Don't spin the Civil War

Washington Post ^ | 12.27.10 | E.J. DIONNE jR.

[trumandogz]

The Civil War is about to loom very large in the popular memory. We would do well to be candid about its causes and not allow the distortions of contemporary politics or long-standing myths to cloud our understanding of why the nation fell apart.

The coming year will mark the 150th anniversary of the onset of the conflict, which is usually dated to April 12, 1861, when Confederate batteries opened fire at 4:30 a.m. on federal troops occupying Fort Sumter. Union forces surrendered the next day, after 34 hours of shelling.

[Drennan Whyte]

When it was ratified, it was with the understanding that the agreement could be voided at any time.

What about those states who did not ratify the Constitution but were instead admitted by a vote in Congress? In other words all but the original 13? It was hardly an agreement on their part; in fact the Constitution doesn't give the people in the territories any say in the issue of statehood or not. How can they void an agreement that they didn't agree to? If your point is that for the original 13 states leaving should be the same as joining, an agreement entered into can also be opted out of, then for all the states that came later shouldn't leaving require the agreement of those states that let them join in the first place?

[MikefromOhio]

Confederates at the time considered their slaves to be sub-humans.

Who else, within 80 years of the Civil War, considered people to be sub-humans? hmmmmmm....history seemed to repeat itself in Europe about 80 years later, and the side that LOST was the aggressor then as well oddly enough.

[MikefromOhio]

We should have told them all to “shove it” and fought a guerilla war until they were choking on their own blood!

Unless you are REALLY old, there's no we about it. You weren't there.

And thankfully General Lee and General Johnston had the CLASS and DIGNITY to realize that the end was at hand and ended the war. Only those two individuals had the CLASS to end the war before the south was completely eradicated.

[central_va]

The stupid Yankees couldn’t even AGREE whether the Seceding States had left or not......

You would think after all the bloodshed and all the misery, that the stupid Yankees could have cobbled together an amendment to make secession illegal, post war. No, the USC is STILL silent on the issue, as it should be.

This proves the utter hypocrisy of the entire "preserve the Union" BS.

[The Comedian]

We should have told them all to “shove it” and fought a guerilla war until they were choking on their own blood!

(fist bump)

I think we're about to get a second chance.

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[Repeal The 17th]

“...Would you agree to a proposal from California that all illegal immigrants in that state should be counted by the census for the purpose of determining Congressional delegations?...”
-
I hate to have to be the one to break the news to you, but...
that is; and always has been the case.

The census enumerates “residents” not “citizens”.
Illegal immigrants are counted in the census.
Even prisoners in the state penitentiary are counted.

Hence the problem with how to enumerate slaves...as 1;
or as 0; or shall we compromise on 3/5ths...
(I wonder where the 3/5ths came from...why not 3/4 or 1/2?)

[Drennan Whyte]

First place, I do not equate the black slaves as the same as a illegal...

Why not? An illegal immigrant is not a citizen and has no rights to representation in Congress. It would be foolish to count them for Congressional representation as a result. But a slave was not citizen, either. They had no access to the courts and no rights that a white man was bound to recognize, as that Southern jurist Roger Taney wrote in 1856. They were property, not people. So why should they have any expectation of Congressional representation, any more than an illegal immigrant should? The obvious answer is that they shouldn't, and the fact of the matter is that the intent of the Southern delegates at the Constitutional Convention was to give their white population an increased representation in Congress. Their slaves didn't need representation since it couldn't do them any good anyway.

[Drennan Whyte]

Lincoln’s belief was that they had never left, while the Radical Carpetbagger Republicans said they DID, and had to meet conditions to RE-APPLY for statehood.

Can you quote the legislation that required that?

[Drennan Whyte]

Abraham Lincoln said that if he could save the Union without freeing the slaves, that he would do it, but, his destiny would not allow him to do that.....

He also said in that same letter that if he could save the Union by freeing all the slaves he would do that.

...and he know without him freeing the slaves the Union would fall apart into total anarchy while at the same time fighting a war with the South....

And how did he know that?

[r9etb]

Why is it fantasy?

Because the southern states perceived slavery to be so vital to their economic interests that they seceded and went to war over the likelihood that it would be abolished.

All that crap from the neo-confeds about it being about something other than slavery is just silly.

[trumandogz]

Good post.

[trumandogz]

And for some reason you do not see any reasonable people in Germany celebrating their Nazi Heritage.

[Repeal The 17th]

“...history seemed to repeat itself in Europe about 80 years later...”

“...And for some reason you do not see any reasonable people in Germany celebrating their Nazi Heritage...”
-
Are you comparing southerners in 1860 to nazis?
I just want to make sure I’m hearing you right.

[mstar]

The song was written by a Unitarian and not a Christian. Though it has extensive Christian imagery, it is certainly not a Christian song.

You're right, it is not a Christian song. It is a song calling for a violent jihad against the south. . . hardly the heart of Jesus Christ.

[rockrr]

Funny, I remember learning it as a kid in a Baptist church in New Orleans. I wonder if they were fronting for the Jihadists ?

[trumandogz]

The enslavement of a people is reprehensible whether it be in the 19th or 20th century.

And, the belief that one’s race is superior to another race is disgusting today as well as in 1861 and 1939.

[trumandogz]

Speaking of revisionism, why is it that so many aficionados of the Confederacy fail to acknowledge slavery as the primary reason for succession and the Civil War?

[Repeal The 17th]

Was that supposed to be an answer to my question?

[Repeal The 17th]

Was the revolutionary war primarily about tea?

[mstar]

Funny, I remember learning it as a kid in a Baptist church in New Orleans. I wonder if they were fronting for the Jihadists ?

I learned and sang the song in churches, universities, at rallies for years under the impression it was a Christian song. I later learned the song was filled with occult imagery and written by a spiritualist from a Yankee minster friend.