Posted on 01/20/2016 5:03:47 AM PST by Kaslin
Last July, Anthony Hervey, an outspoken black advocate for the Confederate flag, was killed in a car crash. Arlene Barnum, a surviving passenger in the vehicle, told authorities and the media that they had been forced off the road by a carload of "angry young black men" after Hervey, while wearing his Confederate kepi, stopped at a convenience store en route to his home in Oxford, Mississippi. His death was in no small part caused by the gross level of ignorance, organized deceit and anger about the War of 1861. Much of the ignorance stems from the fact that most Americans believe the war was initiated to free slaves, when in truth, freeing slaves was little more than an afterthought. I want to lay out a few quotations and ask what you make of them.
During the "Civil War," ex-slave Frederick Douglass observed, "There are at the present moment many colored men in the Confederate army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but as real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down loyal troops, and do all that soldiers may to destroy the Federal Government and build up that of the traitors and rebels" (Douglass' Monthly, September 1861).
"For more than two years, negroes had been extensively employed in belligerent operations by the Confederacy. They had been embodied and drilled as Rebel soldiers, and had paraded with White troops at a time when this would not have been tolerated in the armies of the Union." (Horace Greeley, in his book, "The American Conflict").
"Over 3,000 negroes must be included in this number (of Confederate troops). These were clad in all kinds of uniforms, not only in cast-off or captured United States uniforms, but in coats with Southern buttons, State buttons, etc. These were shabby, but not shabbier or seedier than those worn by white men in rebel ranks. Most of the negroes had arms, rifles, muskets, sabres, bowie-knives, dirks, etc. They were supplied, in many instances, with knapsacks, haversacks, canteens, etc., and were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederacy Army. They were seen riding on horses and mules, driving wagons, riding on caissons, in ambulances, with the staff of Generals, and promiscuously mixed up with all the rebel horde" (report by Dr. Lewis H. Steiner, chief inspector of the U.S. Sanitary Commission).
In April 1861, a Petersburg, Virginia, newspaper proposed "three cheers for the patriotic free Negroes of Lynchburg" after 70 blacks offered "to act in whatever capacity" had been "assigned to them" in defense of Virginia.
Those are but a few examples of the important role that blacks served as soldiers, freemen and slaves on the side of the Confederacy. The flap over the Confederate flag is not quite so simple as the nation's race "experts" make it. They want us to believe the flag is a symbol of racism. Yes, racists have used the Confederate flag as their symbol, but racists have also marched behind the U.S. flag and have used the Bible. Would anyone suggest banning the U.S. flag from state buildings and references to the Bible?
Black civil rights activists, their white liberal supporters and historically ignorant Americans who attack the Confederate flag have committed a deep, despicable dishonor to our patriotic Southern black ancestors who marched, fought and died not to protect slavery but to protect their homeland from Northern aggression. They don't deserve the dishonor. Dr. Leonard Haynes, a black professor at Southern University, stated, "When you eliminate the black Confederate soldier, you've eliminated the history of the South."
Pretty much. Just like anti-slavery feelings weren't the real reason that most Northerners kept pushing the slavery issue. W. C. Fowler (author of The Sectional Controversy published in 1864) noted an incident when he met an old friend who was at that time a prominent Northern member of congress. The congressman was leaving a heated meeting regarding abolition and other sectional issues. Fowler asked why they were encouraging abolitionist petitions. The Congressman replied: "The real reason is that the South will not let us have a tariff, and we touch them where they will feel it."
For more on the economic factor in the war, see my post 355 to PeaRidge. :-)
No, you always force it back to slavery, because you don't have a moral leg to stand on if it is debated on any other question.
The facts which are becoming clear to me is that the New England business interests saw an independent South as a grave threat to their finances, and they therefore used their influence to push Lincoln into forcing the South back into the Union.
Slavery was just the cover story. The real motive was money. Money the North would lose on shipping, acting as financial middlemen, lost from competition, lost from more free trade, and on tariffs revenues that would have to be made up by the North. (forcing them to carry their fair share of the load)
As was pointed out earlier by Charles Dickens:
"Union mean so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North."...
