Some thoughts on how we might get from where we’re at now to a Second Civil War

Foriegn Policy ^ | October 10, 2017 | Thomas E. Ricks

[2ndDivisionVet]

Lt. Col. Robert F. McTague, U.S. Army (Ret.) Best Defense office of Second Civil War affairs

If we have a second Civil War, trying to understand what is happening will feel more like Ukraine in 2014 than Virginia in 1861.

Our first Civil War was primarily about slavery, but that was in the context of social and economic models in the South that were ripe for extinction. The South’s reaction was to launch a last-ditch effort to maintain and prop up its way of life at all costs, so it was visceral and violent.

Likewise, Trump’s election was an angry, defiant death throe, a angry cry against demographic and economic changes that are in fact irreversible. So, if you are a New Right strategist today — call them the Great Disruptors — the question is, how do you confront those inevitabilities?

First, you continue at the low level, with some really advanced, effective gerrymandering, as in Wisconsin. You continue to enflame working class whites, who have been ignored by the Democrats for decades. You also try to limit immigration and free trade as much as possible.

Even so, even as they do this, the New Right’s Disruptors know they can slow down changes to the nation, but they can’t stop them. So what’s the next step? You up the ante. You make it holy war. You persuade your base that there is no other way but violence. I believe many, perhaps most, of the members of Trump’s base will sign up for that.

Why? Because they will believe they are on the side of good, of right, of Americanism.

Many people in the South and heartland in general often think of themselves as patriotic, loyal Americans, more so than “liberals,” “Yankees,” “elites” and people from the North and urban areas.....

[x]

"Census" was not a word most people would have recognized in 1789.

Strange as it may seem today, the word "enumeration" would have been more readily understood.

When it came to slavery, people were familiar with the word and the thing, and the Founders (or Framers) chose not to "enshrine" it in the Constitution.

[jeffersondem]

PaulZe: “The whole basis of the confederacy and secession was the institution of slavery. No Slavery No civil war.....period.”

rockrr: “The north wasn't fighting to free the slaves.”

Critic answers critic.

[x]

I imagine the actual Civil War was far, far more complex than the historical accounts available today.

Undoubtedly. But people are saying one version is simplistic or oversimplified to promote their own simplistic and oversimplified version. They're dumbing down the "established" version to promote their own dumbed down version that doesn't take some really important facts into account.

And people in their 60s are now claiming that they were taught in school that it was "all about slavery" and are only now learning that it wasn't and that Lincoln was awful. If you lived in much of the country 60 years ago, you were spoonfed the notion that the civil war was "all about state's rights" or "all about the tariff" all the way through school. There's nothing new about that kind of talk, and little that's really true in it.

[jeffersondem]

“When it came to slavery, people were familiar with the word and the thing, and the Founders (or Framers) chose not to “enshrine” it in the Constitution.”

The word “include” is a synonym for the word “enshrine”.

Do you know if Lincoln thought slavery was included in the US constitution?

[enumerated]

“Lincoln did let the confederates secede.”

No

[tsomer]

As for antebellum Federal spending, it was split roughly evenly between North & South,

Stories are all over the map as to who paid what; I confess I dont know, but the greater infrastructure and industrial capacity is cited as a factor in the outcome of the war.

some say, the South paid all the Federal taxes!

I've heard that too but I've never believed it and hope I didn't imply it here. Again, nailing it down is nigh impossible.

whites were markedly better off than their Northern cousins.

I was referring to liquid capital, the kind needed to fund a payroll. The South's wealth was in land holdings and the crops yielded-- and yes slaves too. But money turned around once or twice a year. Was the standard of living better in rural areas, especially with long growing seasons, than in urban industrial centers? Perhaps so, if things like convenience of amenities and protection from Comanchees and the like aren't counted, but to what extent were rural and remote settlers represented in those surveys. Were slaves counted? In other words, did these studies cover both regions laboring classes? (This is my speculation)

In fact, several such plans were proposed going all the way back to President Jefferson and always rejected by slave-holders.

There was plenty of talk but few actual concrete proposals. There was also discussions of "repatriating" the slaves to Liberia. I can only recall Delaware, which voted against it, and D.C. where the rate was $300 per slave I think. It ought to be noted that in about 1859, the peak of the market, the average was $800. It's a ghastly thing to ponder and address in this way, but there's no other. We're talking about the loss of $500 of 1859 gov. tender, with the future obligation of meeting a payroll from that moment forward. It's hardly surprising the offer attracted no takers. They probably suspected that a windfall awaited the bankers as they borrowed against uncertain projected returns. (Here's the source: https://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php)

Sorry I have to close for now, but it is a fascinating topic. Thanks for making me think. I'd especially appreciate any info you have about each regions share of the federal budget and the extent of internal improvements. Freegards.

