Was the Civil War about Slavery?

Acton Institute, Prager University ^ | 8/11/2015 | Joe Carter

[rockrr]

To reiterate and summarize this long thread:

Saying that “Slavery did not cause the first shots to be fired” is a red herring - kinda like saying chewing tobacco did not cause the first shots to be fired”. Slavery was the sine qua non - the essential element without which the Civil War would never have occurred. War wasn’t a necessary consequence of secession...but it was an inevitable one directly attributable to the actions of the insurrectionists.

From December 1860 through April 1861 the Confederacy continually provoked war through dozens of seizures by force of major Federal properties — forts, ships, arsenals, mints, etc. — threats against and firings on Union officials.

In April 1861 the Confederacy started war at Union Fort Sumter through a military assault resulting in some Union deaths and forcing the remainder to surrender.

On May 6, 1861 the Confederacy formally declared war on the United States and sent military aid to pro-Confederates in Union Missouri.

All this happened before a single Confederate soldier was killed directly in battle with any Union force, and before any Union Army invaded a single Confederate state.

Of course, none of this ended the slavery problem for the Union states and all territories - rather it intensified the conflict between slaver and Free Man everywhere on the continent.

The war began because of failure of the Dhimmicrat Slaver Fire-eaters to observe the Constitution.

[x]

Saying that “Slavery did not cause the first shots to be fired” is a red herring - kinda like saying chewing tobacco did not cause the first shots to be fired”.

Civil War = Abner Doubleday = Baseball = Chewing Tobacco

Open your eyes, people!

[rockrr]

Brilliant!

[mac_truck]

You might add that it was largely the result of Strom Thurmond's leading a flow of Conservative Southern Democrats into the Republican Party, after 1964, which prevented the "Me Too" variety of Rockefeller Republicans from recapturing the Party after the Goldwater defeat.

Actually the flow of conservative southern Democrats took a more circuitous route into the Republican party than the one you've outlined.

You can see from the map above that the difference between southern states voting for Barry Goldwater in 1964 and AIP candidate George Wallace in 1968 is negligible.

One might also argue that Gerald Ford was the embodiment of the Rockefeller Republican mindset in 1976 and his nomination to lead the Republican party was not prevented by southern conservatives...

...although southern voters certainly prevented Ford from winning in the general election.

Even by the end of Reagan's second term in office two thirds of southern Senators were still Democrats who demonstrated their conservatism by overwhelmingly voting against Robert Bork's nomination to the USSC.

While I agree that Strom Thurmond led the way for conservative southern Democrats to change their party brand, the speed of that conversion and its impact on Republican politics of the era is not so cut and dried.

[Ohioan]

Look, you are missing the essential point. That the Southern Democrats were no longer Conservative at the time of the Bork nomination, is a direct result of Thurmond's drawing off the more Conservative Southern Democrats.

Of course the Wallace vote largely reflected Conservative Democrats. Wallace was a Conservative Democrat. He had held off running as a Third Party candidate in 1964, largely so as not to sabotage Goldwater's chances. (I was personally involved with a group sponsoring Wallace's appearance in Cincinnati--I believe in early 1964--and had a very frank discussion with him & mutual friends afterwards.)

The Wallace Democrats--those who did not follow Thurmond into the Republican Party--of course, became the Reagan Democrats. (You will note that the Wallace States, not only coincided with the Goldwater States; they corresponded to the Thurmond States in 1948.)

I was also personally involved with those seeking to manage the odyssey of some of these people, and recommended to Bill Rusher--then Publisher of National Review--a local law firm able to handle an action to keep Wallace's AIP Party on the Ohio ballot, to encourage the movement towards a link up with Conservative Republicans in the early 1970s. Rusher, you may recall, wrote a book about forging a new majority, which played a significant role laying the ground-work for the Reagan election.

[BroJoeK]

PeaRidge quoting orders for Lincoln's Fort Sumter resupply mission:

"This letter will be landed to you by Captain G. V. Fox... He is charged by high authority here with the command of an expedition, under cover of certain ships of war, whose object is to re-enforce Fort Sumter."

