Posted on 07/06/2013 7:37:16 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
A Conversation with Thomas Fleming, historian and author of A Disease in the Public Mind: A New Understanding of Why We Fought the Civil War.
Thomas Fleming is known for his provocative, politically incorrect, and very accessible histories that challenge many of the clichés of current American history books. Fleming is a revisionist in the best conservative sense of the word. His challenges to accepted wisdom are not with an agenda, but with a relentless hunger for the truth and a passion to present the past as it really was, along with capturing the attitudes and culture of the times.
In The New Dealers’ War Fleming exposed how the radical Left in FDR’s administration almost crippled the war effort with their utopian socialist experimentation, and how Harry Truman led reform efforts in the Senate that kept production in key materials from collapse.
In The Illusion of Victory, Fleming showed that while liberal academics may rate Woodrow Wilson highly, that he may have been the most spectacularly failed President in history. 100,000 American lives were sacrificed to favor one colonial monarchy over another, all so Wilson could have a seat at the peace table and negotiate The League of Nations. Instead, the result of WWI was Nazism and Communism killing millions for the rest of the century.....
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
I've never seen a discussion of the Constitution's "direct tax" provision, or what it specifically had to do with the 3/5 rule.
Perhaps it was considered then as a potential emergency war-time measure to quickly raise funds for national defense?
In any case it was never used, so far as I know.
The Constitution Convention debates leading to the 3/5 compromise had more to do with Northerners claiming they too wanted to count "property", so how about their livestock and furniture?
The bottom line is: slave-holders insisted they must have both Constitutional protections for slavery and representative advantages for slave-holders, while non-slave delegates were willing to settle for Union and a vague hope for slavery to eventually die out.
BroJoeK,
Thank you for your response. There was no need for dripping sarcasm and personal attacks. You fancy yourself quite an expert.
As to the economics, you are correct and I was wrong. The main income of the Federal government before 1861 was import tariffs, not export tariffs.
As for Lincoln not caring about the slaves, here is the quote that is definitive:
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.” The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, “Letter to Horace Greeley” (August 22, 1862), p. 388.
Obviously a man who cared about slaves would be of one mind or the other.Lincoln cared more about maintaining the Union, but the individual slave, not so much. He was more concerned with the spread of slavery to new territories and states, but could live with it where it existed, and he said so on many occasions.No doubt you are familiar with those quotes.
Therefore if something could live with this evil institution, you cannot say he cared about the slaves.He let the slaves be in northern border states such as Delaware and Maryland,lest they join the South. So “caring about slaves” was not his main thought unless there was political gain for the purposes he thought paramount. Either slavery is evil or it is not, either abolish it pr continue it, but a man who cares about slaves would not continue their enslavement, would he?
As or coming into the Union by consent of Congress, the original thirteen colonies did not receive consent of Congress to create the Union.So if an original colony wished to leave the United States, whose permission did it need? all the eventual Confederate States did not wish to leave the Union, some did right away, and others followed once a state of war existed between the North and South.
As far as what I said about Jeff Davis offering to pay for Federal facilities before Sumter, that is absolutely true, and Lincoln declined the offer.Lincoln could have brought the offer to Congress, but did not.
As concerning Ft. Sumter, South Carolina had seceded already, and a Confederacy was already formed, in the eyes of the South. The North did not recognize the Confederacy. Fine. Knowing the inflamed passions,and Lincoln would, as he almost did not survive his journey to DC the month before,why throw gasoline on the fire? Lincoln could have withdraw Sumter, and he knew that resupplying ti would be viewed as an act of war by the South.Are you saying there was no way to negotiate a peace? Why not let warring brother depart? Maybe he could not do so politically. But that does not mean the possibility did not exist.
As for pushing the US around, the list of provocations was not one way. It was both ways. You seem to see things through one prism only.
As for the comment about those who would profit off the war, I included both sides, as that is human nature. My comment concerned those who profited off war materials and weapons, not the average soldier on the filed.The average soldier on the field fought for his ideals, as he understood them on both sides. But war is very profitable, and many became rich off the blood that was shed.That truth has nothing to do with socialism or Communism. It just is.And it has happened in any war ever fought by man, because the cause of war is not for ideals, but for economics on some level.Thus your comment ascribing the fault of my education somehow was incorrect and unwarranted.