[x]

When you use the word "enshrine" you're making a very positive value judgment.

People say the right to freedom of speech or religion is "enshrined" in the Bill of Rights.

If you said the tariff or the post office or the income tax is "enshrined" in our Constitution you'd be signaling to people that you had very positive feelings about those things.

According to the Constitution, a "person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof" must be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due."

It would have been hard for Lincoln to deny that. As a wartime measure intended to break the rebellion, though, emancipation was justified. It certainly wasn't the worst thing a government ever did in wartime.

About whether slavery is "enshrined" in the Constitution, Wikipedia has this:

As in the other references in the Constitution dealing with slavery, the words "slave" and "slavery" are not specifically used in this clause. Historian Donald Fehrenbacher believes that throughout the Constitution there was the intent to make it clear that slavery existed only under state law, not federal law. On this instance, Fehrenbacher concludes:

      Most revealing in this respect was a last-minute change in the fugitive-clause whereby the phrase "legally held to service or labor in one state" was changed to read "held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof." The revision made it impossible to infer from the passage that the Constitution itself legally sanctioned slavery.

[wbarmy]

I never said it was not complex, nor did i disagree with all of your points, but, neither am I pro-north.

It was complex, but you seem to want to pound the sand out of the North and eulogize the South as some “Gone with the Wind” paradise.

I am sure that if you had been a slave in the South, your feelings might have been a little different.

And no matter how rapacious the Northern monied interests got, at least the whites could put a knapsack on and head west. The blacks never could.

And if you want to talk about Vietnam, I blame LBJ and the Democrats again, mainly because of Lady Bird Johnson and the money she raked in from Bell Helicopters and the contracts they got during the war.

[BroJoeK]

Ladyjand: "Those slaves/servants could never ‘quit’ their jobs in Massachusetts.
They had no means of supporting themselves.
It took a minimum of 50 acres to provide the resources to survive."

No, even in 1800 Massachusetts was different from many other states.
In an era when 80% or 90% of Americans were farmers, Massachusetts had only 70,000 farm workers in 1800, about 77,000 in 1860 while its total population tripled from 400,000 to 1,200,000 in those same years.
So farming was not as important in Massachusetts and many people were employed in other types of business.

Ladyjand: "Those who couldn’t support themselves, either because they didn’t know how or because they didn’t have land, were auctioned off to townspeople...
BTW those were white people were auctioned. "

Here you may be discussing indentured servants (debt bondage) which was very common before 1800.
In those years roughly half of European immigrants arriving in the colonies came as young indentured servants who had agreed to serve a set number of years to pay off their debts.
Such servitude was vastly different from the perpetual chattel slavery forced on kidnapped Africans.

Ladyjand: "Massachusetts is the colony that brought the first slaves here, yet they claim to be so virtuous."

Depends on your definitions:

1. "The first 19 or so Africans to reach the English colonies arrived in Jamestown, Virginia in 1619, brought by Dutch traders who had seized them from a captured Spanish slave ship."

2. "There were no laws regarding slavery early in Virginia's history.
   But, in 1640, a Virginia court sentenced John Punch, an African, to slavery after he attempted to flee his service.[10]
   The two whites with whom he fled were sentenced only to an additional year of their indenture, and three years' service to the colony.[11]
   This marked the first legal sanctioning of slavery in the English colonies and was one of the first legal distinctions made between Europeans and Africans.[10][12]"

3. "In 1641, Massachusetts became the first colony to authorize slavery through enacted law.[14]
   Massachusetts passed the Body of Liberties, which prohibited slavery in many instances, but did allow for three legal bases of slavery.[14] "

Massachusetts non-farm occupations, early 1800s:

[BroJoeK]

PaulZe: "The whole basis of the confederacy and secession was the institution of slavery.
No Slavery No civil war.....period."

rockrr: "The north wasn't fighting to free the slaves."

jeffersondem: "Critic answers critic."

There's nothing to answer, but jeffersondem enjoys his little troll-game so much there doesn't need to be.
And jeffersondem well knows the historical truth of this matter, but truth is not so important to troll-games, is it?

1861 Fire Eaters were clear in explaining they declared secession to protect slavery against "Ape" Lincoln and his Black Republicans.
Jefferson Davis also promised he'd start a war if Confederate "integrity" was "assailed".
So at Fort Sumter Davis felt "assailed" and did as promised.
Did he start war over slavery?
No, to defend Confederate "integrity".

