New Orleans Starts Tearing Down Confederate Monuments, Sparking Protest

Advice. Try to form opinions based on historical fact,not fiction. There is a lot of political ammo from the mid-nineteenth century that could justify what the Union did to the South. But stopping the South from invading and conquering the North is not one of them. Using that argument makes you lose credibility. Like I said it is cartoonish to say the least.

Richmond Dispatch Aug 12th:

"We are naturally horror struck when we hear of such wholesale murder. Fifty thousand men form the population of a large city Richmond, by census of 1860, did not reach quite 40,000. It must be recollected that the population of a city is composed of all ages and sexes, while the victims of a field of battle are all men in the prime of life. It is awful to think of the reckless indifference with which men "break into the bloody house of life," whenever prompted by avarice, ambition, revenge, or any of the "infernal" passions, and our enemies seem to be animated by all of them. It is to them, and them alone, that the war is due. It is the work of their own hands, and they are entitled to all the credit that can be derived from it. Our position is defence, our attitude that of men who merely ward off blows aimed at their hearts, without attempting to retaliate.

True enough. But the difference is that several European powers recognized the colonies as an independent, sovereign nation and dealt with the U.S. as such. Nobody recognized the Confederacy as anything but a rebellious part of the U.S.

Thanks to Franklin. So you are articulating the claim that our legitimacy is solely based on the fact that the long time enemy of Briton could be charmed by Franklin into "recognizing" us? Funny, the Declaration states it is a natural right, and doesn't mention anything about it requiring the approval of other nations.

But Jeff Davis was.

Jeff Davis never had control of the war. Only Lincoln had control. Lincoln could stop it or keep it going. Jeff Davis could only deal with what Lincoln threw at him. Lincoln was the linchpin upon which the deaths hinged. It was by his will that these people died.

I've noticed that people keep talking about the North invading the South or the South invading the North, how do you invade your own country?

Stop trying to force your premises on the debate. By the standards established by our own founding, the South had their own country. The assertion that they did not is simply a narrative that the Union apologists insist on pushing to justify what they did.

Not until the Confederacy, for reasons that they alone determined, decided to initiate hostilities by firing on Sumter.

The hostilities were initiated by rendezvousing a Naval flotilla off the coast of Charleston with secret orders. As I've pointed out numerous times, even Major Anderson realized this was a cause of War. Indeed, the orders to bombard the Fort were contingent on the arrival of another Ship to that flotilla of warships.

You don't put warships in people's face and expect them to just sit there waiting for the cannons to open up on them.

So the South started the war for financial reasons and not slavery?

There you go trying to force your premise on me. The South started independence for several reasons, and chief among them was money. The Union started the War only because of money. 40% of all the South's production was being siphoned off by New York.

Yes, the Union went to war to get that money and control back.

Since slavery was the pillar of their economy and their society how would you separate the two?

Who is suggesting that they be separated? They are different sides of the same coin so far as that time and place were concerned. Yes, the economic engine of the South was Slavery, but neither they or the powers that be in the North East cared about where the money came from.

The South simply wanted to keep more of it, and the North East simply wanted their 40% cut of all the South's production to keep streaming into their pockets.

It was a war of greed, but with a pretend veneer of morality subsequently laid over it to obscure the truth.

Did you know that many in the North hated Lincoln so much that they wanted several different people to run againt him? Some even wanted US Grant to run in 1864.

Under the above caption the New York Heralds of the 31st December, has an editorial of a column and a half in length, in which Sawney Bennett, spreads himself for Unconditional Surrender' Grant, having forgotten in the brief space of one or two months that such a man as Gen. McClellan ever existed. We make room for the following extracts:

Northern men have made many sacrifices for the Union during this war. They have devoted themselves, their lives, their sons, and their money, to the cause of their country. Now we ask them to make one sacrifice more. It will be the last, and the most effectual, and the most successful. We ask them to sacrifice their political ambition. We desire them to unite upon a single Presidential candidate. We appeal to them to secure the unanimous election of Major Gen. Grant.

