Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What Can We Learn from 1860?
Whiskey and Gunpowder ^ | 11-20-09 | Linda Brady Traynham

Posted on 11/26/2009 10:19:55 AM PST by dynachrome

What I think about secession basically is that it is a consummation devoutly to be wished, but a dangerous pursuit to advocate publicly. Janet Napolitano and the alphabet soup guys do not take kindly to the notion of freedom in any way, and for the precise reason that Abraham Lincoln did not. When asked why he didn’t just let the South go, Lincoln exploded in a rage, “Let the South go? LET THE SOUTH GO? How, then, should I fill my coffers?”

Documented historical fact. Look it up for yourselves. Winners write history and the North/Leftists have had nearly 160 years to spin their propaganda, but the fact is that the South was the wealthy portion of the country back then. Cotton was, indeed, king, the Feds had gotten themselves into monetary trouble, and bankruptcy was imminent! The back room Congressional brawls were over whether to declare the USA closed at the Mississippi and raise taxes, or to hit tariffs even harder to benefit their factories and shipping businesses, improving their bottom lines and increasing tax revenues. Greed and tariffs won. Hit the South for the enrichment of the North. Hit those who produced cane, corn, and cotton for the benefit of those who consumed and controlled shipping and rail transport and to increase federal control.

(Excerpt) Read more at whiskeyandgunpowder.com ...


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; History
KEYWORDS: civilwar; despotlincoln; dishonestabe; kkk; klan; lincolnwasaworm; lyingabe; north; revisionistnonsense; secession; skinheadsonfr; south; tyrantlincoln; warcriminal; wewonyoulosthaha; whitesupremacists
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-99 next last
Interesting take on secession.
1 posted on 11/26/2009 10:19:57 AM PST by dynachrome
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dynachrome
He needs to be back on his meds bookmark.
2 posted on 11/26/2009 10:23:50 AM PST by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dynachrome

A very good read. Hits the button!


3 posted on 11/26/2009 10:29:50 AM PST by o_zarkman44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dynachrome

Why do so many people find this KKK nonsense amusing? Is it because they imagine themselves as Scarlett in Gone With The Wind? Probably the same people who keep reelecting Robert Byrd.


4 posted on 11/26/2009 10:30:16 AM PST by iowamark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iowamark
KKK nonsense?

It is an historical fact that the tariff was a principle cause of the war, if not the cause. Why is it that Lincoln idolaters cannot allow him even the slightest of human faults, such as greed? It is, after all, what made him run for President to begin with.

5 posted on 11/26/2009 10:35:33 AM PST by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: dynachrome

If prosperity was in the South and the North was bankrupt then the South would have won the war, no?


6 posted on 11/26/2009 10:35:42 AM PST by decimon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dynachrome

I’m amazed that there are still yahoos out there debating this. She thinks that slavery was a distraction? If she looked at the statements of succession from the states who succeeded, she’ll find slavery listed. Also, the South was not devoted to States Rights. They once tried to get Constitutional protection for slavery, not only for themselves, but the entire nation, including states where it was illegal. They didn’t embrace States Rights until it became clear that the majority of the nation opposed it.

Here’s another fact the author didn’t mention. Abraham Lincoln could not have exploited the South because they succeeded before he even became President. Lincoln tried to appease them. He offered financial restitution for slave owners. He was even willing to tolerate slavery in the Southern states, albeit it reluctantly. They didn’t like the fact that he wanted to outlaw slavery in any future states to join the Union.

When the South succeeded, they had military bases which belonged to the nation they succeeded from. Those bases had not been built with southern money. If the South wanted to possess them, they had to buy them. But they wanted to take them, lock, stock, and barrell. Also, to cover the spark, it wasn’t the Union soldiers at Fort Sumpter who fired the first shot.

There’s a question of what would have happened if the South had won the war? I don’t believe that we would have won the Cold War with the Soviet Union. The United States would have been a second-tier power on the scale of Great Britain, France, and Germany, and the South would have been a Baptist Banana Republic.

There will always be extremists who second guess the obvious. In most other countries, they wouldn’t even have the right to do that.


7 posted on 11/26/2009 10:37:58 AM PST by Clintonfatigued (Liberal sacred cows make great hamburger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: decimon
If prosperity was in the South and the North was bankrupt then the South would have won the war, no?