So Lincoln called up 75,000 Union troops, was it to free the slaves?
No, it was to retake the forts & other properties Confederates had seized.
Lincoln also declared a blockade, so Confederates declared war on the United States.
Was any of that about slavery? Not directly.

But slavery soon-enough became a major issue because abolition was dear to the hearts of many Republicans and emancipation had clear and present military benefits for the Union.
So in gradual steps the Union Army began freeing and hiring runaway slaves.
They eventually added hundreds of thousands of black soldiers to the Union cause, and that was a very big deal.

In the mean time, their need to protect slavery prevented Confederates from doing the one thing which might have won them the war: offer slaves freedom in exchange for military service.
Davis also refused to accept a Union peace offer which included compensation for freeing their slaves.
Instead, he preferred to fight on to Unconditional Surrender and abolition with no compensation!

So, was Civil War "all about slavery"?
Of course it was, at least indirectly, and jeffersondem well knows it, but just loves, loves too much playing his little troll-games to care.

Right?

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem to x: "It all depends on what you are dealing with.
The same fire that melts the butter, hardens the steel."

Thanks for that, very nice!
I've long wondered if behind jeffersondem's trickster-troll mask there isn't a mind which can do seriously good work.

Who knew? Turns out there is.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem to central_va: "It sounds like you are saying the North began the fight, at first, because they thought it was in their best economic and political self-interest to fight."

Even in April 1861 Lincoln well recognized the existential threat an aggressive, rapidly expanding Confederacy represented to the United States.
So it was never just "economic and political self-interest", rather it was always survival of the Union and of Unionists in many slave-states.
Remember, Unionists were substantial majorities in the slave-states of Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, the last two claimed by Confederates!
Unionists were also majorities in large areas of western Virginia, eastern Tennessee, western North Carolina and northern Arkansas.
Confederates further claimed Union territories from Oklahoma to Arizona, territories which could only be taken by military actions.
So, for the US to allow Confederate rule over such people & regions by conquest would mean abdication of its constitutional responsibilities and self-destruction.

That's why it was existential, not just "economic & political".

[BroJoeK]

x: "If the government is half-way competent (which is quite an assumption) there won't be a full scale Civil War II."

Just so we're clear on this: nobody -- zero, zip, nada person -- on Free Republic that I've seen ever says, "hey, let's go start a Civil War II."
What some few more reckless voices say is, "if it comes, we're ready for it".

Rather, it's the Left -- Democrats -- who trafficked in violence and often mimick those who practice it.
In years past that was Communist revolutionaries like Che Guevara.
Today it's the likes of the Taliban, i.e., in blowing up ancient statues which offend them.
And typically most Leftist Democrats are not so violent, but their movements always include a few who are.
A generation+ ago they were the likes of Bill Ayers, today the fascistic "Antifa" crazies.

And under Democrat administrations such people can run amuck.
Under MAGA, not so much.

[central_va]

How is it an existential threat? The USA existed in 1861 thru 1865 albeit with fewer states. Division doesn't not mean destruction. Your abuse of the English language continues.

If CA secedes that does not "destroy" the united states. It only alters it. I guess if one is statist thug then the thought of a state leaving the USA is an anathema.

The USA is not roach motel were they(states) can check in but never check out.

[BroJoeK]

rockrr: "Lincoln did let the confederates secede.”

enumerated: "No"

And you're the one complaining about "oversimplified history"??

Of course Presidents Buchanan and Lincoln took no actions to prevent Deep South Fire Eaters from:

1. Declaring secession.
2. Joining a new Confederacy.
3. Adopting a new Constitution for their Confederacy.
4. Electing their own representatives & President.
5. Raising their own taxes.
6. Calling up their own 100,000 man Army.
7. Purchasing weapons & warships from abroad.

And much more.
President Lincoln only took action against the Confederacy after Jefferson Davis started war at Fort Sumter and Confederates declared war on the United States, waging war even in Union states.

What, is that history too complex for you?

[Rebelbase]

Or manipulative bankers and politicians.

[PaulZe]

Right to a point. The slaves themselves had a say in the matter by running away and becoming contrabands. It became clear earlier on that slaves were helping the southern war effort..so freeing the slaves was clearly a war effort in the same way capturing southern war material was. Politically it also became clear early on that the Union could not be put together the way it was. Emancipation was the only way.

[enumerated]

Reasonable points all.

There are as many legitimate views and lessons learned from the CW as there are people. Life is complex and no one is completely guilty or completely innoncent.

In my original post I was simply trying to point out that the fake news we see today existed in the past as well, and SOME of it became fake history.