"Slavery has in reality nothing on earth to do with it."
Even an Englishman across the pond could see what was going on.
You are always such a contemplative and insightful thinker in these threads.
Tax and spend liberal from the New England area?
Who ever heard of such a thing?
Shocking, isn't it? Lol.....
More here.
Yea, I saw it. We already have plenty of leftists and revisionists to deal with right here at home.
But a negotiated surrender, which could have included hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation for slave-holders, other terms and conditions to be determined.
By refusing to negotiate in February 1865, Jefferson Davis dragged the war out just two more months, before being forced to accept Unconditional Surrender for his armies, arrest and imprisonment for himself, and the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments for former slaves.
If that is not a definition of Davis' pure insanity, I don't know what would be.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "If slavery was all they were clinging to they would have taken the deal, seeing as they were almost defeated as it was."
But there is no rational explanation for Jefferson Davis' behavior in 1865.
Instead, we must chalk it up to his pure insanity, and leave it go with that.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "There were many (like Lee and Cleburn) who wanted to institute that years before, however there were just enough of those stubborn stalwarts in Congress to block the issue until it was too late. "
Lead by the most "stubborn stalwart" of them all, the Confederacy's effective dictator on such matters: Jefferson Davis.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Did you know Lincoln was also against early attempts to recruit blacks?
He also waited until the North had lost a good number of battles before he finally changed stance. "
No, in fact, early in 1861, runaway slaves began crossing into Union Army areas, and after a short delay, were immediately settled, provisioned and put to paid-work for the Union.
But their use as volunteer-soldiers took a little longer, not because Lincoln opposed blacks in principle (as, for example, Jefferson Davis did), but rather because of Lincoln's concern for the response of slave-holders in Union states of Maryland, Kentucky, Delaware & Missouri.
In July 1862 Congress authorized US Army colored troops and full recruitment began in January 1863, resulting eventually in 173 colored regiments of about 180,000 troops -- 10% of the US Army.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "You underestimate the negative effect of John Brown.
He had been funded by Northerners, and after his death many Northern abolitionists called him a martyr."
No, I've underestimated nothing, simply pointed out that as a propaganda weapon of Southern Fire Eaters, Brown's raid and Northern sympathies for Brown were both highly exaggerated.
In fact, as I've pointed out, Brown was quickly captured, tried & hanged, receiving widespread condemnation throughout the North to the point where five of his "secret six" supporters fled to avoid prison themselves.
So the issue, as in everything else, was not Brown and the North, but rather highly inflamed anti-Union Fire Eater sentiments in the South.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Have you ever heard the song "John Brown's Body"? It was very popular up North:"
Sure, that tune itself was an old negro-spiritual popularly sung both South & North for many years before the war.
But the new words "John Brown's Body" weren't applied until after the Confederacy provoked, started, declared and waged war against the United States.
Then it became a Union Army marching song, before its tune was put to much better use in 1862, by Julia Ward Howe as the Battle Hymn of the Republic.
So, as in everything else, Deep South slave-holders inspired opposition to themselves, not the other way around.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "This kind of stuff made many in the South feel they weren't wanted or respected in the Union."
No, what you're really talking about here is pro-Confederate revisionist history, making the effect (the song: "John Brown's Body") into the cause (Deep South secession and war against the United States).
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "The Democrat party had always been a national party...this was the first electinon that that the Democrats had fielded a Northern and a southern candiate, however their platforms remained very similar."
FRiend, you crowd more lies & nonsense into a single sentence than even most pro-Confederate propagandists, and that's saying a lot.
So let's start here:
The two US political parties:
Northern pro-Constitution Federalist Party
In 1788 the pro-Constitution party was called Federalists, the anti-Constitution party anti-Federalists.
