the North, and visa versa. The South chose, instead of attempting to force its will on the North, to leave and go their own way and figure it out for themselves.

The idea that the South thought the position of slavery in the Union was insecure is simply ridiculous as well. There were 15 slaves states in 1860. There are 50 states in the Union today, two of which would never have been though of 1860. It takes 38 states to ratify a Constitutional amendment. 50-38=12. The South would still, to this very day, have enough states to block an amendment to ban slavery. Southerners aren't stupid, they could have done the math in 1860 as well.

[nate895]

Lincoln's plan did not involve "shipping slaves off". That's a revisionist nonsense. It was compensated emancipation along with voluntary repatriation for the slaves who wanted it! The idea that the south was against this because of the repatriation issue is just plain laughable. Here is the D.C. Emancipation Act, the only compensated emancipation act that actually passed and the model for all of the rest.

An Act for the Release of certain Persons held to Service or Labor in the District of Columbia

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons held to service or labor within the District of Columbia by reason of African descent are hereby discharged and freed of and from all claim to such service or labor; and from and after the passage of this act neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except for crime, whereof the party shall be duly convicted, shall hereafter exist in said District.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That all persons loyal to the United States, holding claims to service or labor against persons discharged therefrom by this act, may, within ninety days from the passage thereof, but not thereafter, present to the commissioners hereinafter mentioned their respective statements or petitions in writing, verified by oath or affirmation, setting forth the names, ages, and personal description of such persons, the manner in which said petitioners acquired such claim, and any facts touching the value thereof, and declaring his allegiance to the Government of the United States, and that he has not borne arms against the United States during the present rebellion, nor in any way given aid or comfort thereto: Provided, That the oath of the party to the petition shall not be evidence of the facts therein stated.

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That the President of the United States, with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint three commissioners, residents of the District of Columbia, any two of whom shall have power to act, who shall receive the petitions above mentioned, and who shall investigate and determine the validity and value of the claims therein presented, as aforesaid, and appraise and apportion, under the proviso hereto annexed, the value in money of the several claims by them found to be valid: Provided, however, That the entire sum so appraised and apportioned shall not exceed in the aggregate an amount equal to three hundred dollars for each person shown to have been so held by lawful claim: And provided, further, That no claim shall be allowed for any slave or slaves brought into said District after the passage of this act, nor for any slave claimed by any person who has borne arms against the Government of the United States in the present rebellion, or in any way given aid or comfort thereto, or which originates in or by virtue of any transfer heretofore made, or which shall hereafter be made by any person who has in any manner aided or sustained the rebellion against the Government of the United States.
.
.
.
Sec. 11. And be it further enacted, That the sum of one hundred thousand dollars, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, is hereby appropriated, to be expended under the direction of the President of the United States, to aid in the colonization and settlement of such free persons of African descent now residing in said District, including those to be liberated by this act, as may desire to emigrate to the Republics of Hayti or Liberia, or such other country beyond the limits of the United States as the President may determine: Provided, The expenditure for this purpose shall not exceed one hundred dollars for each emigrant.


When was that proposed, and where was it ever advocated by Lincoln? And how does it disprove my point: The South didn't like the North anymore. They wanted to be independent. It doesn't matter the reason. The only thing that you can do to overthrow that is to prove that the South intended on perpetuating the institution of slavery into eternity. That's simply a bogus assertion.

[jmdrake]

When was that proposed, and where was it ever advocated by Lincoln? And how does it disprove my point: The South didn't like the North anymore. They wanted to be independent. It doesn't matter the reason. The only thing that you can do to overthrow that is to prove that the South intended on perpetuating the institution of slavery into eternity. That's simply a bogus assertion.

It disproves your "point" that Lincoln wanted to ship all of the slaves out of the U.S. Now if you want to just ignore your own points that is on you. As for the South wanting to perpetuate slavery, read this from the southern declarations of secession.

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

Georgia
[Copied by Justin Sanders from the Official Records, Ser IV, vol 1, pp. 81-85.]