Why do you assume such a simplistic thing that the richest always wins?

The South only had farm implements and such, the North was an industrial powerhouse able to manufacture millions of weapons, and had ALOT more people (for soldiers) than the South.

8 posted on 11/26/2009 10:42:50 AM PST by jeffc (They're coming to take me away! Ha-ha, hey-hey, ho-ho!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: decimon
Er, no.

A great bit of history is made up of countries being attacked for their wealth. The prosperity claim is a bit dubious nevertheless. The claim is true if and only if you count the squalid factory and mine workers of the North, but do not count the slaves of the South. But Slaves did have money, did make economic decisions, and were economic actors, not just production factors.

9 posted on 11/26/2009 10:43:04 AM PST by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp

Have you read any of the secession resolutions? They all make it quite clear that Slavery was the reason for secession.


10 posted on 11/26/2009 10:46:19 AM PST by iowamark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jeffc
...the North was an industrial powerhouse able to manufacture millions of weapons...

While bankrupt?

11 posted on 11/26/2009 10:48:58 AM PST by decimon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued
If she looked at the statements of succession from the states who succeeded...

Here we go again. The war consisted entirely of the North invading the South. It is the motives of the North alone that are important in analyzing the causes of the war. The war could have ended any time the North decided to let "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" actually happen somewhere.

Yes, slavery was used as a rallying cry to get support for secession in three of the state declarations of secession. But the main issues were the tariff and the victory of the Republican party, a party that publicly declared itself to be "a party of the North pledged against the South."

12 posted on 11/26/2009 10:50:02 AM PST by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: dynachrome

We learned that war can happen here and that the federal government believes it owns the States.


13 posted on 11/26/2009 10:50:54 AM PST by CodeToad (If it weren't for physics and law enforcement I'd be unstoppable!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dynachrome
http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm

Very interesting read..........

14 posted on 11/26/2009 10:55:03 AM PST by Osage Orange (Obama's a self-made man who worships his own creator...............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dynachrome

“What Can We Learn from 1860?”

Free enslaved Americans. Give them equal rights, then secede.


15 posted on 11/26/2009 11:02:50 AM PST by VanDeKoik (Iran doesnt have a 2nd admendment. Ya see how that turned out?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp

Did the secessionists want “government of the people, by the people, and for the people?” Do you know what percentage of the adult population of South Carolina were free, what percentage were allowed to vote?


16 posted on 11/26/2009 11:05:03 AM PST by iowamark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: iowamark
They all make it quite clear...

Only three of them cite slavery. Most of them simply say we secede. There is no question slavery was used to gen up support for secession among the Southern population after the decision to secede had been made. So what? The constant fallacy in these debates is in conflating secession with the cause of the war in the first place. The war was entirely a Northern project and the North pursued the war for its own ends, slavery not being among them.

17 posted on 11/26/2009 11:07:13 AM PST by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp

“Yes, slavery was used as a rallying cry to get support for secession in three of the state declarations of secession. But the main issues were the tariff and the victory of the Republican party, a party that publicly declared itself to be “a party of the North pledged against the South.”

So you are seriously telling me that most of these states just got really hacked off about a tariff and the election of a guy that hadn’t even been sworn-in, and just decided to up and leave the union?

So either they were all about protecting their enslavement of black Americans...Or they were hothead reactionaries.

Either way, the CSA was a basket-case from the go.


18 posted on 11/26/2009 11:09:58 AM PST by VanDeKoik (Iran doesnt have a 2nd admendment. Ya see how that turned out?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: iowamark
Do you know what percentage of the adult population of South Carolina were free, what percentage were allowed to vote?

Do you have any idea how blacks were treated in the North in those days? What percentage were allowed to vote and so on?

And why stop there? Why not indict the South for not allowing women to vote?

19 posted on 11/26/2009 11:11:19 AM PST by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: dynachrome

There are two relevant lessons from the Civil War:

(1) The only people who can beat Americans in military terms is other Americans. And it is UGLY. Incredibly UGLY. We killed more of our own than anyone else has killed in any other war.

(2) The side with the larger functional industrial base (esp energy and manufacturing) WINS. Period. Everything else is too equal. That was the North last time. God forbid we end up there again, but if it does, it would be the South this time.

