Skip to comments.The Great Civil War Lie
Posted on 06/11/2013 4:48:08 AM PDT by iowamark
click here to read article
The Union didn't fortify the entry to Savannah or New Orleans or Mobile or any of the really important Southern ports. And it didn't interfere with traffic in and out of Pensacola and Charleston.
No argument, the south fired first, in april, after providing orders to leave.
If I ordered you to leave your property would you do it?
And unrepentant Dixiecrats too.
“The Union didn’t fortify the entry to Savannah or New Orleans or Mobile or any of the really important Southern ports. And it didn’t interfere with traffic in and out of Pensacola and Charleston.”
They did not have time, SC was the first to say bye bye.
“If I ordered you to leave your property would you do it?”
If I was there illegally I would! OK, not being silly, suppose the state took this matter to court i.e. could a state seceed. What court would have jurisdiction? I don’t believe there was a world court at that time, perhaps a world court of public opinion which in fact the state appealed to for their establishing their own nation state. The supreme court? Well, that would be a court aligned with the nation they wanted to leave, no? Another point, am I responsible for my parents’ contracts. Of course not, so why can a state not leave of its own volition?
Anyway, they tried and got no where except more federal troops and supplies. I wish that had been resolved by legal means, not by battle which solves nothing, but letting the winner dictate terms and write the history.
Lost Causers often try to assert a comparison between the patriots of our Revolutionary War and the slavers of the Civil War. There's not much to compare. The colonists tried for years to gain the right to sit at the table in Parliament. The south didn't ever try - they just did what they wanted and hang the cost. Winners always dictate the terms but, unlike so very many wars before it, the south wasn't prevented from noting it's own history - or mythology.
I said it in another post so I will reiterate it: if it were not for that part of the revolution fought by and in the southern colonies, there would have been no US. Also, don’t be so naive, the revolution was fought not only for moral issues but also over monetary matters.
Slavery was an underlying cause of the WBTS, but it was not the paramount issue. I say underlying because it was the engine which kept the southern aggrarian economy working as mechanization was a dream. The issue it underlayed was monetary driven by tariffs. I missed any reference to slavery in the proclamation to arms by Lincoln which further supports my position. That and the fact few people actually owned slaves in the south and Lee and a good number of his generals also did not or had freed them prior to the war. None of this is mythology, it is historic fact.
The US did not have an excise taxes in 1835 or in 1860. Even the Whiskey tax was long gone.
If you really want to get the spittle flying suggest to one of the Lincoln Coven that black soldiers fought for the Confederacy. That really gets their heads spinning like Linda Blair on pea soup.
People in SC paid taxes, a lot of taxes, that pile of rubble in the middle of the Cooper River was paid for 10x over when the Feds were given the boot.
I'm not sure what your point is. None of the other Southern ports were fortified by any troops that hadn't been there when their state left.
What court would have jurisdiction?
Supreme Court. Article III, Section 2.
Well, that would be a court aligned with the nation they wanted to leave, no?
But their only recourse while a part of the U.S.
...so why can a state not leave of its own volition?
Madison said that the logical conclusion of the claim that a state could leave without the consent of the other states is that the other states could expel a state without its consent. Would you agree with that?
Anyway, they tried and got no where except more federal troops and supplies.
Didn't try very hard.
You mean, the liberal media lied about that too?
What you said upstream was "If it were not for the southern colonies during the Revolution, there would have been no United States" which, besides being sorta self-serving, is only partially true. The truth is that all the colonies needed each other if we were to survive.
The issue it underlayed was monetary driven by tariffs.
That and the fact few people actually owned slaves in the south and Lee and a good number of his generals also did not or had freed them prior to the war. None of this is mythology, it is historic fact.
“That and the fact few people actually owned slaves in the south and Lee and a good number of his generals also did not or had freed them prior to the war. None of this is mythology, it is historic fact.
Actually it is truer than blue. Interestingly, some Northern generals or their families were slave holders FWIW.
Exactly. The North already had an economic leg up on the south in that most industry was located there, so why did they need an added political gift of what amounted to subsidies, called tariffs?
I agree. The whole basis for British involvement in WWII was to knock Germany down a peg. The British never did and never would endure a rival on the open seas.
And here I was thinking those Gamecocks or Palmettos were drinking up a storm.
No wonder old times there weren't forgotten (or remembered very clearly either).
I guess Mouton meant import taxes (tariffs).
Of course, the problem is that Southern exports were high but the tariffs were imposed on imports.
Because of all the activity and circulation of money in the national economy, it wasn't necessarily true that those who got the most money from exports actually paid the most in taxes on imports.
I agree, but then what role did the Republican abolitionists and Lincoln play? Were they useful idiots for the power brokers that wanted to game to continue to be played, or were they a part of the conspiracy?
>> Pro-Southern business interests and journalists fed the myth that the war was over trade, not slavery...
The Civil War was over slavery? Really?
When you believe a race is fit for slavery and nothing else does it matter what you call them?
Touche. I am not willing to absolve the South for slavery, but I am not convinced of the angelic image that has been painted of Lincoln and the North either.
In 1860? Absurd. I don't know if current scruples about the word existed back then, but I'm pretty sure that plenty of Southerners "clumsily tossed the word around."
Depends if you believe “Gone with the Wind” (the book) is truth or propaganda.
LOL! Really? You've still posting from the body of that (keep it under you hat) letter of Madison's without posting the beginning where it says:
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.
James Madison to Alexander Rivas, Jan, 1833.
How totally disappointing. I'd thought better of you.
>>Pardon my buttinskiness, Mouton, but this was posted to you, so...FReeper etiquette and all that. :-)
Suffice it to say that the South was, at best, no different than the North in this regard?
You take the prize for the stupidest comment of the day. I learned that particular epithet while living in the south where it was indeed tossed about with reckless abandon.
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?
What’s that got to do with either your comment or mine?
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.
Why? Were tariffs only collected in the South?
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.
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.
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.
|GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach|
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.
So two people and you make it so? Thanks for clearing that up for us.
Those poor dears. Not allowed to abuse their slaves without suffering the disapproving glances from their neighbors. It must have been absolutely horrid.
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.
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.
Remember what I'd said the other day about you having risen a little bit in my opinion?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.