Is There Something Wrong With The Term: "War Between the States?"

Old Virginia Blog ^ | 01-06-2014 | Richard G. Williams, Jr.

[Lee'sGhost]

That’s not what I said. So what’s your point?

[SampleMan]

Hmmm, let's see. What do they call it when hostile foreign agents come into the boundaries of a legitimate nation and attempt to destabilize it?

Here is the deal on California.

Following the Gold Rush California was settled primarily by Midwestern and Southern farmers, miners and businessmen.

Democrats dominated the state (California) from its foundation. Southern Democrats sympathetic to secession, although a minority in the state, were a majority in Southern California and Tulare County, and were in large numbers in San Joaquin, Santa Clara, Monterey, and San Francisco counties. California was home for powerful businessmen who played a significant role in Californian politics through their control of mines, shipping, finance, and the Republican Party but were a minority party until the secession crisis.

In 1860, as tensions escalated in the East, pro-Union Californians protested the perceived pro-Southern bias of the San Francisco Roman Catholic archdiocese’s weekly newspaper, The Monitor, by dumping its presses into San Francisco Bay. In the beginning of 1861, as the secession crisis began, the secessionists in San Francisco made an attempt to separate the state and Oregon from the union, which failed. Southern California, with a majority of discontented Californios and Southern secessionists, had already voted for a separate Territorial government and formed militia units, but were kept from secession after Fort Sumter and by Federal troops drawn from the frontier forts of the District of Oregon, and District of California, (primarily Fort Tejon and Fort Mojave).

So, your portrayal of subversive southern agents being sent into California is off the mark. Like many other states, California had mixed loyalties and ambitions, including a considerable faction that wanted a totally separate country, which had nothing to do with Southern secession. And it was the North that inserted armed force into the decision making process.

[SampleMan]

And it was the North that inserted armed force into the decision making process.

My statement there is factually wrong. I meant to say that the North was the first to bring in outside force into the issue.

[SampleMan]

The appropriate reply to your #260 is FU and the toad you rode in on.

Or you could acknowledge that most every aggressive invasion in history was sold with the claim that the "other side fired the first shot".

Hitler took this to the ludicrous level of claiming that the Poles mounted an attack across the border, even producing a dead corpse or two. He just happened to have the entire German army armed, positioned, and ready to go within 6 hrs.

And the truth is that had the Poles decided on a preimptive strike on the Germans, that "first shot" still wouldn't have proven that they were the aggressor.

Next time which historical analogy would you like me to use, as that of the NAZIs appears to disturb you?

[Tau Food]

It wasn't a war between states. It was a war between the United States and an organized group of slaveholders who had become overly dependent on slavery.

Most Southerners now are very grateful that Lincoln and the United States government freed the slaves. They are also very grateful that Lincoln and the United State government freed the slaveholders from their dependent, indolent lifestyles. Many of the slaveholders had convinced themselves that they could not face a future on their own without slaves to care for them. After 1865, most of the slaveholders regained their self-respect by discovering that they could survive on their own without depending on slaves.

Nearly all of them, slaves and slaveholders, and nearly all of their descendants, are grateful to Lincoln and the United States government for their freedom from slavery.

[SampleMan]

You’ve demonstrated that you’re not worth it so I’ll stick with FU and the toad you rode in on.

You could always go down in your bunker with your mistress and gripe about others not being worthy of your brilliance...oh, wait, where are you now?

[rockrr]

“...oh, wait, where are you now?”

Enjoying the fact that I’m not SimpleMinded.

[central_va]

300,000 dead Rebs were sure grateful for Mr. Lincoln’s War.

[Tau Food]

The living are grateful.

Hardly anyone is pro-slavery now.

[central_va]

In 1860 90% of the country was indifferent or pro slavery. Pro slavery was the conservative position. If you view the mid 19th century thru a 21st century lens you will get a distorted view of things.

[SampleMan]

A total lack of critical thought and an aversion to answering challenges to your 5th grade Civil War education certainly helps you form that impressive impression of yourself.

[Tau Food]

As part of Reconstruction, most of the slaveholders regained their ability to care for themselves. Of course, there were some who couldn't make it on their own without slaves to care for them, but most became self-sufficient and regained their self respect in the process.

Self-respect and the ability to care for oneself is extremely important. Dependency weakens the mind, the body and the soul. If you read the so-called declarations of secession that the slaveholders drafted, you will see that the slaveholders themselves were well aware of their dependency on slaves and believed that they could not go forward in this world without being cared for by slaves. It seems that they were quite aware that they had through generations of slavery created in themselves a "culture of dependency" akin to an addiction.

Lincoln freed them of all that and that's why their descendants are now grateful.

[rockrr]

In 1860 the pro-slavery types were southerners - virtually all democrats. Nothing conservative about them at all.

[central_va]

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

Abraham Lincoln

[Tau Food]

Lincoln was a politician and politicians say all sorts of things, but he freed the slaves and the slaveholders and, as I've said before, slavery is gone forever and it isn't coming back.

You can quote me for that one!

[rockrr]

Take your own advice from #272

[central_va]

slavery is gone forever and it isn't coming back.

What a really profound thing to say. Do you actually believe somebody thinks slavery is making a comeback in America?

[Tau Food]

No, I'm sure that slavery isn't making a comeback, but please understand that you're asking someone (me) who is adamantly opposed to slavery. I believe slavery was evil and that slaveholders were very sick, dependent puppies who were in need of some tough love to free them from their addictive, indolent lifestyles. Lincoln gave them that tough love and, as a result, many slaveholders went on to live productive, self-sufficient lives.

And, they (the slaveholders) had said that it couldn't be done. They were saved in spite of themselves!