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, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation. Our Northern confederates, after a full and calm hearing of all the facts, after a fair warning of our purpose not to submit to the rule of the authors of all these wrongs and injuries, have by a large majority committed the Government of the United States into their hands. The people of Georgia, after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with equal firmness that they shall not rule over them. A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution. While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation.

Or how about this?

Mississippi
[Copied by Justin Sanders from "Journal of the State Convention", (Jackson, MS: E. Barksdale, State Printer, 1861), pp. 86-88]
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

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.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

There's more at the link I provided. Anyone who claims that South didn't intend to indefinitely perpetuate slavery is either uninformed or not being honest with themselves. Slavery was not the only issue, but it was certainly an issue.

[Matt Collins]

Matt, if you believe that you must have never heard of the convict lease system. Shortly after the civil war some southern states set up a system where black men and women could be arrested for fake crimes like vagrancy, put in prison, and then leased out to local industry. (The men typically worked in coal mines at least in the Birmingham area. Women typically worked on farms). So neither economics nor "humanitarianism" ended slavery in the south even after the civil war. The convict lease system lasted until the 1920s. It was somewhat better than the old slave system in that children couldn't be convicted like that, and there was an easier opportunity to "vote with your feet" and move north.
I think that system existed, as well as many of the Jim Crow laws, as a result of the forceful end of slavery. If slavery had ended peacefully I think there may have been less anger and resentment towards former slaves. And I would also like to think that instituted racism wouldn't have continued well into the mid 20th century either.

Although there is NEVER an acceptable time for slavery, allowing it to end organically would probably have produced a different society than ending it with violence. Did instituted racism exist in other western societies after slavery was peacefully abolished?

[raiha]

You know, sometimes, when you have been pissed at someone else for long enough, you say no just because it's them. Maybe the South just didn't like the North anymore. It's not like they were ever best friends. The Southerners always thought of Northerners as a bunch of snooty Puritans, and the Northerners thought of all the Southerners as promiscuous. The alliance at the War for Independence was out of sheer pragmatism, not a sense of common identity. The Southerner remained skeptical of the Northern trader and Northerners continued to think of the South as a bunch of lazy planters.

"Cracker Culture" by Grady McWhiney explores these differences in his lively and hilarious also poignant history of the roundheads and cavaliers revamped in "the Chosen Land."
Abraham Lincoln worshipped money. His war was about money. He was a cunning avaricious little shit with a foxy, weasely face and loved Henry Clay and Hamiltonian plots. preserving the Union was about preserving the Empire and all the MONEY, Commerce and territorial acquisition that would entail: Canada, Alaska, Cuba
Ha! What war was ever about altruism? Oh yes the Libyan invasion, I forgot!!!:mad:

Charles Dickens said "The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern States."
Lincoln explaining the reason for his emancipation proclamation: "Things had gone from bad to worse, until I felt we had reached the end of our rope on the plan we were pursuing; that we had about played our last card, and must change our tactics or lose the game. I now determined upon the adoption of the the EP."

As a non American my history was the South was bad (nasty slavers) and the North was good.(altruistic abolitionists.) When i learnt the truth of the matter, I became more than a little irate at the hypocritical spin from the victors at being CONNED.
I knew nothing of suspension of habeus corpus, closing down newspapers, imprisoning anyone who disagreed with him including clerics and also issuing an arrest warrant for the very old Chief Justice.

[Legend1104]

Once again it seems that people have forgotten that seccession and the "civil war" were two different events. One did not lead to the other. It is true that slavery is one of the reasons given for leaving the Union (at least for 3 or 4 of them) but that has nothing to do with the civil war. The south wanted to leave in peace. Davis even sent Peace Ambassadors to Lincoln, but he refused to see them. Lincoln started the civil war through blant aggression and he even said it did not have to do with slavery. Just because the South left, party because of slavery, does not mean the civil war was also because of slavery. Two events, two different causes.

[Aratus]

150 years ago today the two great armies were mobilizing their volunteers
and 146 years ago today andrew johnson was getting over the shock of
having to place his hand on a bible at roughly 11 a.m the previous day.

[Aratus]

this was a war that killed roughly 2% of the population.
there are 600,ooo dead soldiers an' roughly 400,ooo dead
civilians, bringing the number of deaths up to a million souls...