The Untold Story of the Civil War

Jackson Jambalaya ^ | December 2, 2008 | Kingfish

[prplhze2000]

came across an article from an old issue of U.S. News & World Report commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Civil War. What was interesting was that it compared the treatment of the South for decades after the war's end to the millions of dollars and additional support given to Germany and other European countries through the Marshall plan and concluded the South's fate was a drag on the rest of the country as it remained the poorest section of America by far.....

U.S Treasury agents streamed through the South in 1865 grabbing cotton, land, anything that they claimed to have been the property of the Confederacy. They took cotton valued at $30 million. Behind them came hordes of carpetbaggers (With the Wall Street Journal's blessing I'm sure. They'll invent some economic theory to justify it while professing to hate the looters in Atlas Shrugged) from the North to drain away any Southern Capital they could lay hands on..."

The Southern steel industry, doing a booming business in 1900, was virtually stopped in its track, Southerners said, by a rate structure imposed by the North. The rates required payment of price differentials so sharp that it became cheaper for an industry in New Orleans to buy steel from Pittsburgh than from Birmingham. Not until World War II were changes made in this system."

Such policies created a region so poor and under-educated that FDR called the South the "nations number one economic problem" in 1938...

[manc]

I have that book and it is a great book to read if you ever get the chance

[Non-Sequitur]

Cuba signed a lease requiring BOTH sides to agree to terminated the agreement. So Cuba would be in the wrong. However if the US entered the Bay of Pigs in direct warning they would be treated as a hostile force then Cuba would be in the right.

And South Carolina deeded the property Sumter stands on free and clear to the United States. The fort was built with federal funds. South Carolina had no more claim to it than Cuba has to Guantanamo. But if you think South Carolina was right in bombarding Sumter because they wanted it then why wouldn't you support bombarding Gitmo by Cuba if they wanted it?

The Free States joined the Union and could freely secede from the Union. So the analogy does not hold.

The states didn't join anything, they were admitted and only with the approval of a majority of the states as expressed through a vote in Congress. So if you want to say that states should be able to leave through the same manner in which they were admitted then I'll agree with you.

And save any crap you might be about to toss out about the original 13 states. They existed before the Constitution, they agreed to abide by the Constitution, and they have no more powers than any other state. And that includes leaving.

[RedMonqey]

Nice cut and paste. Now what rights of the Southern states were being trampled?

Sorry for the "cut and paste" but at least it is from authentic sources. Unlike the sources for your arguments, I cannot claim "originality", being my sources are the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.

Now what rights of the Southern states were being trampled?

1)The right to secede, the right to be secure in property without due process of law, suspension of the writ of Habeas Corpus, the right of Suffrage,...

[RedMonqey]

"....it's amazing who slithers out of the bushes."

Or slimes it's way from under a rock.

[RedMonqey]

One old woman told me about here great great great grand mother who was raped by union soldiers and how their farm was ransacked

Now ...now now... Don't you know that those stories are just "myths" created by unreconstructed rebels or their idiotic "Lost Cause" offspring

Non-Sequitur told me so..../BARF

[RedMonqey]

No jury on this planet would agree with you. Convicted. Gas chamber. Next case.

Only a fair jury of his peers.

Another constiutional oversight by Non-Sequitur.

[RedMonqey]

"...many Southern highlanders thought that the lowland planters were more hostile to their way of life "

Agreed. That's way East Tennesseee is still a Republican stronghold and why pro Union West Virginia split away from Confederate Virginia.

Another unconstitional act under the Lincoln Administration.

[NavyCanDo]

“Someday God willing I’ll make the move out of this crazy area.”

If it was not for the Dixie Great Depression, which began long before the 1929 crash, my family would still be Southerners. Instead they had to move out west. Someday, maybe after I retire, I'll return to the land of my roots.

[RedMonqey]

No jury on this planet would agree with you. Convicted. Gas chamber. Next case.

Only a fair jury of his peers.

Another constiutional oversight by Non-Sequitur.