In 1788 the Federalists included such Southern luminaries as George Washington and James Madison, but within a few years, anti-Federalist Southerners became Jefferson & Madison's "Democratic-Republican" party in opposition to Northern Federalists.
The dominant Southern anti-Federalist, Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican, Jacksonian Democrats' party:
Jefferson's Southern-based party nearly always had Northern allies, and that is one reason it dominated US Federal Government from at least the election of 1800 until secession & Confederacy in 1861.
In 1828 it changed names to Jacksonian Democrats, but remained the Southern-dominated alliance with some Northerners, they known derisively as "Doughfaces".
Before 1860 the Southern-dominated Democrat party elected all but two Presidents (Harrison & Taylor both Southern slave-holders), dominated Congress and the Supreme Court and so effectively protected slavery against all comers.
In the mean time:
The minority Northern Federalist, National Republican, Whig Republican opposition party:
After Jefferson's victory in the 1800 election, Northern Federalists-Whigs became strictly the opposition party, seldom rising to majorities and even then, as with Harrison & Taylor, only by adopting slave-holders as their standard bearers.
One reason for Federalist-Whig permanent minority status was that many Northerners often voted for the Southern Democrat party.
Yes, there were also some Southerners who voted for the Northern Federalist-Whigs, but unlike the Northern Doughfaces, never enough to carry a Southern state for the Northern candidate.
Here, for example, is the 1828 election between Southerner Andrew Jackson and Northern President John Quincy Adams -- shown by county.
Note that some Southern counties did vote for Adams:
So what happened in the 1850s?:
By the mid-1850s the international issue of slavery's abolition had become important in US politics, beginning with splitting the Northern & Southern Whigs.
Northern Whigs became Republicans.
Southern Whigs became American, Know-Nothings and in 1860, John Bell's Constitutional Unionists.
The national Democrat party remained united and victorious until the 1860 election, when it split between Northern Douglas Democrats and Southern Breckenridge Democrats.
The 1860 split was over the issue of slavery in the territories, which Douglas said should be a local issue and Southern Democrats wanted controlled in Washington.
Point is: of the two national parties which became four regional parties, only one in 1860, the Southern Democrats was a hot-bed of secessionism.
The other three favored Union.
So, Unionism was the national consensus in 1860.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "I have to laugh at how you keep downplaying the tariffs."
I have to laugh at how you keep exaggerating the influence of tariffs.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "The tariff issue alone was enough to make South Carolina seceed in the 1830s."
But they didn't, because no other state supported their ridiculous rebellion.
All states then, and later, well understood that tariffs were just national "politics as usual" -- you win some, you lose some, you come back to politic another day.
Tariffs were never an issue worth seceding over.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "The tariffs benefitted the North at the expense of the South and the North had used the slavery issue many times to get the tariffs they wanted.
Northern politicians were ever ready to sacrifice whatever anti-slavery sentiments they had for the sake of a tariff deal."
As they say, "politics ain't bean bags", it's a contact sport in which, dare I say it, the art of the deal is, well, a big deal.
The Southern Slave-Power was called that for a reason.
Thomas Jefferson was called "the Black President" for a reason.
The reason was the Constitution's 3/5 of slaves rule, which gave Southern states vastly more representation than their white populations alone justified.
The result was Southern Slave-Power domination in Congress, the Presidency and Supreme Court.
That Northern opposition was able to secure occasional compromises on slavery (i.e., 1850 Compromise) in no way challenged the "peculiar institution" in the South.
But tariffs went up & down every few years, depending on majorities and alliances in Congress.
Important to remember: it was not only Southerners who wanted lower tariffs and it was not only Northerners who wanted higher tariff protections.
There were numbers of both in Congress who voted the other way.
And all claims that only Southerners paid tariffs is ridiculous propaganda.
Tariffs were paid at the goods' ports of import of which circa 90% were not Southern.
And not all imports went to Southerners, indeed, arguably far less than 1/3 of imports went to Southern buyers, based on relative populations & incomes.
