Posted on 08/16/2017 1:08:55 PM PDT by PeaRidge
"History, by apprising [citizens] of the past will enable them to judge of the future; it will avail them of the experience of other times and other nations; it will qualify them as judges of the actions and designs of men; it will enable them to know ambition under every disguise it may assume; and knowing it, to defeat its views." ---Thomas Jefferson
From the time of the middle of the 19th Century, the deep Southern States’ governments and the Southern people have been depicted as being totally preoccupied with the survival of slavery, while Northern people were to become the defenders of universal freedom.
Those reading many of the dominant post-era authors of the history of this period are often led to the absolute conclusion that the controversies which arose between the states, and the war in which they culminated, were caused largely by efforts on the one side to extend and perpetuate human slavery, and on the other side to resist it and establish human liberty.
Generations of Southern people and many historians would vigorously disagree with these views. Based on records of the time, that construct is substantially devoid of important historical facts, and fails to include the issues, which produced the secession, and those that caused President Lincoln to send Federal troops to the harbors in Charleston and Pensacola to initiate war.
This is a great disservice to generations of Americans who have not been urged to study the records of the period produced by authors writing at the actual time of the events. However, having been consistently presented in modern schoolbook, film, and television media accounts of the American Civil War, these notions have now spread to become the commonly accepted thesis of that era in US history.
The prevailing views of the practice of slavery in the US have been fashioned by authors and historians primarily from the accounts of first and second-hand observers of the slave South. Since such observers lacked the hard data needed to determine the scope and nature of this relationship, they could only convey their impressions. Unfortunately, these impressions are far from uniform, and incorrectly stereotype the people of the time.
With the acceptance of the media driven concept of slavery, it has then become logical to argue that it was necessary for the US government to wage a four-year war to abolish slavery in the United and Confederate States, one that ravaged half of the country and destroyed a generation of American men.
At the beginning of the history of the country, the founding fathers were opponents to empire, a policy that Lincoln and the incoming Republican Party’s platform turned on its head less than 150 years later. In 1860 Southern economic interests understood the effects of these policies and decided to leave the union.
The war was clearly tied to slavery, but in the sense that Republican tariffs would have squeezed the profitability out of the slave-based cotton plantation economy to the benefit of Northern industry, especially Union textiles and iron manufacturing.
Lincoln claimed the war was to "save" the Union, but this was only true in a geographic sense. The country ceased being a Union, as it was originally conceived, of separate and sovereign states, and sovereign people bound together by common interests and a Constitutional republican form of government.
Instead, America became an "amalgam" of states dominated by a powerful and centralized federal government. Although the war freed four million slaves into poverty, it did not bring about a new birth of freedom, as Lincoln later claimed in the Gettysburg Address.
As the thirteen colonies, did when they seceded from Britain, the South sought separation to attain peace and security, not warfare among the people. The Confederacy had no intent to occupy or attack the Union states.
Violence was brought to the soil of the South by the only human being of the time that had the power to do so, Abraham Lincoln.
It is happening all over again.
“and those that caused President Lincoln to send Federal troops to the harbors in Charleston and Pensacola to initiate war.”
Nonsense. They were sent to relieve a siege. A siege is an act of war. Their orders were to do so peacefully, but respond with force if they were opposed. In any case the South intitiated hostilities before they got there. The south started the war, and gleefully so.
As for the cause, the speeches of the politicans who voted for succession make it clear it was about keeping slavery. No matter how you neo-Confederates try to twist history you can’t change it.
Exactly as can be said of the Colonies who rebelled against England. Well put!
Except that the colonies won.
Very good points. And think of this, if Bobby Lee had listened to Longstreet and instead of sending Picket across the field had instead sent him South to start digging trenches and sliding a defensive line toward Washington, he very well may have won the War for the South. No WWI because the German Empire would have actually overwhelmed the British Empire. Who knows what subsequent wars may have been won and lost but there might be a better than even chance we would speaking German now rather than English. Crying over spilt milk is no good but is interesting to ponder.
Cornerstone Speech:
“Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. “
Stuff like this is plenty blameworthy.
Also no USA. The continent would have remained 1/3rd USA, 1/3rd Confed, and 1/3rd divided between various European powers. That’s best case. When the Confed’s one-note economy collapsed they could easily have attacked as a distraction to the populace (as many oligarchies have done) or have been bailed out by, say, England at the cost of being a protectorate or such.
The prosperity we know today came ONLY after we stretched “from sea to shining sea” and after we settled the issue of kidnapping as a solution to labor shortages.
just answering the question
It was largely the fault of us Yankees for waiting so long for it to “die out on its own” (a popular phrase for generations). We refused to realize that slavery is as addictive as marijuana or cocaine because it gives a man unlimited power over the lives of others.
It could have been ended flat out with no more than an abortive revolt like Shay’s Rebellion at plenty of points...but probably not after Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin and certainly not by 1860. There were too many 1%ers with their entire fortunes invested in slavery, and too many of Bob Averages who loved to lord it over every poor negro they came across.