We make this appeal not so much to the people as to the professional politicians. We know that the majority of the people are with us and will vote for Grant. We know, also, that all the people will vote for Grant if the politicians will only let them alone. But it is undeniable that the politicians do control a few thousand votes by means of their nicely-adjusted political machines; and yet we wish to have Grant unanimously elected.--Therefore we appeal to the politicians. It must be evident to these gentlemen that if Gen. Grant takes the political field no other candidate has any chance of success. Any candidate who may be named, except Gen. Grant, either has powerful and bitter enemies in one party or the other, or else he is so insignificant and unknown that we cannot afford to trust him with the helm of State during such a terrible storm as this Gen. Grant, on the contrary, has no enemies, or at least he has none bold enough to avow themselves. Yet, instead of being insignificant and unknown, he is our greatest military leader, and the greatest General America has produced. The inconsistency of Lincoln has left him no real friends even in his own party, and his course jokes have offended all respectable people. Chase is opposed by all the good financiers in the country, by the ultra radicals, like Wendell Phillips, and by all the conservatives of every shade and degree. So of every prominent man before the people, with the single exception of Maj.-Gen. Grant.

It is for this reason that we nominate Gen. Grant for the next Presidency, and urge all parties to unite in supporting him. The politicians will practically give up very little; for they cannot, and do not hope to be successful against Gen. Grant.--Their only hope now is to kill Grant off before the election, and we must emphatically assure them that this is impossible. If they will calmly consider the matter they will find that they have everything to gain and nothing to lose by uniting upon Grant. They will have nothing to lose, for defeat is inevitable if they run any man against him.--They will have everything to gain, for Grant will make a good President and just President, and will soon end the war and give them a chance to re-construct their shattered parties upon new issues. Besides this we not the slightest objection to their all claiming Grant's election as a victory for their own factions if they will only unite in electing him. General Grant is a very reticent man. He says very little and does a great deal. He is celebrated for his deeds, not for his words. Now, we shall not ask him to speak before election. We shall rather advise him to continue silent. We are content to accept him upon his past record. The Chicago Tribune may call him a Copperhead, and Senator Wilson may can We leave such lies to neutralize each other, and are satisfied to take him as he is. We appeal to men of all parties to do the same thing. It is enough to know that Gen. Grant has just the qualities the country needs in a President, and no one should care a pin for his opinions upon defunct questions of color or politics or what not. The war is the only question before the people, and Gen. Grant is clearly right upon that.

We have said that General Grant, if elected President, would soon end the war. His unanimous election would end the war at once. The rebels have relied upon our political divisions — and alas! not without encouragement — as a great help to them in sustaining their bogus Confederacy. Even now they expect the coming Presidential election to result in a Northern civil war, and this expectation is the secret of their desperate attempt to hold out a little while longer. We appeal to the patriotism of every Northern man to disappoint Jeff. Davis and his followers. Let us show them that we love the Union better than party, and their last hope will be swept away. The rebel leaders are shrewd, crafty men, and they base their calculations upon what they have learned in past years of the politics of the North. They forget, however, that this war has effected a complete revolution in Northern politics. Let us convince them of this mistake by electing Grant unanimously.--That will be the last blow the rebellion will require, and in a month after it will lie lifeless at our feet. When the rebellion began we, too, counted upon internal discussions and divisions among the rebels; but they soon put an end to that by the unanimity with which they re-elected Jeff. Davis. Now, are we less devoted to the Union than the rebels are to disunion? Can we sacrifice less to loyalty than they to rebellion? Heaven forbid! The hardest, the most decisive, the most fatal defeat which we could inflict upon the Southern traitors would be the unanimous election of Grant. That is the reason why we press the subject so urgently. It is quite time that this war were over, and the shortest way to end it is to show the rebels that we consider everything else [ subsidary ] to it by unanimously electing a President whom the rebel leaders will fear and the misguided Southern people respect.