As fr as mechanization, it is absolutely true that slavery would have become uneconomic when machines, which did not need to be housed, fed, clothed, and cared for, would take over the chores of tilling, planting, and harvest. Even if the South could not see it coming, it was coming nevertheless. As far as slaves being taught to work in factories, etc. that may have happened or it may not have. Certainly not after the Reconstruction, as the two tier caste system was already cast. Indeed for a hundred years to come after the Civil War, the blacks were relegated to non skilled work. Regardless of the Civil War or not, economics were coming that would change all of America, but your view of post Civil War South and the inclusion of the blacks into the skilled work force is not realistic. It would have been a difficult sell under the best of circumstances. We could not even integrate the armed services until 1847, after WW2.
And don’t say it was the “Slave Powers” that ran the military for the 80 years after the Civil War.
As for Lincoln being a saint, that is how it was taught to me in the 1960s in NJ, a northern state.He thought the Union had to be saved. I say a price of 600,000 men was to high. The moral blame for these deaths is spread around among all the leaders, but the driving force of the war was to save the Union. We can look back and ask why, without the barrage of insults that a contrary view may hold against our own.
You would do well not to ascribe motives, or to insult people who may ask different questions then you do.
When it comes to any historical event, there is the truth that the victor writes the story with its own view of the situation. As we find in many areas of life, there are at least two sides to every story, and life is not always cast in terms of black and white.
In previous post about the armed forces, 1847 should have been 1947.
You raise an interesting premise.
We truly are captive to the Federal and State governments for taxes, not paying for Uncle Sam’s bill until early May.
Thus for one third of the year we work for the government that demands more and more from us each passing year.
And we must pay the tax on the entire income without deducting for the cost of providing our labor in exchange for the paycheck.
Our labor is worth something. Except when Uncle Sam does the accounting.
I am certain you already know that secessionists in Deep South states committed many acts of ever-increasing rebellion, insurrection, "domestic violence" and war against the United States in the exactly six-months between Lincoln's election on November 6, 1860 and the Confederacy's formal declaration of war on the United States, May 6, 1861.
These included forceful seizures of dozens of Federal properties (i.e., forts, ships, arsenals, armories & mints), threats against Federal officials, and shooting at Union ships.
Confederate acts of war culminated in their military assault on Fort Sumter, April 12, and formal Declaration of War, May 6.
After formally declaring war, the Confederacy immediately began assaults in slave-holding Union states, especially Missouri but including Virginia (before it seceded) and eventually Kentucky & Maryland.
Bottom line: there is no possible question of "the South seceding peacefully" because they refused to go peacefully.
As was their nature, the Slave Power was always assertive, aggressive, expansionist, violent and uncompromising in its demands.
Fortunately, today everything is different, and we never see such traits in our pro-Confederate FRiends, right?
;-)
What have we gained? Not a whole lot. We’ve ended slavery yet submitted everyone to it.
JCBreckenridge: "Nullification 1828.
Elimination of the Bank of the United States, 4 years later, on grounds cited by Jackson who removed the funds to various state banks."
I'll repeat: you're just making cr*p up, FRiend, if you fantasize the Nullification issue of 1828 had something to do with secession beginning in November 1860.
It didn't.
Secessionist acted because of the election of anti-slavery "black Republican" Abraham Lincoln, pure and simple.
All the rest of it is just lame excuses, after the fact, with all the persuasive powers of, "the dog ate my homework, teacher."
Well, it was about “black slavery,” which was the peculiar institution of the South. Slavery did not exist under English law and was instituted in America for indians and blacks. Around 1700, as the indian population melted away.mainly from disease, Africans were brought in to supply the labor. From the start, America had a labor shortage and even the highest birth rate in world history, which occured during the first part of the 18th century, did not make up the shortfall because of the immensity of the task.
“I am certain you already know that secessionists in Deep South states committed many acts of ever-increasing rebellion, insurrection, “domestic violence” and war against the United States in the exactly six-months between Lincoln’s election on November 6, 1860 and the Confederacy’s formal declaration of war on the United States, May 6, 1861.”
Unlike well-mannered Trayvon model John Brown, eh? Gunrunning into the South was perfectly legal.
“These included forceful seizures of dozens of Federal properties”
You mean properties that the South had served for, paid for, maintained and protected for decades?
“Bottom line: there is no possible question of “the South seceding peacefully”
Well, sure. The aggressor always states there was no alternative. They were forced to invade the south because the South wanted to leave! How dare they!
