The Quiet Sesquicentennial of the War between the States

American Thinker ^ | 5/20/2014 | James Longstreet

[rockrr]

I'd be happy to provide you with links. mises.org and anything di lorenzo come to mind right off the top.

There has been no other conflict as widely chronicled as the War Between The States.

[BroJoeK]

upcountryhorseman: "Where is the southern propaganda?
All I have seen since childhood is history as written by northern propagandists."

FRiend, we're not talking about southern propaganda, we're talking specifically about pro-Confederate propaganda-lies, which began even before the Civil War was over, from people like Jefferson Davis' efforts to rewrite history, and make it appear as something other than "all about slavery".
From Jefferson Davis to today's achilles2000 our pro-Confederate Lost Causers want us to believe something noble and American inspired them -- i.e., "Big Government overreach", "states-rights", "that evil Ape Lincoln", "haughty New Englanders", "mercantilists' tariffs" something, anything else, to distract from the real, sorry truth of the matter: Deep South Fire-Eaters declared their secession and war on the United States in order to protect the future of their "peculiar institution", slavery.

So, what you're calling "northern propaganda" is mostly just simple, accurate recounting of actual facts & reasons, in the face of persistent efforts by pro-Confederates to revise them.

upcountryhorseman: "How can you deny that Sherman’s march to the sea was pillage?
The South was utterly destroyed for 100 years."

I've denied nothing which actually happened.
But for generations scholars, including Southerners, have searched the archives and even grave-yards for evidence of the "mass destruction", "pillage", "rape" and "murder" so often claimed by pro-Confederates.

It's just not there.
What is there tells us that Confederate forces operating outside the Confederacy were just as destructive, and often more-so, as Union armies fighting in the Confederacy.
However, by contrast with other armies before & since, both Confederate and Union armies were generally highly civilized "Christian soldiers."
To pick out just one example: a civil war in Europe known as the Thirty Years War killed two-thirds of the civilian population where it was fought -- mostly Germany.
In the American Civil War, you must resort to statistical projections for what Southern populations might have been had there been no war, to claim "mass civilian deaths".

In fact, there were virtually none.

As for that 100 years of southern poverty you point to, yes, it's true that the loss of slavery, and other war-related events (i.e., new supply sources for America cotton), threw the southern economy into a tail-spin from which it took generations to recover.
Indeed, as northern industrial might continued to grow -- through WWII and beyond -- the South became increasingly relatively backward.

Today much of that has changed, and the reasons include northern liberal self-destruction (i.e., unions, welfare states), increasing industrialization in the South, and I think, the biggest single factor in southern growth: air conditioning.

[upcountryhorseman]

You are absolutely right about the air conditioning. Once,
when I was staying in Florida, I went outside at 6;00 in the morning, there wasn’t a soul in site because of the heat
and humidity.

[BroJoeK]

Sherman Logan, post #384, reviewing one classical theory: "The War was caused by secession, which was at root caused by a desire to protect and eventually expand slavery, though many other factors were also involved.
Southerners fought honorably and bravely for their freedom but were nevertheless defeated.
No harm, no foul."

A simple review of historical facts shows us that:

1. Mercantilist trade tariffs did not cause Civil War.
   
2. Fugitive slave laws or Dred Scott did not cause Civil War
   
3. Slavery in the territories did not cause Civil War.
   
4. John Brown did not cause Civil War.
   
5. Secession itself did not cause Civil War.
   
6. Formation of the Confederacy by itself did not cause Civil War.

All of those things happened, and still there was no war -- indeed in his Inaugural Address (March 4, 1861), Lincoln told Secessionists that they could not have a war, unless they themselves started it.

And so, that is what Jefferson Davis & Co. immediately did (March 3) -- ordering preparations for a military assault on Fort Sumter, an act of war as clear as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
Three weeks after Fort Sumter, the Confederacy "sealed the deal" by formally declaring war on the United States.

