The Great Civil War Lie

NY Times Disunion ^ | June 5, 2013 | MARC-WILLIAM PALEN

[iowamark]

Civil War buffs have long speculated about how different the war might have been if only the Confederacy had won formal recognition from Britain. But few recognize how close that came to happening — and how much pro-Southern sympathy in Britain was built on a lie...

Early British support for the South was further buttressed by something as mundane as a protective tariff — the Morrill Tariff — approved by Congress on March 2, 1861. This new tariff, passed to protect American infant industries, also unwittingly gave rise to a troublesome myth of mounting trans-Atlantic proportions.

The tariff had been opposed by many Southern legislators, which is why it passed so easily once their states seceded. But this coincidence of timing fed a mistaken inversion of causation among the sympathetic British public – secession allowed the tariff to pass, but many in Britain thought that the tariff had come first, and so incensed the Southern states that they left the union.

Nor was this a simple misunderstanding. Pro-Southern business interests and journalists fed the myth that the war was over trade, not slavery – the better to win over people who might be appalled at siding with slave owners against the forces of abolition...

Why was England so susceptible to this fiction? For one thing, the Union did not immediately declare itself on a crusade for abolition at the war’s outset. Instead, Northern politicians cited vague notions of “union” – which could easily sound like an effort to put a noble gloss on a crass commercial dispute.

[Sam Gamgee]

Really? I’ve heard otherwise. I know a white woman that fled the South because of the black on white racism so prevalent there. She says all this talk about racism is made up.

[0.E.O]

A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact absolving the seceding party from the obligation imposed by it.

Well OK, if it's the Rives letter you want then fine. What about this part here?

"The characteristic distinction between free Governments and Governments not free is, that the former are founded on compact, not between the Government and those for whom it acts, but between the parties creating the Government. Each of those being equal, neither can have more rights to say that the compact has been violated and dissolved, than every other has to deny the fact, and to insist on the execution of the bargains."

So the Southern states claimed that the compact was abused and was dissolved. What made them right and the Northern states wrong, when they said the compact had not been abused and was not dissolved?

[rockrr]

What’s that got to do with either your comment or mine?

[Drawsing]

A Southerner would never have used the word “Nigger” for instance, which Northerners clumsily tossed around.

I grew up in the south in the 60s. "Nigger" was used by many of the whites in my rural neighborhood. I heard it from kids and adults. My parents taught me better, but most of my schoolmates and their parents had no qualms about it. Use of the word died down in the 70s and 80s.

[0.E.O]

The US Republic was notorious in its early days in using tariffs to protect industries, which frankly only went to reward some (northern industry) at the expense of others (the South).

Why? Were tariffs only collected in the South?

[MamaTexan]

Well OK, if it's the Rives letter you want then fine. What about this part here?

I didn't say anything about 'wanting' the Rivas letter, I was calling you out because you tried the same thing several days ago. I made the point then that:

1) The Rivas letter is marked confidential and is the only letter I've seen by Madison that contains this proviso:

Having many reasons for marking this letter confidential, I must request that its publicity may not be permitted in any mode or through any channel. Among the reasons is the risk of misapprehensions or misconstructions,

2) AND the paper Madison was writing ABOUT cannot be found, so we really don't have much of point of reference for what he is speaking OF.

I'm not going to play 'nitpick the letter' with someone who has just displayed such intellectual dishonesty and a blatant disregard for the facts on the subject.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

If it were not for the southern colonies during the Revolution, there would have been no United States

It was New Englanders, not southerners, who stood up with weapons and opposed the British to begin the Revolution, and the war was fought for three years in the north before the British even had an army in the south, when they sent troops from New York to capture Charleston.

[MamaTexan]

What made them right and the Northern states wrong, when they said the compact had not been abused and was not dissolved?

Because the Northern States had already been violating the compact for almost 40 years. In fact, the violations we SO flagrant, it was mentioned

by the Appeals court for US Supreme Court Jack v. Martin in 1835
and we may find when it is too late, that the patience of the south, however well founded upon principle, from repeated aggression will become exhausted. These considerations would have no influence with me if I could satisfy myself of the unconstitutionality of the law of congress; but I can never contribute in any manner, either directly or indirectly, to the abolition of slavery, however great an evil it may be, in violation of the constitution and laws of the country, and in violation of the solemn compact which was made by our forefathers at the adoption of the constitution, and which their posterity are bound to preserve inviolate. I am sustained in this view of the case by the whole current of authority, in all the states where the question has been decided.