The cause of the South is very clear. They wanted to leave the Union the same way they came.
“because they refused to go peacefully.”
They were never allowed to go peacefully.
“Slavery did not exist under English law”
Yes, slavery existed under English law during the colonial period and was eventually eradicated by Wilberforce.
How do you think the slaves got to North America in the first place? Swimming?
Slavery is slavery, whether to another man or to a Statist Government. It is evil.
Totalitarianism in all it’s forms is Evil. Progressivism, Socialism, Marxism, Communism, Fascism, Dictatorship, Islam.
ALL EVIL.
“I’ll repeat: you’re just making cr*p up, FRiend, if you fantasize the Nullification issue of 1828 had something to do with secession beginning in November 1860.
It didn’t.”
I’ll stick with what President Jackson and Calhoun - actual contemporaries, said about this issue back then.
Yes, they were connected. Yes, Jackson shut it down for the same reason Calhoun was trying to shut down the tariff.
I realize that it’s hard to let go the lies of a northern public education.
Perhaps, but none that they had any legal claim to.
Do you think the descendants of slaves still feel the effects of slavery? If not, what's the difference?
If they paid, equipped and protected them, then they had a substantial ongoing legal interest.
The Union couldn’t simply claim that it was theirs without just compensation. It was no more ‘theirs’ than it belonged to the South.
Calling up the state of Virginia to mobilize against the confederacy was an act of war. Until then, the Confederacy had done nothing more but assert that they wanted to leave the union - peacefully - and protect their borders (which, last I checked, includes the state of South Carolina.
Almost all of the fighting was fought on Confederate soil. If the Confederacy intended to subjugate the North, then why did they end up defending. Gettysburg is the only time in the entire civil war that the South fought on Northern territory above the mason dixon. In 4 years. That’s it.
Taxation and representation were directly linked. Because the South controlled the central government, it controlled the taxing power. When that went away, the possibility arose that slaves might be taxed directly, and since in the late ‘50s, an able bodied male slave was a very valuable piece of property, that could hit the slaveowner pretty hard, even paying for three in five would have been a real hit. The slave states seceded because they feared a central government they could no long control.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong (at least you’re consistent ;-)
JCBreckenridge: "Heh, you haven’t even seen what they did during reconstruction.
Heck, we still have laws that say the south are second-class citizens... "
Do you not comprehend that Northern attitudes towards the South changed in the five years between 1860 and 1865?
Which part of that change did you somehow miss?
previously, BJK referring to 1860: “What most Northerners wanted was to prevent slavery from becoming legal in their own states and in western territories.”
JCBreckenridge: "Then why did they invade the South?"
The Union did not invade until after Deep South states declared secession, then provoked, started and formally declared war on the United States.
Soon Confederate forces invaded Union states & territories of Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Oklahoma, New Mexico, then Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana & Kansas.
And they didn't stop there -- Confederates eventually operated in California, Colorado, Vermont and even New York.
Bottom line: Confederates were always as aggressive towards the Union as they physically could be.
So a Confederate Civil War victory meant inevitable destruction of whatever was left of the United States Union.
Representation had nothing to do with “human rights.” But of course, the slaves did have “human rights.” State laws recognized them as humans and for some purposes even legal persons. At the same time, they were chattel property, and so more like criminals sentenced for a lifetime of hard labor. Notice that the 13th Amendment does not use the term “slavery.” but “involuntary servitude.”
“Do you not comprehend that Northern attitudes towards the South changed in the five years between 1860 and 1865?”
I contend that there were folks who wanted the outright destruction of the South and the slave power even back in the 1820s, and that there was significant opposition to the South and to Jackson back then.
From, much the same quarters as we later saw in the 60s. See, you don’t understand this conflict which is why you think it suddenly burst out in 1860 out of nowhere. No, no it didn’t. The conflict between the states and the federal government goes back a long time.
We see in the war of 1812 - that the North, when it suited her interests was willing to defy the federal government and seek secession.
Again, it had nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with the same dispute that consumed Jackson and Calhoun. The same arguments advanced by Ohio in their dispute with the Bank of the US were advanced later by Calhoun and then in the Civil War.
“The Union did not invade until after Deep South states declared secession”
So the Union invaded. Thank you. Rather than permit the South to leave the same way they came (the same argument advanced by New England), the almighty federal government said no.
At a cost of half a million Americans. Was it worth it?
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.