That said, we REALLY don’t want to go there. Sadly, I think many of the statists in DC and the moribund big Northern cities don’t care if we do. They really think that they will win and see it as a shortcut to their marixst state.


20 posted on 11/26/2009 11:17:59 AM PST by piytar (Go Away RNC, Steele, Graham, and the rest of the lib-loser GOP. WE'RE TAKING OUR PARTY BACK!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VanDeKoik
So you are seriously telling me that most of these states just got really hacked off about a tariff and the election of a guy that hadn’t even been sworn-in, and just decided to up and leave the union?

Lincoln wasn't just "some guy". Here is a quote from Wendell Phillips, the chairman of the Republican party"

This state of things is just what we have attempted to bring about. It is the first sectional party ever organized in this country. It does not know its own face and calles itself national; but it is not national - it is sectional. The Republican party is a party of the North pledged against the South.

After 1860 the South lost control of both the presidency and congress to a party that had pledged to take the Northern side in every issue under contention (yes, including slavery). So why stay in the Union? They had only joined to begin with because they thought there would be mutual benefit. Why not just leave? It's the civil, peaceful thing to do.

21 posted on 11/26/2009 11:22:50 AM PST by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: piytar

Ooops, I goofed - more Americans were killed in WWII than the Civil War (but not by a huge amount). Given the populations and technology involved, though, the surprise is how close the casualities were...


22 posted on 11/26/2009 11:23:22 AM PST by piytar (Go Away RNC, Steele, Graham, and the rest of the lib-loser GOP. WE'RE TAKING OUR PARTY BACK!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: jeffc
The south's wealth was in farm products. The cotton embargo
killed the confeds when they could have bought war materiel and the blockade buried it.
BTW How many slaves in he US did Ole Abe free with the EP. Try
zero. To add insult to injury, Slaves in the river Parishes in LA, who thought that Ole Massa Abe would free them after they had been captured by the Feds were sadly disappointed when they remained slaves till the end of the war. After all Boy, somebody has to pick dat cotton.
barbra ann
23 posted on 11/26/2009 11:24:33 AM PST by barb-tex (Boycott the sponsors of Hopenhagen!! Coke. Google, Yahoo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp

The North didn’t fire the first shot. The South did steal military bases that didn’t rightfully belong to it.


24 posted on 11/26/2009 11:40:09 AM PST by Clintonfatigued (Liberal sacred cows make great hamburger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued
The North didn’t fire the first shot. The South did steal military bases that didn’t rightfully belong to it.

True, but Lincoln did everything he could to promote that incident, then bragged about having do so. Though he quickly shut up when four more states seceded as a result of it. BTW, Fort Sumter was mainly a tariff enforcement post.

25 posted on 11/26/2009 11:46:17 AM PST by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: dynachrome
When asked why he didn’t just let the South go, Lincoln exploded in a rage, “Let the South go? LET THE SOUTH GO? How, then, should I fill my coffers?”

Well then I'd say the South has gotten its revenge: more Southern than Northern states get more money back from the federal government than they chip in. I live in NJ, and for every $1 New Jerseyans send to DC, we get between 60 and 65 cents back (sucks to be us).

So the South may have not won the war, but they keep winning from the federal ATM machine.

Info on taxes here

26 posted on 11/26/2009 11:58:14 AM PST by kittykat77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dynachrome
Winners write history and the North/Leftists have had nearly 160 years to spin their propaganda...

And the losers write the myths, as this post so aptly demonstrates.

27 posted on 11/26/2009 12:00:10 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp
The war consisted entirely of the North invading the South. It is the motives of the North alone that are important in analyzing the causes of the war. The war could have ended any time the North decided to let "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" actually happen somewhere.

ROTFLMAO!!!! That's like the Japanese saying that World War II consisted entirely of the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

28 posted on 11/26/2009 12:06:29 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp
Only three of them cite slavery.

There were four Declarations of the Causes of Secession and they all prominently cite slavery as their reason for rebelling.

The constant fallacy in these debates is in conflating secession with the cause of the war in the first place. The war was entirely a Northern project and the North pursued the war for its own ends, slavery not being among them.

So what you're saying is that Lincoln tricked the confederacy into war and that the Southern leadership was too stupid to see through his trap? Doesn't say much about them, does it?

29 posted on 11/26/2009 12:10:22 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: barb-tex
BTW How many slaves in he US did Ole Abe free with the EP. Try zero.