Besides all this, think of the effect which such a sublime manifestation of devotion to the Union would have in Europe. There would be no danger of any foreign war for at least a century afterward. England and France would be only too glad to grant us everything we justly require. The despots and aristocrats of the Old World would see that when the safety of the Republic demands it every American is willing to give up all to his country; and when a nation is thus united it is as irresistible as a Macedon phalanx, and can make its own terms with the world. --Then there would no longer be any expression of foreign sympathy with the rebels. The European powers would have quire enough to do to attend to their own subjects, whose latest democratic feelings would be stirred to fever heat by this glorious exhibition of the majesty of a free people. That is another reason why we desire the unanimous election of Grant. What more powerful motives than the instant overthrow of the rebellion and the encouragement of the Democratic spirit throughout Europe, could we possibly offer to patriotic Americans in order to induce them to a noble act, which will eclipse any popular movement recorded in history, and which will be remembered so long as the world exists? Never could a nation's immortality be purchased so cheaply. The people are already willing and anxious to accomplish it. Only the politicians obstruct the way, and we appeal to them to stand aside. If our appeal be successful they will deserve and receive public gratitude and ample reward. If it be unsuccessful we shall then know with whom we have to deal and how to deal with them. We have spoken frankly and fairly, and in a most unselfish and patriotic spirit, but we do not forget, and beg all concerned to remember — that we are in a position to dictate as well as to request, and that we have the power to sweep out of our path those who will not listen to reason, and who obstinately refuse to mover.

DiogenesLamp: "So long as Article IV section II remained in the constitution, they couldn't even do that effectively.
So long as the Constitution guaranteed that slaves must be returned back to their owners, and so long as it guaranteed that no state law can interfere with the process, how are you going to stop slavery in the territories?"

That only became somewhat true in 1857 with the Supreme Court's Dred-Scott decision which said, in effect, Africans could never be citizens and slaves remained slaves regardless of which state they lived in.

However, before Dred-Scott it was understood by all, including President Washington, that each state could make its own laws regarding slavery & abolition.
Yes, fugitive slaves must be returned, but slave holders could not permanently bring their slaves into free states or territories.

DiogenesLamp: "Only through a constitutional amendment could any law overturn or undermine Article IV Section II."

Sure, that's why the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865.
However, the accepted interpretation of the Constitution before Dred-Scott did not rule out states' abolition and Congress outlawing slavery in territories.
Your suggestions otherwise are pure historical revisionism.

DiogenesLamp: "Funny thing is, they promised them they wouldn't interfere with Slavery, they even went so far as to offer to pass an amendment protecting it in perpetuity, (Corwin Amendment) and yet the first thing they did when they actually achieved power over the South was to do exactly the thing that they said they wouldn't do."

When the Confederacy first provoked war, then started, formally declared and waged war against the United States it effectively released the Union from any such promises.

DiogenesLamp: "Their stated reasons for doing so was "moral reasons", but I cannot help but notice that it not only evaporates 4.5 billion dollars worth of Capital in the South, it crippled them economically as well."

Yes, it's true by 1860 the Deep South especially was booming like no other economy in history.
White slave-holders there, of which nearly 50% of families did, were much better off than even their own Northern cousins.
After the Civil War, not so much.

However, over the next 50+ years the US economy as a whole doubled, re-doubled, re-doubled and doubled yet again from GDP of $4 billion in 1860 to $40 billion in 1914.
Yes, the South lagged behind, but it did participate in the overall expansion, for example, cotton production compared to 1860 grew by 20% in 1870 and 50% by 1890.

DiogenesLamp: "Money/Power. Money/Power. Money/Power. It all comes back to money and power."

Sure, possibly for a committed Marxist like DiogenesLamp.
But most Americans then and now recognize both a Higher Power and nobler causes.

DiogenesLamp: "Of course the next thing that happened was massive corruption in Washington DC and that has lingered in that City ever since."