So, "what caused the war" must be traced back into the minds & motivations of Davis & others who urged & supported his actions.
Therefore we must ask: why in April of 1861, does Davis want to start a war with the United States?
Here are my answers:

1. Davis has decades of experience with what were called "Dough-faced" Northerners, such as outgoing President James Buchanan, who Davis believes could be easily bullied & pushed around.
   Davis' experience showed that Northerners were so frightened of war they will quickly back-down after a simple show of Southern manly bravado.

2. Virginia -- and along with it North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas (aka: "Upper South") -- have all refused the Deep South's pleas to join it in Secession.
   One reason is that Virginia's Constitution-ratifying signing statement says Virginia cannot secede until there has been some act of "oppression" or "injury" which can amount to a material breach of contract.
   And up until April, 1861, the Union has been studiously careful to provide the Upper South with no legitimate excuses for declaring secession.
   But Davis knows that Virginians will consider any act of war, regardless of who starts it as adequate to satisfy their need for a material breach of contract to declare secession.

3. War with the United States will be their glorious Second War of Independence, and like the Founders' Revolutionary War, it will establish beyond question the fact & legitimacy of Confederate government, at least in their own eyes.

4. War will force all slave states -- even the Border States (Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri) -- to chose sides, a choice which Davis & Co. fully expect will be in their favor.
   Indeed, Lincoln himself said that if Border States seceded, the Union would be lost.

5. War will also force foreign countries like Britain & France to take notice of the Confederacy, and in due time, recognize its military successes.

Of course, Davis was warned at the time that starting war would not end well, and we have to give him some credit for understanding the gravity of his actions.
Therefore we must assume that he considered his reasons compelling enough to overcome any & all objections, no matter how dire.

Sherman Logan: "Revisionism is meaningless except with reference to what it is revising."

Granted, the world is chock full of revisionists who wish to modify the past in order to make themselves look good.

Indeed, I would call Global Warming alarmists not only historical-revisionists -- in modifying past climate data to make the present seem warmer by comparison -- but future-revisionists, who wish us to believe that without their nostrum of insane socialism, the earth will explode in a great ball of fire, goodness gracious! ;-)

Anyway, the historical facts in this case are clear, and while it's entirely understandable that our Lost-Causer FRiends wish us to think better of their ancestors' leaders, the truth is, they really can't do it without distorting & ignoring what actually happened.

That's revisionism.

[BroJoeK]

Sherman Logan to achilles2000: "That the location of the clause in question means that it is inherently and solely a legislative power is certainly a common POV.
That it is not the only POV for which a case can be made is shown best by this article."

Lincoln's Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus: An Historical and Constitutional Analysis, by James Dueholm, 2008

Thanks, SL for that link.
I read it, and printed it (13 pages!!) for future reference.
Of the several arguments advanced, the simplest & best I liked is Horace Binney's 1862 article, where he compares the Constitution to English law, in which Parliament can allow Habeas Corpus suspension in emergencies, but only the chief executive can determine when such conditions are met.
Binney wrote that likewise, the Constitution allows Habeas Corpus suspension in emergencies, so only the chief executive can determine when such conditions exist.

Lincoln's argument, in his July 4, 1861 address to Congress, is essentially the same: since the Constitution itself is silent on who has such powers, and Congress may not be in session when a crisis arises, the President must act to fulfill his oath to "protect, preserve and defend" the Constitution and the Republic it defines, by ordering suspension of Habeas Corpus.

At the same time, Lincoln suggested Congress offer up legislation according to its "better judgment".
And Congress, after lengthy deliberations, eventually did just that, authorizing Lincoln's actions in the future, and making no comment on his past suspensions.
It was thought that any such comment would suggest disapproval, and so was studiously avoided.

Anyway, thanks again for the link.
Don't know how I can get 13 pages of legal opinion reduced into FR-appropriate bullet points & bumper sticker arguments ;-) but will keep it handy, just in case!