Actually it freed all those in the areas covered by the Proclamation. It just took a while before many could take advantage of their freedom.

30 posted on 11/26/2009 12:12:56 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: nnn0jeh

ping


31 posted on 11/26/2009 12:14:10 PM PST by kalee (01/20/13 The end of an error.... Obama even worse than Carter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dynachrome

mark for later


32 posted on 11/26/2009 12:14:43 PM PST by Former Proud Canadian (How do I change my screen name now that we have the most conservative government in the world?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp
BTW, Fort Sumter was mainly a tariff enforcement post.

Do you honestly believe the nonsense you spout? It was an army fort, not a customs house.

33 posted on 11/26/2009 12:14:49 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued

BS! Texas didn’t even secede until after the Kansas massacre by the fomenting abolitionists. That’s why they put slavery in their document. In fact, Texans were already pissed that they’d been sending taxes to Washington DC and were receiving no help (sound familiar?) whatsoever against the border raids across the Rio Grande! The feds put one puny unit at Fort Davis! Texas seceded legally because they had no use whatsoever for Washington DC!

In fact, Lincoln in his arrogance and greed didn’t care what anyone else thought...he didn’t care that 3.5% of the population would be killed off in his Civil War...not to mention that Lincoln was a total racist who touted that slaves should be free, but should never consider themselves equal to whites,should not intermarry, NOR SHOULD THEY EVER BE ABLE TO HOLD PUBLIC OFFICE! His big idea was to round the Africans up and put them on ships outta here!

Lincoln was a predator, and he wanted the wealth of the tariffs from south because his industrial north could not compete with a wealthy south whose coastal border was vast and who had the corner on world trade shipping!


34 posted on 11/26/2009 12:27:06 PM PST by RowdyFFC (The opinion of a wise Welshtino woman...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: piytar
Ooops, I goofed - more Americans were killed in WWII than the Civil War (but not by a huge amount).

Wrong.

The American Civil War was the deadliest war in American history, resulting in the deaths of 620,000 soldiers and an undetermined number of civilian casualties.

In compaison, 418,500 Americans (incl. 416,800 military personnel and 1,700 civilians) died as a result of World War II.

Regards,

35 posted on 11/26/2009 12:33:06 PM PST by alexander_busek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: alexander_busek

Hmm, looked it up again and see you were right. Guess I was wrong about being wrong in my original post. Do two wrongs make a right here? LOL

PS Thanks for the correction.


36 posted on 11/26/2009 12:35:18 PM PST by piytar (Go Away RNC, Steele, Graham, and the rest of the lib-loser GOP. WE'RE TAKING OUR PARTY BACK!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: kittykat77

..and at least fifty cents of that dollar are applied, directly or indirectly, against your freedom and prosperity.


37 posted on 11/26/2009 12:37:32 PM PST by Erasmus (Sid's oxymorons: Postmodern Intellectualism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: RowdyFFC

Not to mention that states in the NORTH were still holding freaking slaves!!!! Just like the typical hypocrite!


38 posted on 11/26/2009 12:42:41 PM PST by RowdyFFC (The opinion of a wise Welshtino woman...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
And the losers write the myths, as this post so aptly demonstrates.

Both sides write myths, as I'm sure you will quickly demonstrate.

ROTFLMAO!!!! That's like the Japanese saying that World War II consisted entirely of the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Then I must have missed something in WWII. What American base on Japanese soil did the Japanese attack after asking us many times to leave?

There were four Declarations of the Causes of Secession and they all prominently cite slavery as their reason for rebelling.

The relevant legal declarations were called "Ordinances of Secession". Every state published one. Three mention slavery as a cause - South Carolina, Mississippi, and Texas. See Ordinances of Secession of the 13 Confederate States of America

So what you're saying is that Lincoln tricked the confederacy into war and that the Southern leadership was too stupid to see through his trap? Doesn't say much about them, does it?

Lincoln said this himself. But as to who wasn't very smart -- four more states seceded after Sumter so I don't think Lincoln was very smart either.

Actually it freed all those in the areas covered by the Proclamation. It just took a while before many could take advantage of their freedom.

And what did the proclamation do for the thousands of blacks captured behind Union lines and concentrated into Benjamin Butler's "contraband camps" - where they were starved, left to die of disease, charged with vagrancy and forced to perform free labor? The Emancipation Proclamation was merely a war measure designed to disrupt the Southern economy. I believe you had something to say about myths?

