Why America lost the "Civil War"

http://calltodecision.com/Civil%20War.html ^ | October 30, 2002 | Nat G. Rudulph

[billbears]

I was watching C-Span last night and saw an author Weismann who wrote an interesting book about the lincoln. The book was called The Great Tax Wars: From Lincoln to T.R. to Wilson - How the Income Tax Transformed America.

I have yet to read this book but plan on picking it up later today. Of course his argument is well documented with facts instead of feeling, but that doesn't matter when it comes to the War of Northern Aggression apparently. The issue of internal improvements is raised again of course. The connection between the War, Clay, and his American System are covered. What amazes me is that conservatives turn a blind eye to the truth about the origins of the Republican party being the original tax and spend party.

I'm not saying that's necessarily the case now, the parties have flipflopped, but the early Whig/Republicans like abe and Clay would put Democrats today to shame

[PatrioticAmerican]

Very true. Hence, the ballot had best be one of honor and integrity.

[Non-Sequitur]

No, I'm saying you're wrong.

[Non-Sequitur]

How does one rationalize facts? It either happened or it didn't, and whenever the confederate army was in the North they sent free blacks that they captured down south back into slavery. It happened during Lee's campaign in Maryland in 1862. It happened in Lee's campaign in Pennsylvania in 1863. It happened when Early went into Pennsylvania and burned Chambersburg in 1864. As it happens the confederates were technically in violation of confederate law. Their constitution allowed for slave imports but only from the slave holding territories of the United States. Those that they kidnapped in Maryland were technically legal since Maryland was one of the slave holding states of the United States. Those abducted in Pennslyvania were not.

[Aurelius]

"No, I'm saying you're wrong."

But, Illogical-One, if I am quoting McPherson and you are saying that I am wrong then you are also saying that McPherson is wrong. But it doesn't surprise me that such elementary logic escapes you.

[Non-Sequitur]

Let me know what it says about the confederate income tax.

[Non-Sequitur]

I don't know how widespread the practice was. That it happened is inescapable. There is documented evidence from both sides that abductions of free blacks did occur. But did the confederate army round up every black person and send them south? No, probably not.

[stand watie]

sad, but i fear, TRUE!

free dixie,sw

[agrandis]

yankees were good Americans at the time of George Washington. A lot of the early heroes were Yankees. Now, they're like Canadians, by and large, which I won't even go into (I except Alberta from that statment).

[agrandis]

Washington:"...you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles..."

It was the Yankees that betrayed that religion (embracing shades of Unitarianism), manners, habits, and political principles. There is as great a difference in the cultures of the regions today as there ever was. Now, it is more pronounced in the urban vs. rural areas.

[x]

The South voted to suspend the hapeas corpus twice. The third time, President Davis' request was denied. He did not proceed, unlawfully against Congress (and the People) as his adversary chose to do.

By "the South" I presume you mean the Confederate Congress. It's not clear what voters or citizens, North or South, thought of the suspension of habeas corpus. It's also not clear who could or who couldn't suspend the writ. The Constitution forbids the suspension of the writ "unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." As this is in Article I, the assumption is that this refers to Congress and suspension of the writ would be an act of Congress. But it's by no means certain. Lincoln acted when Congress was out of session. And an act of Congress in 1863 did provide for detention of those accused of disloyal activity to be detained until grand juries could decide whether or not to indict.

But surely the suspension of the writ itself, matters more than who did it. Congresses and committees can be as tyrannical as individuals, and there's never a shortage of representatives willing to vote greater powers to the executive with enabling acts. But I defer to those who have explored the question more deeply.

I don't feel the need to defend everything Lincoln might have done, but it does seem to me that the similarities between the war Presidents are greater than the differences.

[Non-Sequitur]

Ah, it's nice to see that nothing has changed. Two posts and it's back to name calling. I'm surprised it took you that long.

[SandfleaCSC]

Well, I wanted you to explain where it was a "habit" for the Confederate Army to do that. Early traveled to fast and light for any significant number to be brought back in 1864 in Chambersburg, if any at all were brought back. During Lee's 1863 campaign, a few were brought back as spoils of war. That makes one valid example of slaves taken as spoils of war from free states. One example is not a habit.

[Non-Sequitur]

Here is a link to an article from Nort & South Magazine. In addition to providing details on the abductions during the 1863 Campaign, it also details abductions made during 1862 and I have also read accounts of abductions during Early's buringing of Chambersburg in 1864 which was not the lightening raid you mentioned but a serious campaign trying to draw Grant back north. Like I said, I'm not saying that every black person was abducted but it happened frequently enough.

[wardaddy]

I'm from Mississippi Dutch. I majored in Poli Sci at Ole Miss in the 1970s. Woodward was pretty popular back then amongst the Poli Sci professors though oddly more amongst the liberals than others. Just shows how far we've come doesn't it?

Miscegenation which is still a term that defines racial inbreeding according to Websters has always been around but I don't think the prevelance that is so widely touted today as a fact of the antebellum South was necessarily completely true. I have observed that the Deeper South one goes the purer the blacks usually become. You will find much purer blacks in the Mississippi Delta than in Chicago from my perspective of observing. Which is odd I think considering that slavery was highest in the Deep South and tyhe Delta was literally teeming with plantations.

There is no doubt that some of Jefferson's close relatives had children with slaves and I believe Miss Hemmings was a product of this was she not? However I have yet to see conclusive proof that Jefferson sired any offspring with her to date contrary to popular perception.

Another thing. The influence of the KKK is widely overestimated by folks outside the South. I have only known one Southerner to have been a klansman in my entire life. The original klan was of course instrumental in resisitng reconstruction...no doubt, but the latter klan was quite widespread and hardly a peculiar Southern institution that contributed to "Southern Ignorance" for 3 more generations. The real power brokers in the South were the Dems and later on various uptown folks like the White Citizen's Council. The klan was mostly viewed as dangerous hicks by many and perhaps useful idiots by some. Today, I don't have to tell you that Klan activity at least appears more prevalent outside the South than within.

Culturally, Spainairds and Portugese and French slavemasters were much much more likely to interbreed with their slaves than their counterparts here or in the British West Indies. One only need travel to those regions and view the huge mulatto classes to ascertain that. Why that is....I'm not sure but I imagine it also plays into their different views on colonization strategy in general.

I should note though that there have historically been pockets of mulattos clustered around New Orleans, Memphis and Atlanta...and another community north of Mobile whose name I can't right now recall. I think these mulattos from quadroons to octoroons clustered together in their own communities in the south both before the WBTS as "freedmen" and later simply because many felt ostracized outside both spectrums. This war of shades is incredibly thick in Haiti and has been the biggest contributor to the past 200 years of pandemonium in that poor nation since it's "inception". Further a somewhat overlooked contribution to the dilution of the African gene pool here in the South has always been from the Indians. It was no secret that the Creeks were largely mullatos as were the Seminoles. I don't have the fact but I would argue that interbreeding between Indians and blacks is possibly the largest source of lighter skinned blacks historically. Ironically, this seems particularly true also in the Northeast tribes. Most of those casino Indians I see up there look more black than Indian...lol

Just my two cents...some from first hand observation and some admittedly anecdotal. The truth which is only a matter of curiosity is probably unattainable at this juncture.

[Non-Sequitur]

Huh?