Those who have chosen the professional responsibility of recording, interpreting, teaching (and yes, revising) history are just as flawed, just as subjective and just as prone to being agenda driven as their counterparts in the MSM.

I’m sure the versions of history that make me most comfortable are also full of holes, and that my preferred heroes and villains are probably neither.

[rockrr]

He knows as well as you and I that there is no collision between the two statements and the sentiments expressed therein. And his quaint expression “critic answers critic” is as empty of logic and reason as he is.

[BroJoeK]

tsomer: "Stories are all over the map as to who paid what; I confess I dont know, but the greater infrastructure and industrial capacity is cited as a factor in the outcome of the war."

This question came up before so I found a source which had studied it and produced the numbers I summarized.
But the issue is quite tricky and you must be careful to watch exactly what's said.
That's because most such issues are framed as "North" versus "South", when in fact, the US in 1860 had at least half a dozen more-or-less equal regions:

1. Northeast
2. Mid-Atlantic
3. Mid-West
4. Far-West
5. Border South
6. Upper South
7. Deep South

Each region had its own ethnicities, economics and politics -- some of which allied naturally with another region, others not so much.
So when we say, "the North" or "the South" what are we really including in each?

That's why numbers which tell us "the North" and "the South" got roughly equal Federal spending don't say how much of that went to, for example, the Northeast or the Deep South.
And anyway, what exactly does "fair" mean?
Should Federal spending be proportional to populations (number of congressional representatives), or to geographical size (i.e., for forts), coastlines (for lighthouses), economic activity (infrastructure improvements) or contributions to the Federal treasury (export earnings)?
Point is: regardless of what criteria you set for "fair", somebody will select different criteria and claim "that's not fair".

So secessionists in 1860 and pro-Confederates today claimed the South was not treated fairly by Washington, DC.
But the fact is that the Constitution's 3/5 of slaves rule gave the South vast over-representation thus insuring their interests always received first priority & consideration.

tsomer on Southern over-contributions to Federal revenues: "I've heard that too but I've never believed it and hope I didn't imply it here. Again, nailing it down is nigh impossible."

There are documents which purport to show that 70% or 80% of Federal tariffs were "paid for" by exports of "products of the South".
But again, what do we mean by "the South" and how much of Southern exports were exclusively made in "the South"?
One answer for certain is that cotton could only be grown in Deep South states and cotton represented about half of total US exports in the 1850s.
So a state like Mississippi, which produced roughly 1/3 of all US cotton, might claim they should be getting back much more Federal largess than their small population would seem to dictate.

On the other hand, everything which wealthy Mississippians needed, from railroads & steamships to pots & pans, was produced elsewhere, mostly in more Northern states.
How could such Northern contributions be less important than anybody else's?

tsomer on "average" wealth: ..to what extent were rural and remote settlers represented in those surveys.
Were slaves counted?
In other words, did these studies cover both regions laboring classes? (This is my speculation) "

OK... the vast wealth of Deep South planters is indisputable and far greater than, for example, their Northern farmer cousins.
And planter wealth made average working white families also better off, including their investments in land, buildings and slaves.
Outside the Deep Cotton South things were different -- Appalachian farmers, for example, were about as poor as poor could get, and if you average them in with the planters, then the overall doesn't look so good.

What about slaves?
How did they compare to, for example, Northern immigrant workers?
Well, many Southerners did argue their slaves were better treated than Northern mill workers, after all, you couldn't just fire a slave whenever the economic going got tough.
On the other hand, a mill worker regardless of how poorly paid could never be "sold down the river" and could always quit when he saw a better opportunity elsewhere.
So life was tough all over, however there are no reports I know of saying large numbers of Northern freed-blacks voluntarily returned to slavery in the South.
That should tell us something.

tsomer on compensated manumission: "There was plenty of talk but few actual concrete proposals.
There was also discussions of "repatriating" the slaves to Liberia."

Slaveholding representatives in Congress would allow no such proposals there, however in 1862 Congress did pass compensated manumission for Washington DC.
And Lincoln did offer compensation to Confederate negotiators at the Hampton Roads peace conference in February 1865.
But Jefferson Davis still insisted Confederates must fight on to Unconditional Surrender & uncompensated abolition.

There is also a long history on recolonization beginning around 1815 with Congress granting $100,000 in 1819 ($3 billion equivalent today) resulting in over 13,000 freed-blacks resettled in Liberia by 1867.
But it proved very expensive and less than eagerly adopted, so other plans and destinations were proposed, none of which really worked out.
Finally Lincoln himself called black leaders to the White House, asked them what they wanted and was told they wanted to stay in the USA as full, respected citizens.
And since Lincoln could see their value as Republican voters, it was not a very hard sell.