Do you honestly believe the nonsense you spout? It was an army fort, not a customs house.

No it wasn't a customs house. It was the control point for Charleston Harbor. It's guns covered every ship entering or leaving. Its main use during peacetime was as a threat to any ship attempting to avoid the port authorities.

39 posted on 11/26/2009 12:44:39 PM PST by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued

This mess all started because of that unpleasantness with your Majesty, the Good King George III. Had a few agitators and rabble-rousers not been able to force the nation into revolution, there would have been no NEED for a civil war to abolish slavery.

I call for rapprochement with the United Kingdom, posthaste.


40 posted on 11/26/2009 1:16:47 PM PST by ichabod1 ( I am rolling over in my grave and I am not even dead yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

My point was that the EP did nothing for the slaves in the USA. the EP only affected the CSA.
barbra ann


41 posted on 11/26/2009 1:27:25 PM PST by barb-tex (Boycott the sponsors of Hopenhagen!! Coke. Google, Yahoo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: barb-tex
My point was that the EP did nothing for the slaves in the USA. the EP only affected the CSA.

Strictly speaking they were all in the U.S., but legally Lincoln could only free those slaves in areas under control of the Southern rebellion. The others had to wait for the 13th Amendment, which Lincoln also pushed through.

42 posted on 11/26/2009 1:59:38 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp
Both sides write myths, as I'm sure you will quickly demonstrate.

I could never top the ones in the story this post is referencing no matter how hard I tried.

Then I must have missed something in WWII. What American base on Japanese soil did the Japanese attack after asking us many times to leave?

Well you did hit on the common thread between both. Both Japan and the Davis regime attacked a military base that did not belong to them, both lost their war, and both have spent much of the time since then whining about it.

The relevant legal declarations were called "Ordinances of Secession". Every state published one.

But four states published declarations on the causes leading to their secession. Their versions of the Declaration of Independence. And in all four slavery was the single most often reason mentioned.

Lincoln said this himself. But as to who wasn't very smart -- four more states seceded after Sumter so I don't think Lincoln was very smart either.

But Davis was convinced that by starting the war he'd get all 8 remaining slave states to join him. Who was more wrong?

And what did the proclamation do for the thousands of blacks captured behind Union lines and concentrated into Benjamin Butler's "contraband camps" - where they were starved, left to die of disease, charged with vagrancy and forced to perform free labor?

Hyperbole and Southron myth aside, Lincoln could only legally free the slaves being used to further the Southern rebellion. He could not touch the rest, that required an actual end to slavery. Which Lincoln accomplished with the 13th Amendment.

The Emancipation Proclamation was merely a war measure designed to disrupt the Southern economy. I believe you had something to say about myths?

True, and a highly effective one at that. What's mythical about that?

No it wasn't a customs house. It was the control point for Charleston Harbor. It's guns covered every ship entering or leaving. Its main use during peacetime was as a threat to any ship attempting to avoid the port authorities.

Again, more myth. Sumter's purpose was to defend Charleston from attack. That was also the purpose of Fort Moltrie and Castle Pinkney and every other army fort up and down the coast. The organization tasked with enforcing the tariff and limiting smuggling was the U.S. Revenue Service, the precursor to the Coast Guard.

43 posted on 11/26/2009 2:10:00 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: RowdyFFC
Texas didn’t even secede until after the Kansas massacre by the fomenting abolitionists.

Wuh?

..not to mention that Lincoln was a total racist...

Well hell, then Lee and Davis and Jackson and every other Southern leader you would care to name was a total racist, too. None of them thought blacks should be anything but slaves, much less intermarry or enjoy any rights at all. Shouldn't we disparage them as well?

44 posted on 11/26/2009 2:15:34 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Which Lincoln accomplished with the 13th Amendment.

You might want to check the date on that.

