Posted on 07/22/2015 7:36:12 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
We call the war of 1861 the Civil War. But is that right? A civil war is a struggle between two or more entities trying to take over the central government. Confederate President Jefferson Davis no more sought to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington sought to take over London in 1776. Both wars, those of 1776 and 1861, were wars of independence. Such a recognition does not require one to sanction the horrors of slavery. We might ask, How much of the war was about slavery?
Was President Abraham Lincoln really for outlawing slavery? Let's look at his words. In an 1858 letter, Lincoln said, "I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion neither the General Government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists." In a Springfield, Illinois, speech, he explained: "My declarations upon this subject of Negro slavery may be misrepresented but cannot be misunderstood. I have said that I do not understand the Declaration (of Independence) to mean that all men were created equal in all respects." Debating Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln said, "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."
What about Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation? Here are his words: "I view the matter (of slaves' emancipation) as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion." He also wrote: "I will also concede that emancipation would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition." When Lincoln first drafted the proclamation, war was going badly for the Union.
London and Paris were considering recognizing the Confederacy and assisting it in its war against the Union.
The Emancipation Proclamation was not a universal declaration. It specifically detailed where slaves were to be freed: only in those states "in rebellion against the United States." Slaves remained slaves in states not in rebellion — such as Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and Missouri. The hypocrisy of the Emancipation Proclamation came in for heavy criticism. Lincoln's own secretary of state, William Seward, sarcastically said, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."
Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been heartily endorsed by the Confederacy: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. ... Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit." Lincoln expressed that view in an 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives, supporting the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.
Why didn't Lincoln share the same feelings about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our nation's history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What "responsible" politician would let that much revenue go?
Well, I'll say this and I mean it sincerely. I believe you are trying much harder than most of your neighbors to find what you believe to be a reasoned approach to government and to what you believe should be its natural limits. I applaud you for that.
I'll let you research the inflation figures for the last 15 years and conclude what you wish. In any period of time, some prices rise and some prices fall, but overall, inflation in the past few years has been very mild. In fact, very recently, the dollar has been rising vis-a-vis nearly every other currency in the world. That is why the price of imports have been falling. That is why our manufacturers are concerned about slowing sales in other countries (it takes more euros to buy a dollar now). I'm sure you've been noticing the price of oil (in dollar terms) crash lately. And, I hope you haven't been investing in silver or gold over the past few years. When the value of important assets (such as foreign currencies and commodities) fall vis-a-vis the dollar, we call it deflation. Even if we ignore government figures, can we safely ignore what markets are telling us about the last 5 or 6 years?
Those markets are real and they are telling us that Inflation just hasn't been an issue lately. That could (almost certainly will) change because all trends eventually reverse, but right now, the Fed and the markets are reflecting a fear of deflation, not inflation.
In 2007 a Cheeseburger was $2.52 from one of my Favorite burger chains. It is now $4.00 and some change. A Quart of Oil was $1.00, it is now $4.00. Milk has almost doubled. Beef has almost doubled. I paid $43.00 to take three family members to dinner last night at a very modest restaurant. Three of us had Cheeseburgers. And so on.
One of the first things the Obama administration did was to remove fuel and food from the inflation calculation. For awhile, gas went to almost $4.00/gallon. Yes, it's back down now, but that is entirely due to the new sources of oil brought online by the advent of fracking technology.
And, I hope you haven't been investing in silver or gold over the past few years.
No, I don't have any serious investments in Gold or Silver. At the base of it, they are just metals and not particularly useful outside their purpose as currency. I have been preferring to invest in more real-world useful metals like brass and lead.
Even if we ignore government figures, can we safely ignore what markets are telling us about the last 5 or 6 years? Those markets are real and they are telling us that Inflation just hasn't been an issue lately.
The markets are ever more driven by arrays of computers in the hands of the financially connected, bidding against each other according to various algorithms calculated to make money off of the churn. They would appear to be inflating large financial bubbles, and I have no real knowledge that the markets are still a reliable indicator of the financial health of the nation.
Too much has been rendered uncertain because of tampering of the sort that didn't previously exist.
But none of this addresses the 100 trillion in retirement debt and entitlements this nation faces. How are we gonna pay for all those baby boomer retirements? How are we gonna pay for the ever ballooning incidence of people on the dole?
I have been pondering this question for Decades. Since the Reagan years, the Democrats have led financial policy that calls for every increasing spending and especially on entitlements. I used to wonder if the Democrats were just stupid, or crazy, because the path they insisted on appeared to me to be fraught with future danger.
Then one day a chilling thought occurred to me. Perhaps they are Malthusians, and regard it as an acceptable outcome for many people to die or get killed when financial disaster comes to a head?
This puts them in the "evil" category, and I have since yet to see a single flaw in this characterization of them. "Evil" explains a lot of things that just didn't make sense before.
“I also happen to believe that Lee was a honorable gentleman and a great general (the third best general of the Civil War, after all).”
T.C. - you wrote the comment above. In the same paragraph you contend Robert E. Lee was a traitor.
Part of the difficulty in discussing history with you is that your arguments are inconsistent, even within the same paragraph.
You may be familiar with this, but if you are not, I just wanted you to be aware of it. It is more or less how I feel to a great degree. That it may be a fabrication is irrelevant to the profundity of the message contained within.
By extension, dropping nuclear bombs on enemy cities does not constitute total war since some civilians would be left alive (see Hiroshima, Nagasaki).
The status of Fort Sumter in early 1861 was similar to that of several British forts on US territory after the Revolutionary War.
Those forts were manned, resupplied and reinforced at will by the Brits, some for 30+ years.
Their final status was settled at Ghent in 1814.
Fort Sumter was also similar to the US base in Guantanamo Cuba, in that the Communists don’t recognize our right to be there, and demand we leave.
Still the US government continues to man, resupply and reinforce Gitmo at will.
These US actions are certainly not acts of war against Cuba, but a Cuban assault on Gitmo certainly would be an act of war against the US.
Just as, for example, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was an act of war, so also the Confederate assault on Union troops in Fort Sumter was certainly an act of war.
And least there be any doubt of Confederate intentions, three weeks later, on May 6, 1861, the Confederacy formally declared war on the United States, simultaneously sending military aid to pro-Confederates in the Union state of Missouri.
It’s unreasonable to equate what happened in the south with what was done to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
And this is a very good point. We always hear from the Union supporters how the South had no right to abrogate the contract, but this business of refusing to honor this article is in fact a deliberate abrogation of the contract to which the Northern states had agreed.
In other words, they broke the contract first. Excellent point.
Team Cuda: “The only way war would have been avoided is if the US did not contest this attempted secession, and that wasn’t going to happen.”
Sorry, I missed this...
The US certainly DID NOT militarily contest Deep South declarations of secession, or its forming a new Confederacy.
Indeed, Democrat President Buchanan did nothing more than express his opinion that such secessions were unlawful.
And he attempted to resupply US troops in Fort Sumter.
The mitary contest only began because the Confederacy first provoked war, then started war (at Fort Sumter), then formally declared war on the United States (May 6, 1861), while sending military aid to pro-Confederates in the Union state of Missouri.
Remember, in his First Inaugural (March 4, 1861), Lincoln told Confederates they could not have a war unless they themselves started it.
And of course, Jefferson Davis was happy to oblige.
You are right. More people were killed in the South than Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
Did you read the messages and letters posted by PeaRidge? By the meaning contained in them, it certainly looks like this interpretation of events is just wrong.
If those messages and letters are correct, it would appear to be just a fluke of time that the Union didn't start firing first. They were certainly in a position to do so, and seemingly had every intention of doing so as well.
It would appear the Union deliberately sent a hostile force to engage the Confederates and only refrained because the bombardment of Ft. Sumter had already started, and would therefore better serve the propaganda interests of the Union.
Do you not think Lee was a great general?
Jeffersondem: “You do know the Declaration of Independence was written, in part, to defend the peculiar institution don’t you?”
Do you realize how silly you are, FRiend?
In Thomas Jefferson ‘ s first drafts, the Declaration was originally an anti-slavery document, blaming the Brits, along with many other wrong-doings, for imposing slavery on innocent Americans.
Of course those particular sentences did not survive final edits, because they implied all Americans intended to abolish slavery, when that was obviously not the case.
George Washington himself said that if he had to chose between Union and slavery, he would chose Union.
But many Southerners, both then and later, made certain such a choice would not be necessary.
So, bottom line is: slavery was a precondition for Union, since no Southern state would sign on to an anti-slavery Constitution.
But Jefferson’s Declaration, far from defending slavery, was originally anti-slavery.
I appreciate your attempt to slip the punch included in my post 523. I really do. But your misdirection is too plain to be effective.
Nevertheless, I accept this opportunity to add to General Eisenhower's admiration of Robert E. Lee.
I have been influenced by the writings of President Teddy Roosevelt. Said he: “As a mere military man Washington himself cannot rank with the wonderful war-chief who for four years led the Army of Northern Virginia.”
In another place Roosevelt wrote of Lee: “(he) will undoubtedly rank as without any exception the greatest of all the great Captains that the English-speaking people have brought forth - and this, although the last and chief of his antagonists may claim to stand as the full equal of Marlborough and Wellington.”
So yes, I think Lee was a great General. And no, he was not a trai**r.
I’m sorry BroJoeK, I stand behind my contention that war was inevitable, once the Southern states attempted to secede. The mere fact that Buchanan, while expressing his opinion that secession was unlawful, did not militarily contest the secession, merely goes a long way to indicating why he’s at the lower end (if not the bottom) of any best presidents list. There were other reasons why the US did not militarily contest secession in January, though. A big part of this reason is that the US Army of the time was very small, and mostly posted to little forts all over the West.
Once Lincoln took office, he was determined to maintain the Union by any means necessary and, barring the states returning to the fold voluntarily, this meant war. His biggest problem was convincing the states to supply troops for the cause. In order to get Northern (and European) popular opinion behind him, he needed the Confederacy to be seen as the aggressor. Fortunately for him, Jefferson Davis, Governor Pickens, and General Beauregard were happy to oblige. We attempted to resupply Fort Sumter, they shot first, and the rest was history.
“But Jefferson’s Declaration, far from defending slavery, was originally anti-slavery.”
When I speak of the Declaration of Independence, I am referring to the one that was adopted - the one everyone signed. In other words, not drafts that were not adopted.
And the DOI documents the reasons why the political bands were dissolved.
One reason was this: “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us . . .” This is a reference to slave rebellions. Look it up.
The thirteen colonies intended to stop slave rebellions.
I am as uncomfortable saying this as you are learning of it but the 13 northern and southern colonies agreed to fight to preserve the peculiar institution.
So, here we are again. You state that Lee was not a traitor, but I still haven’t heard a convincing answer as to how leading the Army of Northern Virginia for 4 years and invading Maryland (Antietam) and Pennsylvania (Gettysburg) does not fall under Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution. It states (say it with me - I know you know it) “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”. The mere fact that the US government chose not to indict does not mean a crime did not occur.
Unless you can show that either Lee did not really lead the Army of Northern Virginia (his evil twin? his doppleganger from Earth 2?), or that the Army of Northern Virginia did not wage war on the United States (they were a Boy Scout Troop or an arm of the Salvation Army?), I don’t see how you can avoid the truth that Lee - and his entire Army, and all of the other Confederate Armies, were guilty of treason as defined in the US Constitution.
There is one way, though, that Lee would not have been guilty of treason. This is for the Confederacy to have won the war. Barring that, he stays under the authority of the US Constitution.
Very interesting read - I had not known that the British Empire maintained forts on US territory after the Revolutionary War, with their status not finalized unitl 1814. I’ll have to read more about this.
I do agree with the contention that Guantanamo is similar to Sumter, though. In both we have a legal right to be there, and an unprovoked attack on either would be considered an act of War.
We have cut through the issues of “it was all because of slavery” or “slavery was going to extend to the territories”, or "it was because they were rebelling" or the prestige of preserving the Union.
We are at the very core issue, and that is exactly what Lincoln said in his first inaugural:
“The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion...”.
It was strictly a matter of Lincoln wanting to keep Federal forts on state soil and collection of tariffs.
And if the tariffs were voluntarily paid, there would be no need for forts.
So the issue WAS all about tariffs....Federal Government Collection.
NOW, ask yourself this question....What was so important about the conditions in April of 1861 that induced Lincoln to be willing to risk war?
If one thinks that firing a first shot constitutes blame for a war, then they are wrong. The United States government affixed the official beginning of the war with Lincoln's call of 75,000 troops and the blockade decree.
However, if one still wants to affix the beginning on the first to fire, then you have to go back to January 8, 1861 when Federal troops first fired on Florida state militia at Ft. Barrancas, Pensacola Bay, Florida.
And if that does not suit the issue, one can go back to John Brown's raid, funded by Northern interests. Or go back to Kansas and Missouri where skirmishes predated all of this.
See how silly that is.
You would be right to say that Confederate firing on Ft. Sumter was the first major skirmish. But then you have to realize that the revenue cutter, Harriet Lane, had fired the first shot several hours before the Confederate batteries began shelling.
So, again, where does that take you?
Your comment: "I think it’s very important to determine what happened first. So, let’s add to the time line shown by no lu chan.
December 20, 1860 – South Carolina declares it’s secession from the Union
January 8, 1861 - Federal Troops in the area of Ft. Barrancas fired on Florida militia.
January 9, 1861 – Star of the West was fired upon while attempting to bring supplies to Fort Sumter.
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.