It's important to note that these particular orders are dated April 4, 1861.
They were not the final orders.
In the end, Lincoln decided the mission was not to be reinforcement but rather just resupply, if the mission was met peacefully.

So Lincoln's final orders included the following:

"The primary object of the expedition is to provision Fort Sumter, for which purpose the War Department will furnish the necessary transports.
Should the authorities of Charleston permit the fort to be supplied, no further particular service will be required of the force under your command, and, after being satisfied that supplies have been received at the fort, the Powhatan, Pocahontas and Harriet Lane will return to New York, and the Pawnee to Washington."

So Lincoln's intentions were manifestly peaceful, and his orders to the mission reflect that.
There was to be no reinforcement, and certainly no war making, if his mission was treated peacefully.

As it happened, of course, Jefferson Davis decided otherwise, and ordered a Confederate assault on, and surrender of, Union troops in Fort Sumter, a clear act of war, to which Lincoln responded by requesting troops to reestablish Federal authority over Federal properties.

So the decision to start Civil War came from Jefferson Davis, not Abraham Lincoln.
And, of course, the daily decisions to continue fighting until hundreds of thousands of soldiers were dead and its armies utterly defeated were also Jefferson Davis'.

Back to the original question: does any of this have anything to do with slavery?
Answer: no, not directly, except that in 1861 secessionists made no secret of their primary motivation in declaring secession: they were protecting their peculiar domestic institution against perceived threats from "Ape" Lincoln's Black Republicans.

[HandyDandy]

Yes. Just the appearance of Lincoln on the landscape, and the rising political power in the North, hinted that the days of Southern Power were coming to an end. Rather than suffer the indignity of abolitionists slowly chipping away at their “way of life”, they seceded. They didn’t necessarily have to, but Jefferson had BIG plans for the Golden Circle. Likewise, Jefferson jumped the gun, if you will, at Sumter. He had a different vision of the future than did the Unionists.

[PeaRidge]

BroJoeK, you waited several weeks before trying to close out this long ended thread with one of your canard loaded posts.

Did you think your misrepresentations would stand?

Not today Sir.

What you quote as "Lincoln's final orders..." is not that at all. Did you even bother to read your own source?

You are quoting Secretary of the Navy, Gideon Welles' orders. What you attributed to Lincoln never existed. See the OR for the text from Welles.

Lincoln's orders, verbal and written resulted in the following actions which were never rescinded:

March 29, 1861
To the Secretary of the Navy

I desire that an expedition, to move by sea be go ready to sail as early as the 6th of April next, the whole according to memorandum attached: and that you co-operate with the Secretary of War for that object.

Signed: Abraham Lincoln

The memorandum attached called for:

From the Navy, three ships of war, the Pocahontas, the Pawnee and the Harriet Lane; and 300 seamen, and one month's stores.

From the War Department, 200 men, ready to leave garrison; and one year's stores.

April 1, 1861 by General Scott
April 2, 1861 approved by Abraham Lincoln
To: Brevet Colonel Harvey Brown, U.S. Army

You have been designated to take command of an expedition to reinforce and hold Fort Pickens in the harbor of Pensacola. You will proceed to New York where steam transportation for four companies will be engaged; -- and putting on board such supplies as you can ship without delay proceed at once to your destination. The object and destination of this expedition will be communicated to no one to whom it is not already known. Signed: Winfield Scott
Signed approved: Abraham Lincoln

April 4, 1861
To: Lieut. Col. H.L. Scott, Aide de Camp

This will be handed to you by Captain G.V. Fox, an ex-officer of the Navy. He is charged by authority here, with the command of an expedition (under cover of certain ships of war) whose object is, to reinforce Fort Sumter.

To embark with Captain Fox, you will cause a detachment of recruits, say about 200, to be immediately organized at fort Columbus, with competent number of officers, arms, ammunition, and subsistence, with other necessaries needed for the augmented garrison at Fort Sumter.

In Lincoln's references to Ft. Sumter, Key West, and Pensacola, every time he used the word REINFORCE.

You may think your repetitious BS will eventually take hold, but not TODAY.

[Pelham]

Interesting.

[Tau Food]

.