[Non-Sequitur]

Another constiutional oversight by Non-Sequitur.

It was lentulusgracchus who tried me, convicted me, and executed me all without a court of law. Shades of the confederate judicial system.

[Non-Sequitur]

Another unconstitional act under the Lincoln Administration.

Unconstitutional only to those who have never bothered to look into the matter. Like you.

[RedMonqey]

He joined up with Gen. Roddy's CMD under Gen. Forrest and then later refused to take the oat after the War had ended.

Speaking of (Nathan B, I presume) Forrest, my great great great uncle, Melville C. escaped the Fall of Fort Donelson and althought not calvery, rode out along the submerged roadway on the cold icy night with then Colonel Forrest. He was very indignant. He had" come there to fight" on his own land(state) and thought it "unmanly" to surrender.

His Brother George stayed and was sent to Camp Douglas, which would later be known as the notorious Death Camp of the North He later rejoined his regiment(49thTn) to fight out the rest of the war.

[manc]

LOL

[manc]

I would love to retire there around Gatlinburg and have a 5 acre plot with a log cabin, it truly is heaven
shame they are now building apts on the top of the hills

[manc]

well home when you do

[manc]

if anyone gets liberals mad it is nathan . course all about him is not told either by them

[RedMonqey]

The law was there, the Confiscation Acts. That gave Lincoln all the legal, Constitutional authority he needed. Your claims of illegality to the contrary notwithstanding


Lincoln and his Radical Republican Congress could legislate the moon was made of cheese and sun dripped honey but it could not make it so. Same with the First Confiscation Act and Second Confiscation Acts. It "legally" seized slaves, but without the cover of the Constitution.

Given a murderously brutal civil war and the assassination of Lincoln, no Southern slave owner in his right mind would dared petition the courts and expect to remain unmolested by the mobs of Lincolnites or coloured Federal troops. The lawful misrule between 1865 and 1877 when no white man could vote or serve jury duty, precluded any hope of real justice as recognized by the Constitution under the tender mercies of Northern overlords.

The Emancipation Proclamation didn't apply to Maryland, Kentucky, Delaware, and Missouri because those states were not in rebellion.

Nor any rebel state already under Union control.(another contradiction by the Great Emancipator) The supporters knew the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't worth the paper it was written upon. For slavery to be constitutionally abolished and prevent any possible appeals by former owners, the Thirteenth Amendment was necessary. The E. P didn't cover the Union Slave states because it could politically scare the border states to support the Confederacy despite having no legal standing to free any slave. Thus the necessity for the Thirteenth Amendment. The better educated supporters knew E. P alone couldn't withstand judicial review.

This is why the Administration didn't just announce another Proclamation, this time specifically name the remaining Union slaves states.

They feared after the war, the Union Slave owners would challenge the Administration and Supreme Court would overturn it and leave the issue of the newly "freed" slaves in limbo. It could also mean compensate to all the former slave owners all for the lost property.

What the heck did Dred Scott have to do with it?

The main point in the Dred Scot case Supreme Court stated Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories and, distasteful as it seems to modern sensibilities, the court ruled blacks held as slaves or their descendants free or not, could never be citizens and prohibited from other rights of citizenship. Like bring suits in court. However it also reinforced the rule that slaves were chattel or private property and could not be taken away from their owners without due process.

That includes the government too.

The Emancipation Proclamation had the effect of rendering the Fugitive Slave Laws unenforceable

Preposterous!!!

The war itself did that. Image Federal Marshals crossing battle lines to return slaves to their rightful owners.

As for the purpose of the war, from the Union standpoint it was always for the preservation of the Union.

The writers of school history books think otherwise....imagine that!/s

[RedMonqey]

Very beautiful area. Near Heaven.

[RedMonqey]

You’re right. They can’t tell the whole story because it ruins THEIR narrative of him.....

[RedMonqey]

Their descendants would probably feel the same way if the rebellion had succeeded.

Agreed completely. Maybe it's a Scots thing....