Bottom line: tariffs were always "politics as usual", never a cause for serious threats of secession.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Southern congressmen claimed to have won over Pennsylvania's delegation by promising to repay a vote for the Compromise with "adjustments" in the tariff rates.
At the same time, the Pennsylvania legislature voted to repeal laws that handicapped efforts to recapture fugitive slaves."
Like I said, "politics as usual" 1850 style.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Robert Barnwell Rhett railed against the then-pending Morrill Tariff before the South Carolina convention.
Rhett included a lengthy attack on tariffs in his address, which the convention adopted on December 25, 1860 to accompany its secession ordinance."
South Carolina's Ordnance of Secession is dated December 20, 1860.
It gives no reasons.
South Carolina's "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" is dated December 24, 1860.
It explains their reasons as protecting slavery, and does not mention taxes or tariffs -- not once.
Your quote from Rhett may have something to do with something else, but not with South Carolina's vote or reasons for secession.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Also, this tariff the North was pushing wasn't small.
It increased the effective rate collected on dutiable imports by approximately 70%.
This is why when the North passed it in a knee-jerk fashion after the South had left..."
No, the original proposal (Morrill Tariff) was a very modest increase from a near-low of 15%.
This was defeated by Southern Senators in 1860.
In 1861, after secessionists walked out of Congress, then a higher increase was passed, and soon after that too was increased, and increased again to help pay for Civil War.
The Confederacy set their import tax rate at the pre-Morrill rate of 15%.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "...northern businesses began to lament about their loss of business.
The fact that the northern economy was nearing collapse forced Lincoln to act quick in order force the South back into the union."
Rubbish, propaganda & nonsense.
Northern businesses suffered nothing in the months before Fort Sumter (April 1861), and afterwards soon adjusted to demands of the Civil War economy.
More important, Lincoln himself was not motivated primarily by economic interests, but rather by Constitutional, legal, moral and political ideas first.
First and foremost Lincoln valued his Oath of Office, to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution.
This did not allow Lincoln to recognize Deep South declarations of secession, except or until, those were approved by Congress, which of course, they never were.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "...note that they talk about the failure of Northern states to comply with fugitives slave laws (as stipulated by the constitution) and also the slavery in the territories issue (you know, the issues that they actually argued about)."
Like I said, and you just confirmed: there was only one real reason for secession, and that was to preserve, protect and defend their "peculiar institution" of slavery.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "The election of a purely sectional candidate was the final nail in the coffin of this division."
That election was engineered by Deep South Fire-Eaters who split up their own national Democrat party over slavery and their wish to use "Black Republicans" as excuse & motivation for declaring secession.
Joe you must be a history professor or something. Whatever, you’re sure know your subject. I read your posts and am getting a lot of stuff they never taught us in school. I see the “Johnny Rebs’’ here have gone quiet. Such is always the case when ignorance meets knowledge. Keep on keeping on FRiend.
Rubbish.
In 1860 there were huge & growing numbers of abolitionists in Southern Border States and Upper South.
Slavery itself in many of those states was declining in numbers or percentages.
That's the reason those states were all reluctant, or flat-out refused, to declare secession in 1861.
But slavery in the Deep South was a very different picture.
In the 1860 Deep South, where cotton was king, slavery had never been more profitable, their economy never more prosperous and slave prices never higher.
So, in the Deep South, to be openly anti-slavery was considered economic & political treason, punishable.
That had nothing to do with Northerners, but rather with the obviously manifest self-interests of huge Deep South slave-holding classes.
Consider the contrast: in Border States, about 15% of white families owned slaves, and majorities were pro-Union, whereas in the Deep South, nearly 50% of white families owned slaves and majorities were easily susceptible to secessionists' propaganda.
So, among our Founders in 1787, Southern leadership (i.e., Washington, Jefferson, Madison) recognized slavery as morally wicked, but economically necessary.
And by 1860 many Southerners still felt that way, though not in the Deep South.
There, amazing prosperity manifest their beliefs that slavery was not only economically necessary, but divinely instituted.
That's why they would, by God, tolerate no criticism of slavery.
Megalomania
And the fact he seemed to like to dress up in women’s clothes.
Everyone needs a hobby.
And if pigs could fly, then we'd debate their aerodynamic qualities, but since they can't, we won't.
So Deep South Fire-Eaters declared their secessions, as they clearly explained, to protect their "peculiar institution" of slavery -- that's the fact, not even debatable.
No, Fire-Eaters did not start Civil War to protect slavery, nor did Lincoln accept their war just to abolish slavery.
But Lincoln's family had long been opposed to slavery, and when war-time conditions favored abolition, Lincoln fully supported it.
DiogenesLamp: "The facts which are becoming clear to me is that the New England business interests saw an independent South as a grave threat to their finances, and they therefore used their influence to push Lincoln into forcing the South back into the Union."
But Lincoln never recognized those states as having lawfully left the Union.
And especially in eight Upper South & Border States, Lincoln believed there were huge numbers of Unionists who had not been properly represented in Southern secessions.
He intended to protect their pro-Union interests.
So "forcing the South back into the Union," was not Lincoln's motive in early 1861.
Rather, the question for Lincoln was whether or how to accept the war being provoked, started, formally declared and waged by the Confederacy against the United States.
For that, Lincoln needed, and accepted, no advice from Northern economic interests.
Instead, as a lawyer and former Congressman, Lincoln's focus was Constitutional, legal, moral and political.
He did not agree that unilateral unapproved declarations of secession were constitutional, and would not accept Confederate military assaults on United States troops in places like Fort Sumter.
Northern economic interests had nothing to do with it.
DiogenesLamp: "Even an Englishman across the pond could see what was going on."
Many English elite supported the Confederacy -- enough that people like Jefferson Davis hoped for British diplomatic recognition.
That those Brits' views were skewed by economic concerns is understandable, but certainly does not make them correct.
Fortunately, wiser heads ruled in Great Britain, unlike those unfortunately ruling the CSA.
The man knows a lot about the spiel he insists on promulgating. (Always about slavery) He can't even grasp the point I am trying to make. (Money drove the war. Slavery was an ad hoc propaganda effort) Seemingly neither can you.
Why don't you just shut up and learn something?
What DegenerateLamp isn’t bright enough to recognize is that there existed significant number of Brits who still coveted the Americas and saw the south as easy pickings.
But let’s watch him continue to lovingly quote leftist British socialists.
False analogies are another thing you do a lot.
So Deep South Fire-Eaters declared their secessions, as they clearly explained, to protect their "peculiar institution" of slavery -- that's the fact, not even debatable.
It is of course debatable, but it is irrelevant to the larger principles involved in the entire conflict.
Of course you refocus on Slavery, and not on the more important principle involved. Slavery was legal in that time period. People had a right to be independent of a Union that no longer suited their interests.
Where does your moral argument come into the question? You don't have a right to prevent independence from people who want it. It does not matter that you consider them immoral. They have that right non the less.
But Lincoln never recognized those states as having lawfully left the Union.
According to the Declaration of Independence, it is not relevant whether the King recognizes the God given right to independence. The right remains regardless.
Northern economic interests had nothing to do with it.
It was nothing but. Let me show you that map again.
Again, what happens to New York when 80% of that pile moves to Charleston and Savanna?
Imagine most of that trade represented by those tariffs being taken away from New York and given to Charleston.
Easily a financial hyper crises in New England. Well worth starting a war to prevent.
No one would have predicted that a rational man would kill 620,000 people to impose his will. In light of the unpredictable insanity they were dealing with on the other side, none of their behavior could be considered unwise.
They encountered a "black swan" event. Someone who was willing to drench the entire nation in blood to prevent other people from leaving his control.
Of course his masters in the Wealthy circles of New England probably would brook no other outcome than that their money streams continue. They could buy their own way out of the conflict for 1/3rd the price of a slave, that is, if anyone ever had the gall to suggest they needed to.
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.