No, since Democrats were in charge before 1860 and "Democrats" are one definition of the word "corruption".
There's no evidence -- none, zero, nada -- that the percentage of corruption was any different after 1865 than it was before 1860.
Of course the US economy did grow, from $4 billion to $40 billion, and that may explain something.

central_va conceding he's lost this historical argument, now has only insults left to fire off, so let's loose his biggest broadside:

"If you really believe what you are saying then I think you are mentally disturbed.
I would not let you baby sit any of my children.
I do not trust you at all.
You are delusional, deranged.
You are ill.
Seek help.
May God bless you."

Thanks to Franklin.

Looks like the South could have used a few more Franklins and fewer Mason and Slidell's. They could have avoided the whole shootin' match entirely, so to speak.

So you are articulating the claim that our legitimacy is solely based on the fact that the long time enemy of Briton could be charmed by Franklin into "recognizing" us? Funny, the Declaration states it is a natural right, and doesn't mention anything about it requiring the approval of other nations.

The funny thing is that you can issue all the declarations you want and claim to the heavens that you are a by-God independent nation, but unless the other countries of the world agree with you and recognize you as such you're nothing but a hunk of land with a piece of paper and delusions of sovereignty. Agree or disagree, it's just a fact of life.

Jeff Davis never had control of the war. Only Lincoln had control.

Now you're just being silly. Of course Davis had control of the war. He could have not ordered it to begin. And like the only choice you offer Lincoln, Davis could have surrendered at any time.

Stop trying to force your premises on the debate. By the standards established by our own founding, the South had their own country. The assertion that they did not is simply a narrative that the Union apologists insist on pushing to justify what they did.

The hostilities were initiated by rendezvousing a Naval flotilla off the coast of Charleston with secret orders. As I've pointed out numerous times, even Major Anderson realized this was a cause of War. Indeed, the orders to bombard the Fort were contingent on the arrival of another Ship to that flotilla of warships.

Secret orders...which Lincoln conveyed to Governor Pickens long before the ships arrived. Some secret. The Confederates knew that the purpose behind the ships was resupply and not reinforcement. They had the choice between war and status quo. They chose war.

The South simply wanted to keep more of it, and the North East simply wanted their 40% cut of all the South's production to keep streaming into their pockets.

Drifted into silly again, I see.

Drifted into silly again, I see.

Like my pa used to say, "Someone put a bit too much saltpeter into their chowbucket." ;'}

Davis had to start the war or else cooler heads might have prevailed. Certainly VA and the others would not have joined the rebellion without the attack on Fort Sumter.

On a side not calling it the civil war is not correct. The official U.S. Army term is the war of rebellion which is much more accurate in my opinion.

central_va to rockrr: "Much of the Richmond Daily Dispatch from the war years is on line.
Cruise thru that for a start. "

Thanks for the link, I'll save it for future reference.
This report from April 13, 1861 should put to rest any & all debate about when & where civil war began:

"The War Began.
"It will be seen that, under the military compulsion of the immense fiset and army which the Black Republican President has sent to subjugate Charleston, the Carolina forces have been forced, in self-defence, to attempt the reduction of that fort which so long has menaced their homes and firesides, and which Lincoln had formally notified them he was about to supply with provisions,-- "peaceably if he can, forcibly if he must," --a notification which, backed up by an immense naval and military force, was of course a declaration of war.

The war thus inaugurated by the Executive representative of the irrepressible conflict, South Carolina and the Confederate States have sought, by every honorable means, to avoid."

Of course they blame "the Black Republican President", but at least they don't pretend war started somewhere else and some other time.

On a related subject of what we should call it, here is a political notice from the election of 1860, November 3, appearing in the Richmond Daily Dispatch:

"Every vote for Breckinridge is a vote for a Dissolution of the Union, because the great bulk of his supporters in the Southern States are disunionists.
If you vote for Breckinridge you vote for Civil War and all its attendant horrors."