L

45 posted on 11/26/2009 2:24:30 PM PST by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: dynachrome
Slavery was not the only factor in the War for Southern Independence.
The South was fighting for

1) the right of secession
2) property rights
3) right of self defense and self preservation, and self determination
4) right to liberty
5) right to oppose, resist and escape from oppression and tyranny(of the North, Federal, and of the majority)
6) states rights
7) state independence
8) state sovereignty
9) right to withdraw or recall any or all delegated powers from the central government if those powers were used to oppress
10) the principle that the union and the constitution was a compact among the several sovereign states
11) the principle that the states are united in a confederacy
12) the principle that the people have the right to live under the consent of the governed
13) the right to resist the initiation of force
14) the idea of the federal government is an agent of a conditional union
15) free trade
16) limited government
17) preservation of the South’s institutions, culture, society, traditions, and way of life

46 posted on 11/26/2009 2:33:26 PM PST by mjp (pro-{God, reality, reason, egoism, individualism, independence, limited government, capitalism})
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Well you did hit on the common thread between both. Both Japan and the Davis regime attacked a military base that did not belong to them,

Except of course, Sumter was SC territory, the Sumter attack was provoked, and was a legitimate police action against a foreign occupier.

But Davis was convinced that by starting the war he'd get all 8 remaining slave states to join him. Who was more wrong?

Davis didn't want a war and did not set out to start one. Lincoln deliberately sought war. That makes him more wrong. Remember the war could have ended any day Lincoln decided to live by his own stated ideals - "government of the people...".

Hyperbole and Southron myth aside, Lincoln could only legally free the slaves being used to further the Southern rebellion.

How does a man "legally" acquire the right to dispose of property in another country? It was a military measure, nothing more.

Which Lincoln accomplished with the 13th Amendment.

Which Lincoln hoped and planned to be a prelude to a massive back-to-Africa deportation campaign.

The organization tasked with enforcing the tariff and limiting smuggling was the U.S. Revenue Service, the precursor to the Coast Guard.

Are you referring to the US Revenue Cutter Service? That service operated against smugglers at sea. Enforcement of port regulation was the responsibility of local port authorities, which in important ports (where the customs takings were good) were backed up by the army.

Sumter is a cork in the mouth of Charleston harbor. It controls all the traffic coming in and out. That's why Lincoln wanted it and that's why South Carolina couldn't let him keep it. Lincoln made it clear in his inaugural address that SC could secede if they wanted to but he was going to collect the tariff anyway.

47 posted on 11/26/2009 2:38:26 PM PST by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

You might want to crack a book sometime. Or did you get your history from some liberal?

Jefferson Davis was already preparing his slaves, as were many southern slave holders, to be freed men. He had provided schools for them, he alotted them lands to grow and sell their vegetables and keep their money and learn how to manage it, and he let them set up their own court systems to deal with criminals in their midst.

It’s mind boggling when you crack a book and read facts instead of drinking the kool-aide.

The fact is, Lincoln really didn’t give a flip about slavery, he used it as a tool to rally Northern troops to kill off their own neighbors....


48 posted on 11/26/2009 2:58:57 PM PST by RowdyFFC (The opinion of a wise Welshtino woman...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

Back in those days only land owners and men could vote.
That was a state by state policy, accepted on a state by state basis, nationwide.

We should then assume that all of the Southern voters were free. They were capable of making the decisions required of statehood, and or secession if the federal government no longer honored the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.

The federal government intruded on the rights of the citizens of the south by imposing tariffs on their goods, imposing taxes on the population, and then used the human rights argument against slavery to invoke the “feelings” of the population at large to support military infringement when certain states balked.

Certainly that same human rights argument is being used against Americans today with bulked up civil rights laws, slavery reparations and entitlements. How could a person NOT “feel” badly for the oppressed minority without otherwise being called a racist or hate monger.

I find the parallels between 1860 and today are very close.
The government wants to rule the people. But the people have other ideas that coincidentally include freedom and liberty.


49 posted on 11/26/2009 3:21:52 PM PST by o_zarkman44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: piytar

Much of the disparity was due to the state of medical technology. Many of the wounded who died in the War Between the States would have been saved by WWII medical technology and converesely the numbers of WWII wounded would have been VASTLY higher with Civil War medicine. A more useful ratio is wounded vs dead, far higher in WWII. 96% of the wounded who made it alive to Battalion Aid and higher medical facilities in WWII survived.

They hadn’t even discovered (Not til the 1870’s) Joseph Lister’s germ theory which was instrumental in developing practical applications of of disease control (notably gangrene) with respect to surgical techniques.


50 posted on 11/26/2009 3:27:27 PM PST by DMZFrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-99 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson