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...

[Ditto]

I gather you are trying to make an argument that the States' secession was for "light and transient causes" and therefore, somehow, "illegal".

At the least, not morally justified. There was no harm being done to the states.

One, why would you constrain the States by requiring them to suffer damages from their enemies before applying the redress of secession?

The very nature of the constitutional compact they entered means that from time to time, some will not get all they want and over time none will get all they want. But no harm was being done to the states by opposing expansion of slavery.

Back to my original question. In 1860-61, in what way did the constitution cease to serve them? How did 'their neighbors' intend to harm them? What redress (short of secession) did they seek?

Three, why do you keep implying that the People are not sovereign...

Hummm? I thought bed rock of the secessionist argument was that the States were sovereign, not the people.

[lentulusgracchus]

I thought bed rock of the secessionist argument was that the States were sovereign, not the people.

The States and the People are the same thing -- scroll up. See my #303 ff.

When the Constitution refers to the People, it refers to the People in their States. But the States are not just real estate -- the States ARE the People who live in them, politically and legally speaking, and that is how the Constitution and the Framers constructed the meaning of "the People".

[Non-Sequitur]

And you accuse me of opinionating without factual support!

"Facts," as John Adams said, "are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." Fact: it was only the Davis regime who was calling up troops prior to Sumter. Fact: no Union troop call up took place, no blockade was initiated until after the South started the war by bombarding Sumter. Fact: the South fired on Sumter without provocationt. Fact: that act led to the war that followed. Fact: whatever damage and death and destruction that was visited on the South in the four years that followed were entirely self-inflicted.

What a toad!

"What a maroon!" - Bugs Bunny

[Non-Sequitur]

Rebellion, yes -- but there was no rebellion.

Yes, indeed there was.

Or perhaps you can point me to a certification of insurrection forwarded to the President or the Congress by a besieged legislature or governor of a State?

Don't confuse Article I with Article IV. Under Article I, no call was necessary. Section 8 gives Congress the power to "provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." Nothing in that requires a call from either the legislature or the governor. Congress then gave the president the authority to act on its behalf if it was not in session, and again there is no requirement that the President wait for the governor to ask for assistance. Considering that the governors and the legislatures where among the ringleaders of the rebellion, waiting for such a call would be futile.

When the People act, it is not rebellion. Sovereign acts by the Sovereign People are not, can not be, rebellion against their own authority.

When they wage open and armed defiance against the government then they're engaged in rebellion, and they can expect to be put down.

And if you claim authority over the People, you are either a tyrant, or you are the invisible high God of Israel.

Neither. Just one who respects the rule of law. Unlike you.

Your Honor, the victim walked down that dark alley with money in his pocket -- I had to kill him -- it was his own fault!

No, more like "Your honor, just because I attacked the victim first that's no justification for him to beat the everliving snot out of me. I'm the aggrieved party here."

You argue like a criminal.

You argue like a guilty man.

[lentulusgracchus]

There was no harm being done to the states...But no harm was being done to the states by opposing expansion of slavery....In 1860-61, in what way did the constitution cease to serve them? How did 'their neighbors' intend to harm them?

Actually, there was harm. The raising of a slave revolt was a subject gazed upon impassively, if not malevolently, by the North, but it was a matter of life and death in the South. Northern "solid citizens" turned out to be the movers behind John Brown, and the Congress refused to appropriate sufficient funds for defense of the Texas frontier, which was an abdication of one of the Union's fundamental duties to its members under the Constitution (Article I Section 8 and Article IV Section 4).

The John Brown raid in particular destroyed any political community between the North and the South. It wasn't a lowly barroom putsch dreamed up by lowlife nobodies, but a scheme participated in by the better, even the best, elements of Northern society, who grieved openly for John Brown's failure and punishment. Not one New England intellectual, save only Walt Whitman, failed to advertise publicly his disappointment at the outcome, and his longing for a race war in the South.

There was also the prospect of both the Tariff, which was a more-comprehensive return to the Tariff of Abominations, and the abolition of slavery, which was a matter of time and which everyone (correctly) expected the Republicans to move on, and which everyone (correctly) expected would destroy the South's prosperity, if not its whole economy.

What redress (short of secession) did they seek?

In view of the foregoing, it's more useful to ask, what did they have left to look forward to? It doesn't take a murder or a Supreme Court case to prove that a marriage is over -- or the federal Union.

The Nullification idea had been tried and found constitutionally wanting. There would be no shield, no interposition, no buffer to shield the South from Northern greed and abusiveness. There was no "next" idea for redress or balance. In 1860, with the elevation of a great enemy like Lincoln, it was "game over".

[lentulusgracchus]

Nothing in that requires a call from either the legislature or the governor.

But Article IV does.

Nice try, Melvin. Better luck next ambulance.

[lentulusgracchus]

[You, quoting Me] When the People act, it is not rebellion. Sovereign acts by the Sovereign People are not, can not be, rebellion against their own authority.

When they wage open and armed defiance against the government then they're engaged in rebellion, and they can expect to be put down.

That is as open and naked a statement of fascist principle as I have ever seen. You deny the sovereignty of the People and set their own government over them as a tyrant and master. We are not talking about mobs and insurrections here -- we are talking about the People themselves, and you are flatly denying their rights and powers. There is nothing left to say.

You argue like a guilty man.

You argue like Dick Nixon: "When the President does something, it's not illegal!"

[lentulusgracchus]

Fact: it was only the Davis regime who was calling up troops prior to Sumter.

Wrong again, Benito. The United States Army was already at the disposal of President Lincoln. And he was disposing it.

Fact: the South fired on Sumter without provocationt.

Wrong again, and your keyboard is spluttering. Lincoln provoked the bombardment by attempting to reinforce Sumter. Twice. Three times, if you count Major Anderson's move from Fort Moultrie.

[Non-Sequitur]

Wrong again, Benito. The United States Army was already at the disposal of President Lincoln. And he was disposing it.

But Mao, the standing army had been shrinking as Southerners deserted and headed south. It comprised, maybe, 12,000 to 15,000 troops. It's interesting that in preparation for starting the war the Davis regime issued a call for 100,000 troops. Six or seven times the size of the standing U.S. army at the time. Their intentions were clear from the outset.

Wrong again, and your keyboard is spluttering. Lincoln provoked the bombardment by attempting to reinforce Sumter. Twice. Three times, if you count Major Anderson's move from Fort Moultrie.

Hardly. My keyboard is humming along nicely.

Resupplying troops in their post is not a hostile act. Reinforcing them might have been. Landing arms and munitions might have been. But Lincoln had made it clear that his intent was to maintain the status quo by landing food and supplies only. And had the South not attacked then that's what would have happened. But then Jeff Davis wouldn't have had his war, would he?

Anderson commanded all the facilities in the Charleston area, including Sumter. He was free to move his troops to any of them, especially in light of a threat to their safety. Major Buell had given him that authorization in December. None of that was provocative.

[Non-Sequitur]

But Article IV does.

But Article I does not.

Nice try, Melvin. Better luck next ambulance.

No problem, I'm thoroughly enjoying this. Just when I think you've demonstrated your complete and total ignorance of the Constitution you come up with something new.

[Non-Sequitur]

That is as open and naked a statement of fascist principle as I have ever seen.

Normally I would defer to your understanding of fascist principles, but you're drifting into lala land here. The Constitution clearly gives the government the duty to suppress rebellion, uphold the law, and maintain order. Absolutely nothing fascist about that.

You argue like Dick Nixon: "When the President does something, it's not illegal!"

Isn't that your position?

[Ditto]

The raising of a slave revolt was a subject gazed upon impassively, if not malevolently, by the North, but it was a matter of life and death in the South. Northern "solid citizens" turned out to be the movers behind John Brown,

That's painting with a brush so broad that it is just silly. Some few radicals in the North wanted a slave rebellion, just as some radical elements today favor rebellion of all sorts or impeachment of Bush. But that was hardly the sentiment of the vast majority of Northern citizens nor of their elected representatives in state or federal government.

The only general consensus among northern citizens was opposition to the expansion of slavery to the territories. Beyond that, they were perfectly willing to leave slavery alone where it existed. Lincoln reflected those views exactly. He not only loudly condemned John Brown, once elected he guaranteed the south that he would not disturb their "institution."

There was also the prospect of both the Tariff, which was a more-comprehensive return to the Tariff of Abominations, and the abolition of slavery, which was a matter of time and which everyone (correctly) expected the Republicans to move on, and which everyone (correctly) expected would destroy the South's prosperity, if not its whole economy.

If the southern states had kept their Representatives in congress it is highly doubtful that the Morrell Tariff would have passed in the form it did. As to the abolition of slavery which required an amendment to the constitution, it could not have passed the 2/3 requirement in Congress or the 3/4 requirement of states had the south not withdrawn from the union. In fact even today, with the opposition of 15 states, it could not be ratified. That is just a damn silly argument. Abolition was not in the realm of possibility in 1860-61.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

When the People act, it is not rebellion.

So basically you've just defined rebellion into nonexistence. How convenient.

[Ditto]

The States and the People are the same thing -- scroll up. See my #303 ff.

When the Constitution refers to the People, it refers to the People in their States. But the States are not just real estate -- the States ARE the People who live in them, politically and legally speaking, and that is how the Constitution and the Framers constructed the meaning of "the People".

I understand that nothing I can say will sway your opinion on the nature of this Republic. So I will not reply to this post. Instead, I will allow James Madison, "Father" of the Constitution to reply.

-----------------------------------------------------------

		3 Right of Revolution CHAPTER 3|Document 14 James Madison to Daniel Webster15 Mar. 1833Writings 9:604--5 I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy. Its double aspect, nevertheless, with the countenance recd from certain quarters, is giving it a popular currency here which may influence the approaching elections both for Congress & for the State Legislature. It has gained some advantage also, by mixing itself with the question whether the Constitution of the U.S. was formed by the people or by the States, now under a theoretic discussion by animated partizans. It is fortunate when disputed theories, can be decided by undisputed facts. And here the undisputed fact is, that the Constitution was made by the people, but as imbodied into the several states, who were parties to it and therefore made by the States in their highest authoritative capacity. They might, by the same authority & by the same process have converted the Confederacy into a mere league or treaty; or continued it with enlarged or abridged powers; or have imbodied the people of their respective States into one people, nation or sovereignty; or as they did by a mixed form make them one people, nation, or sovereignty, for certain purposes, and not so for others. The Constitution of the U.S. being established by a Competent authority, by that of the sovereign people of the several States who were the parties to it, it remains only to inquire what the Constitution is; and here it speaks for itself. It organizes a Government into the usual Legislative Executive & Judiciary Departments; invests it with specified powers, leaving others to the parties to the Constitution; it makes the Government like other Governments to operate directly on the people; places at its Command the needful Physical means of executing its powers; and finally proclaims its supremacy, and that of the laws made in pursuance of it, over the Constitutions & laws of the States; the powers of the Government being exercised, as in other elective & responsible Governments, under the controul of its Constituents, the people & legislatures of the States, and subject to the Revolutionary Rights of the people in extreme cases. It might have been added, that whilst the Constitution, therefore, is admitted to be in force, its operation, in every respect must be precisely the same, whether its authority be derived from that of the people, in the one or the other of the modes, in question; the authority being equally Competent in both; and that, without an annulment of the Constitution itself its supremacy must be submitted to. The only distinctive effect, between the two modes of forming a Constitution by the authority of the people, is that if formed by them as imbodied into separate communities, as in the case of the Constitution of the U.S. a dissolution of the Constitutional Compact would replace them in the condition of separate communities, that being the Condition in which they entered into the compact; whereas if formed by the people as one community, acting as such by a numerical majority, a dissolution of the compact would reduce them to a state of nature, as so many individual persons. But whilst the Constitutional compact remains undissolved, it must be executed according to the forms and provisions specified in the compact. It must not be forgotten, that compact, express or implied is the vital principle of free Governments as contradistinguished from Governments not free; and that a revolt against this principle leaves no choice but between anarchy and despotism. ------------------------------------------------------ So by your theory, Madison would say if you dissolve the Constitution, the States would cease to exist at the same instant, and we are all 'free agents'. That is certainly not what the fire eaters of the Confederacy told the people, but then again, not one of them were worthy of licking James Madison's boots.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

The Republicans made themselves a sectional party. They were a nonentity south of the Ohio River.

If that was so bad the southerners would have not abandoned Douglas and the northern Democrats to become a second sectional party. If the Republicans were so bad the southerners could have made common cause with northern Democrats to black the Republicans. But the Southern Democrats lacked political maturity and common sense. Common sense was surely lacking in their secession. If they feared a North and West shackled by the Constitution, how did they expect to compete as separate nation with the North unrestrained by the Constitution?

[OldTCS]

The southern states did not ‘rebel,’ they seceded. They lawfully ended what had become an untenable union with the northern states. If you look, you will find that there were secession movements in the north prior to the war. Initially, the north recognized the right of the south to secede, but was eventually pressured by the monied industrialists (who stood to lose their unfair business advantage) into forcefully putting down the ‘rebellion.’ BTW, the Union army invaded the south, not the other way around.

[Non-Sequitur]

The southern states did not ‘rebel,’ they seceded.

Rebellion is defined as open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government. That's a very accurate description of the confederate actions.

They lawfully ended what had become an untenable union with the northern states.

Their actions were illegal.

If you look, you will find that there were secession movements in the north prior to the war.

There was talk from time to time, never serious. But only the South put their talk into action. And suffered the consequences.

Initially, the north recognized the right of the south to secede, but was eventually pressured by the monied industrialists (who stood to lose their unfair business advantage) into forcefully putting down the ‘rebellion.’

They did no such thing. Both Buchanan and Lincoln termed the Southern actions illegal.

BTW, the Union army invaded the south, not the other way around.

One could say the same about Germany and the U.S. in World War II. But since the South initiated the war they have little to complain about when it didn't turn out as they had hoped.

[OldTCS]

“Rebellion is defined as open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government. That’s a very accurate description of the confederate actions.”

Not at all. The following might help:

The Confederate States of America
1. South Carolina Seceded Dec. 20, 1860 Readmitted July 9, 1868
2. Mississippi Seceded Jan. 9, 1861 Readmitted Feb. 23, 1870
3. Florida Seceded Jan. 10, 1861 Readmitted June 25, 1868
4. Alabama Seceded Jan. 11, 1861 Readmitted July 13, 1868
5. Georgia Seceded Jan. 19, 1861 Readmitted July 15, 1870
6. Louisiana Seceded Jan. 26, 1861 Readmitted July 9, 1868
7. Texas Seceded March 2, 1861 Readmitted March 30, 1870
8. Virginia Seceded April 17, 1861 Readmitted Jan. 26, 1870
9. Arkansas Seceded May 6, 1861 Readmitted June 22, 1868
10. North Carolina Seceded May 20, 1861 Readmitted July 4, 1868
11. Tennessee Seceded June 8, 1861 Readmitted July 24, 1866

The very fact that the Confederate States were “readmitted” supports the arguement that they were separate, and that it was a war between the CSA and the USA, and not merely a federal action against “rebels.”

Some point to economics, slavery, or actions like the raid on Harper’s Ferry as reasons for the war. These were all factors, but I believe that it goes back to the shift of power between states and the federal gov’t when the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the new Constitution after the con-con (interestingly, we are 2 states away from another con-con now).

[Freedom56v2]

Very interesting article and it presents many unknown or forgotten facts.

<<Agreed! Thanks for posting!

[OldTCS]

(continuation)
I ‘ll use the following as an example of my view on the whole issue:
Individuals come together and take marriage vows. They retain the right to divorce if sufficient cause arises. Now let’s toss a wrench into the works. While married, the laws of the land change, let’s say sharia law is adopted. That drastically changes the rights of the wife. Now let’s say there is abuse, and the wife wants a divorce. Whose side do you take? Personally, I will always take the side of the individual.