So at least in November 1860, months before it began, "Civil War" was the term used in Richmond for the coming war they even then predicted.
We should also note they did not recommend it and Virginia voted for John Bell's Constitutional Union party.

By the way, central_va's link is an absolutely wonderful resource for any number of questions, for example: when did Southerners begin using the term "Ape" Lincoln?

Answer: it appears in the Richmond Daily Examiner first on February 26, 1861:

"...he defeated the Presidential aspirations of Seward at Chicago and secured the nomination of the "Honest Old Ape" of Illinois..."

So "Ape" Lincoln and his Black Republicans were there from before the beginning.

That only became somewhat true in 1857 with the Supreme Court's Dred-Scott decision

It was always true. It's just that most of the Northern states had gotten into the habit of ignoring it and pretending it had no effect on them. It was still constitutional law (which they agreed to upon Union) but they didn't like it so they pretended it wasn't there. (Kinda like liberals do with the Second Amendment, and lately the first.)

...which said, in effect, Africans could never be citizens and slaves remained slaves regardless of which state they lived in.

The first part is incorrect, and demonstrably so with the available evidence at the time. The Second part is correct according to the clear meaning of the law at the time.

The Article made it clear that the laws of the State where the labor was due applied. So long as the laws of another state compelled the labor, no law of any other state could gainsay it.

However, before Dred-Scott it was understood by all, including President Washington, that each state could make its own laws regarding slavery & abolition.

I don't know whether they understood it to mean that or not, but the clear text of the law says that the laws of the state which compels the labor is to apply.

Yes, fugitive slaves must be returned, but slave holders could not permanently bring their slaves into free states or territories.

How does the law ban that which is legal in a state from a Territory? Sounds like sophistry to me. Even if Congress passed a law banning slavery in the Territories, I think the Supreme Court would have struck it down as unconstitutional, because the Constitution clearly says the laws of the state to which the labor is due are to be applied. Dred Scott did in effect do that.

It also sounds like a violation of the "takings" clause.

Sure, that's why the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865. However, the accepted interpretation of the Constitution before Dred-Scott did not rule out states' abolition and Congress outlawing slavery in territories.

The tolerated (after Prigg v Pennsylvania) interpretation. Tolerated until Dred Scott, that is. Sure, states had the right to ban the creation of new slaves in their state, but they could do nothing about slaves created elsewhere. So long as someone brings in Slaves from outside their state, Article IV requires the States to effectively leave them alone.

Your suggestions otherwise are pure historical revisionism.

They are refutations of existing historical revisionism. They are correcting the false claims of both modern people, and people in the past.

When the Confederacy first provoked war, then started, formally declared and waged war against the United States it effectively released the Union from any such promises.

Or put another way, We don't have to keep our promises so long as we are strong enough to beat you to death. Just stop with your moral justifications already. A promise is never weighed upon to whom it is given, a promise is a measure of the giver, not the receiver.

People of Honor keep their promises, and dishonorable people break theirs. I also reject your premise that it was the Confederacy who started the war. Holding land of no use to you and sending a war fleet to hold it further are themselves justification enough for war.

Yes, it's true by 1860 the Deep South especially was booming like no other economy in history. White slave-holders there, of which nearly 50% of families did, were much better off than even their own Northern cousins. After the Civil War, not so much.

And it wasn't love of the Black people that caused the Economic wreckage in the South. As i've said numerous times, New York was Rome and Charleston was Carthage, and it was hatred of an economic rival that motivated the conquerors to sow salt into the economic soil of the South. They evaporated 4.5 billion dollars worth of Capital out of revenge and to prevent future rivalry. They would guarantee that the South would never threaten them economically again.

It was all about Money and Power.

Sure, possibly for a committed Marxist like DiogenesLamp.

You still pushing that Marxism crap? Grow up.

But most Americans then and now recognize both a Higher Power and nobler causes.