As well as being mentioned in a speech by Daniel Webster in 1851;
If the South were to violate any part of the Constitution intentionally and systematically, and persist in so doing, year after year, and no remedy could be had, would the North be any longer bound by the rest of it? And if the North were deliberately, habitually, and of fixed purpose to disregard one part of it, would the South be bound any longer to observe its other obligations? I have not hesitated to say, and I repeat, that if the Northern States refuse, willfully and deliberately, to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress provide no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain cannot be broken on one side and still bind the other side.

----

I posted this material on the other thread and you totally ignored it, but with your recent behavior, I guess now I know why.

[SunkenCiv]

GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach	join list or digest view topics view or post blog bookmark post a topic subscribe
Thanks iowamark. Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.

[0.E.O]

1) The Rivas letter is marked confidential and is the only letter I've seen by Madison that contains this proviso:

And I'd reply that a hundred years ago Gaillard Hunt edited Madison's papers into nine volumes. Unless you've gone through all those papers then you have no way of knowing just how many letters Madison requested be kept confidential.

) AND the paper Madison was writing ABOUT cannot be found, so we really don't have much of point of reference for what he is speaking OF.

You can't take Madison's words on their own? So be it. Still, two essays written by someone using the pseudonym "A Friend Of The Union And States Rights" it probably isn't hard to imagine what he was writing about.

[0.E.O]

Because the Northern States had already been violating the compact for almost 40 years.

So two people and you make it so? Thanks for clearing that up for us.

[rockrr]

Those poor dears. Not allowed to abuse their slaves without suffering the disapproving glances from their neighbors. It must have been absolutely horrid.

[MamaTexan]

And I'd reply that a hundred years ago Gaillard Hunt edited Madison's papers into nine volumes.

Big whoop.

-------

Unless you've gone through all those papers then you have no way of knowing just how many letters Madison requested be kept confidential.

Um...What part of "the only letter I've seen" did you not understand?

-----

You can't take Madison's words on their own?

I can, just fine. Dealing with someone who acts as if only certain words in the letter have any viability while totally disregarding the rest is what I have trouble with.

[MamaTexan]

So two people and you make it so?

Okay, so the US Supreme Court of Appeals, who sets LEGAL precedent , and states the law is Constitutional and is binding on EVERYONE...... is totally meaningless.

Oh, that's right, I forgot.

You only acknowledge those things if they agree with your agenda.

Alllrightythen!

[MamaTexan]

Not allowed to abuse their slaves without suffering the disapproving glances from their neighbors

Remember what I'd said the other day about you having risen a little bit in my opinion?

Never mind.

[donmeaker]

Hood and Sherman used the same word for members of the African race during their correspondence.

I recently read it, so consider that a couple of data points, not necessarily indicative of anything in particular.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

Since there were no voice recorders, who said what to whom at that time can never be known. Perhaps one might back off a bit on the accusations for what can never be known.

You note my style is to make a statement, and after the Rebs take offense with it, to post the evidence.

[rockrr]

I knew you were mercurial so it comes as no surprise.

The point stands. The south had no legitimate complaint. They were whiners who couldn’t stand it even when they were winning.

[donmeaker]

Lee owned slaves. His family owned slaves. Jackson owned slaves. Jeff davis owned slaves.

Lee fathered slaves. Jeff Davis fathered slaves. It was common, but not much spoken of in polite conversation.

[donmeaker]

Lincoln was a significant player in the R. Party in illinois. The R party wanted to limit slavery from the territories. It was widely believed that the domestic institutions of the states could not be changed by the federal government under normal circumstances, but the status of Slavery could be controlled by the Congress.

Abolitionists saw that as a very small but perhaps achievable step toward elimination of slavery. Abolitionists wanted slavery abolished.

[donmeaker]

The first thing Lee did when he returned from the Army to execute his father in law’s will was to put up whipping posts.

And he made sure they were used. He was known as a cruel slave master before the war.