The only reason the "Yanks" aren't still the Brits is because King George III was not as mad as Abraham Lincoln. He quit after 15,000 casualties, rather than hold out for 3/4s of a million.
"With malice toward none, with charity for all..."
Legal until December of 1865, but only in the Northern states. They were illegal in the Southern states in July of 1865, but the Union wanted to keep slavery for another six months longer.
and those that caused President Lincoln to send Federal troops to the harbors in Charleston
uhh, the Confederates bombarded Sumter, regardless of the fact that it was obvious that Anderson’s position was untenable due to lack of supplies...the glory seeker Beauregard was only too willing to initiate the bombardment, which was a one sided affair...
perhaps the bombardment was rather banal, producing no fatalities, but how stupid of the Confederates in SC to allow Lincoln the justification for mobilization of troops and the prosecution of war, when all they had to do was starve the minimal garrison at the fort into submission...
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery— the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.
The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.
The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.
The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.
It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.
Excerpt
https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states#Mississippi
In the North too. And for longer. Slavery lasted longer in the Northern states than it did in the Southern states. Kinda puts the lie to the "We were fighting to end slavery" propaganda.
What changed was subsistence farming didn't satisfy people's needs or wants and they had to start working in an economy that was increasingly dominated by far-away corporations.
And "Mercantilism" (The official philosophy of the Corporate Railroad Lawyer who became President) assisted these "corporations" in every manner possible to become more powerful and more plutocratic.
The Fed Gov was subsidizing Northern Shipping and Fishing Industries, and building Railroads in the North that served no practical purpose other than lining the pockets of the railroad Barons.
Farmers in the Midwest were prevented from shipping their grain on river barges, but instead were required to pay exorbitant fees for them to be carried by railroads.
The stuff that was going on then we now regard as "Crony Capitalism", and it is from this era that what we are now calling "the establishment" became powerful. It is no wonder that the era of Grant was regarded as the most corrupt era in American History. It led to what was called "The Gilded Age", where Robber Barons more or less ran the nation, till Teddy Roosevelt (another New Yorker like Trump) came along and kicked their A$$e$ and put an end to much of their influence and corruption.
With the Civil War there are several layers, and people typically pick the layer they like.
Its important to recognize that the South’s political leadership and its soldiers fought for two separate things.
The political leadership was very open and unashamed in its defense of slavery. Read the articles of secession for the various seceding states. The key issue isn’t tariffs, it isn’t exactly slavery per se, it is the right to extend slavery into the western states. This they state clearly again and again.
Lincoln was an avowed abolitionist, as can be easily seen by reading his speeches and letters. The south knew who he was, and it was for this reason that his election triggered secession.
He did try to keep them in the union. To save the union he was willing to let slavery die a natural death in the states where it already existed. He stated that openly after his election. He was not willing to let it spread to any more territory, however. That was his sticking point.
The slave states state very clearly that, if it is not allowed to spread west, it will die a natural death, and they could not allow that. So the right to spread slavery west was their non-negotiable sticking point.
Had the Civil War not been fought then, it would have been fought later, over the western states. Because that was the prize they both fought for.
As for the individual Confederate soldier and front line officers, they fought for loyalty to their state. They didn’t fight for slavery. The Union soldiers fought to keep the country united. It is the south’s political leadership that made slavery their issue, and they weren’t shy about stating it aloud.
The GOP was born specifically to end slavery. Christians, particularly, were disgusted that the Whigs wouldn’t take a stand, and established their own party. In practical terms, they had no chance, they were a tiny minority party. But from the moment they were founded, in 9 years we had the Emancipation Proclamation, and within a couple of years after that slavery was outlawed for good. Once GOP became a majority party (and reabsorbed the Whigs) they took on other issues. But their founding issue was slavery and they were very clear about that from day one.
Problem with that theory is that it does not fit the facts. Lincoln stated in his first innaugaral address that he would support the Corwin Amendment which would have made slavery effectively permanent. He also said as late as August of 1862 that if he could save the Union without freeing any slaves, he would do it.
Add to that the fact that the Northern states kept slavery six months longer than the Southern states, and it becomes hard to argue that Slavery had much to do with why the Union decided to invade the South and get 750,000 people killed.
Nope, it was about control of the economic commerce of the South, and nothing else.
Without the US introducing all the fresh troops, the War would have ground to a stalemate, or perhaps a German victory. Either way, there would have been no Weimar Republic with it's horrific inflation and deprivation fueling the rise of the Nazis.
Tens of Millions of people who were murdered in the subsequent conflicts would likely not have died in this alternate timeline.
“The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation.”
Excerpt
https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states#Mississippi
They truly thought that us Yanks were a bunch of tea-sipping 90-pound wimps who would fold with a single decisive attack despite the massive imbalance of in heavy industry, and sadly the belief wasn’t entirely unfounded as we’d folded like paper multiple times.
Curiously enough Japan had exactly this in mind when they hit Pearl Harbor and mocked us as “a nation of shopkeepers”. But they could never even hope to invade our homeland (a Japanese general rightly predicted “a rifle behind every blade of grass”) and their backasswards samurai mentality hampered their war efforts.
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.