Sure. That's why Illinois had laws preventing Black people from living in Illinois. Sure, a "higher power" and a noble concern for the plight of Black people is what motivated them. It had nothing to do with the money at all. It was just a coincidence that Lincoln intended to send all the Black people back to Africa, or Brazil (where they still had slavery)) or anyplace but the United State and it's a coincidence that he was an officer of an organization in Illinois dedicated to deporting Black People.

The "Noble Cause" stuff was for the gullible. Power Barons of the North East looked at the economics. They could not allow the South to become independent because that would upend their rice bowls.

The funny thing is that you can issue all the declarations you want and claim to the heavens that you are a by-God independent nation, but unless the other countries of the world agree with you and recognize you as such you're nothing but a hunk of land with a piece of paper and delusions of sovereignty. Agree or disagree, it's just a fact of life.

Why don't you say what you really mean? If another nation has the power and the will to conquer you, you cannot be free. Isn't that the basis upon which Slavery exists?

Now you're just being silly. Of course Davis had control of the war. He could have not ordered it to begin. And like the only choice you offer Lincoln, Davis could have surrendered at any time.

There is that promotion of slavery again. I thought the Northern apologists were supposed to be against forced subjugation?

Secret orders...which Lincoln conveyed to Governor Pickens long before the ships arrived. Some secret. The Confederates knew that the purpose behind the ships was resupply and not reinforcement.

Something like 3,000 men to unload supplies? And no, Lincoln did not convey the secret orders he had given to his agents going to Pickens or Sumter. Those secret orders have never been revealed, but they authorized those men to take command of those ships, (among other things) and those secret orders were issued outside of the normal Naval chain of command.

It is clear Lincoln intended to trigger hostile action, because his agent sent to fort Pickens expected to be sunk. If he hadn't gotten a war started at Sumter, he was going to get one started at Pickens.

Yes, the confederates knew that Lincoln was claiming that was his intentions, but his claimed intentions did not match up with the actions that Confederate spies had already told them about. One does not outfit ships in secret if one is delivering supplies.

Drifted into silly again, I see.

You think that New York skimming off 40% of all the South's production is a silly claim? I guess you do need to see the map again. Remember 3/4ths of all that money piled on New York came from the South's exports.

At 1AM
Only criminals work under cover of darkness

"The War Began. "It will be seen that, under the military compulsion of the immense fiset and army which the Black Republican President has sent to subjugate Charleston, the Carolina forces have been forced, in self-defence, to attempt the reduction of that fort which so long has menaced their homes and firesides, and which Lincoln had formally notified them he was about to supply with provisions,-- "peaceably if he can, forcibly if he must," --a notification which, backed up by an immense naval and military force, was of course a declaration of war.

Like I said, they regarded the cannons of Ft. Sumter and the sending of that menacing fleet as an act of war. Had they won, their history books would have cited the sending of the Fleet as the act of war, much as the British did with the Spanish Armada, before the Spanish had even fired a shot.

So who was the aggressor, Britain or Spain?

I don't believe that I've ever encountered anyone on FreeRepublic as thoroughly anti-American as you.

I believe in the principle of Independence upon which this nation was founded. I believe people have the right to self determination as the founders articulated in the Declaration.

That makes you anti-American, not me.

Really? What was it about Sumter in particular?

It controlled the port of Charleston. It could control the shipping into and out of Charleston. It could control the flow of MONEY.

Projectin’ again are ya General?

What the f is wrong with you? The South opened fire on Ft. Sumter. In effect it declared war against the United States. Lincoln had constitutional authority to put down an armed insurrection. “Invasion’’ my ass! You know, you're being made a fool of here up and down this thread. if you had any self respect you'd shut up.

“Self righteous, arrogant’’, Really? I’d say supporting a cause that took up arms against a duly elected government for the purpose of preserving an economic system based on the use of slave labor is pretty damn self righteous and arrogant. And One hundred and seventy years later venerating statues and monuments to a bunch of treasonous losers is equal parts of both.