It was 1861 and a very special man had just been elected President of the United States. Abraham Lincoln, a man who had been selected by God to lead a nation that had been created by our Lord - one nation, under God, indivisible, with borders divinely drafted. Who but Satan himself would threaten the physical integrity of the United States of America or attempt to divide its people?

What evil, diabolical forces were at work in this world such that this brave president felt the need to send men and matériel to protect and reinforce Fort Sumter, Key West and Fort Pickens, these Guardians of Goodness?

Thank you, Lord, for giving us Abraham Lincoln:

[BroJoeK]

PeaRidge: "Did you think your misrepresentations would stand?
Not today Sir.
What you quote as "Lincoln's final orders..." is not that at all.
Did you even bother to read your own source?"

Sorry FRiend, but as always, it's you who are perpetrating a fraud by selectively quoting only those passages which suit your own POV.
In fact: both the final letter from Secretary of War Cameron to Capt. Fox, the mission leader, and the letter of Secretary of Navy Welles to Navy Capt. Mercer emphasize clearly that their mission is to be first and only a resupply mission, so long as everything goes peacefully.
No force is to be used if no resistance is encountered.
The identical instruction from both secretaries tell us unequivocally they originated with Lincoln himself.

Of course, use of military force to protect US military forces is authorized whenever necessary, and so the orders say.
But if there was no resistance met, then no force was to be used, and no reinforcements landed.

Those are the final orders, you can and should read them yourself here.

But regardless of whether Lincoln's mission was just "resupply" or also "reinforce", the analogy with Guantanamo Bay, Cuba applies: no matter how loud caterwauling Communist Cubans may yowl, the US has every lawful, peaceful right to resupply or reinforce our base there whenever and however we see fit.
No change in government in Havana changes our base there, and any use of force by Cubans against it is an act of war on the United States.

Just as the attack on Pearl Harbor was Japan's launch of WWII on the United States, so the Confederate assault on Fort Sumter was its launch of Civil War against the Union, an act followed soon after by the Confederacy's formal declaration of war on the United States, May 6, 1861.

So the facts are still facts, regardless of how ardently you deny them.

[rockrr]

If I understand your relative points the contention seems to hinge on the use of the term “reinforce” vs. “resupply”. In reading the artifacts one can readily see that both terms were used, sometimes interchangeably. (Personally I liked Secretary Cameron’s use of the term “succor” since it more explicitly described the circumstances)

So resupplying was OK but reinforcing wasn’t? Is that what this is about?

Now, I can see the nuclei of an idea wherein one might argue that the term reinforce meant a more permanent relief than simply bringing them dinner. But even the words of the communiques demonstrate no long-term solution to the illegal hostilities of the insurrectionists. Lincoln needed to support his men while attempting to sort through the mess.

The self-evidence of Sumter has always been a wonderment to me. There wasn’t much, short of shipping his entire army to Charleston Harbor that would have prevented the renegades from taking Sumter if they were of a mind to do so. History shows us just how long it took to overwhelm Anderson’s forces. Lincoln knew that. His immediate priority was to give the troops the supplies they needed.

[PeaRidge]

Apologies to all you folks who wish not to be bothered.

BroJoke says: “So the facts are still facts, regardless of how ardently you deny them.”

The “fact” is that you tried to attribute a direct quote to Lincoln that was never documented.

You have a habit of doing that......last year, you tried to argue with Rustbucket that the “Harriet Lane” was never at Charleston Harbor. He proved you wrong. It took two days for you to admit it.

Later you argued that the “Harriet Lane” did not fire on shipping in Charleston Harbor. You were proved wrong again.

Then you wanted to argue that the “Harriet Lane” only fired on “northern owned shipping”.

You were proved wrong again.

And now when you are shown that you misrepresented Lincoln's quote, you are proved wrong again.

These are just a few examples of your postings. I think these threads would be more inviting if the misrepresentations stopped.

[Tau Food]

ONE NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE!

* * * * * * * * * * * *

It's almost humorous to imagine a twenty-first century secession:

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Yes, we're all in this together!

[Tau Food]

Isn't that something?

[Pelham]

+1

[rockrr]

+1

[rockrr]

+2