Posted on 08/11/2015 1:11:21 PM PDT by iowamark
What caused the Civil War? That seems like the sort of simple, straightforward question that any elementary school child should be able to answer. Yet many Americans—including, mostly, my fellow Southerners—claim that that the cause was economic or state’s rights or just about anything other than slavery.
But slavery was indisputably the primary cause, explains Colonel Ty Seidule, Professor of History at the United States Military Academy at West Point.
The abolition of slavery was the single greatest act of liberty-promotion in the history of America. Because of that fact, it’s natural for people who love freedom, love tradition, and love the South to want to believe that the continued enslavement of our neighbors could not have possibly been the motivation for succession. But we should love truth even more than liberty and heritage, which is why we should not only acknowledge the truth about the cause of the war but be thankful that the Confederacy lost and that freedom won.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.acton.org ...
“It’s a concerted effort to bash Dixie here mostly by lefties and occasionally minorities of some sort”
That’s what I see. Just a bunch of lefty Democrats hating on the South for not continuing to be Democrats even though Southerners were Democrats after the Civil War. It is all about hate; they hate blacks, they freedom, they hate Republicans. Let’s face it, it was the Republican party that destroyed the Confederacy, a Democrat nation.
Well it's good that you regard Abe Lincoln as a valid authority regarding why the war was being fought, because he makes it very clear in his letter to Horace Greely.
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.
I take his word at a little over a year into the war more than I do his efforts to justify what he had already done by three years later.
Having wrecked the South, and having wrecked slavery, what is he going to say? That he fought the war to force the South back into the Union? Why was that worth the deaths of 600,000 people? No, the necessary political optics required something more noble than forcing subjugation on a group of people who didn't want it.
The rationalization seized upon was "abolition of slavery", not because it was true prior to the fact, but because it was something he believed the public would accept. People were deeply religious in those days, and would believe that it was "God's Will" to fight in a noble cause.
Clever Lawyer/Politician, He. Too clever by half.
Actually they did. They could have not started the war, but instead chose to do the opposite. They could have prevented the Union army from campaigning in Confederate territory, but had neither the numbers or the leaders to do that. They could have taken the war into the North, but their attempts at that proved to be ineffective if not downright disastrous. It is not their choice to keep the war going, it was the Union reasons that kept the war going. They had a lot of choices but when they blew it on the first one, not starting the war to begin with, then the others were bound to fail as well.
Once again I point out to you, that if "slavery" was the reason and the only reason why the confederates fought, then why didn't they simply rejoin the Union? Lincoln was saying they could keep their slavery, and they had it before Lincoln became President, so why would they fight for something which the other side was willing to give them?
Because having left the Union before Lincoln was inaugurated and having adopted a constitution with protection for slavery far greater that was ever possible under the U.S. Constitution, even had the Corwin Amendment been ratified, what reason would they have had to end secession and return?
The facts simply do not support the contention that either side was fighting over slavery, because slavery was not being threatened by the war. (at first.)
The facts do, as do the writings and speeches of the Southern leaders of the time. But you do not accept that, preferring to believe that it was all Lincoln's fault. So be it. It means that there really is no point in continuing this useless discussion.
Judging by Pea Ridge's posts concerning the messages and letters regarding the ships sent to Ft. Sumter, it does not look like they had that choice either. The evidence indicates Lincoln was going to have his war one way or the other.
According to you there is always a choice. Lincoln could have ignored the bombardment of Sumter. By the same token the South could have ignored the resupply of Sumter. If you want to believe that Lincoln was hell-bent on war then there is certainly more than enough evidence to suggest the Confederacy was just as eager to start it as well.
Not sure why anyone would discuss anything with a liberal Democrat liar who parades around Free republic like they are some kind of queen.
I don't think you are grasping my point. Lincoln deliberately sent belligerents to Ft. Sumter to start a war. He did this after explicitly telling the Confederates that he would send no belligerents, just supplies. They were at a rendezvous point 10 miles away from Ft. Sumter when the conflict began. I have little doubt the Confederates knew the flotilla had sailed, and knew they were carrying war material and soldiers on board.
Lincoln was going to cause the war one way or the other.
That poorly-written, spelled, and punctuated piece is an attempt to stir up strife...nothing more.
I see that we now have a claim that Lee was a brainless moron. Wow, haven’t seen that one before.
That is just more Lost Cause mythology. Here's a good article that dispells that myth.
Your point is the same point that you post time after time. It's all Lincoln's fault, the Confederates were just following the Declaration of Independence, if the Union wanted peace then they would have just shrugged off that whole Fort Sumter bombardment thing, and so forth and so on. I didn't think he held water in the past, it's still leaking like a sieve now, so I'll just let you find someone who hasn't heard it all before and try and convert them.
No, it's a new point, but you are certainly treating it as if it wasn't. Your cavalier dismissal of points which do not suit your narrative is simply evidence of your subjectivity.
Lincoln sent an armed force to Ft. Sumter. He said he wasn't going to do that, but he lied. He did not send them to play patty cake, he sent them there to fight.
Not to mention, I have yet to look up the letter from Greeley that Abe was responding to.
I read the article at your link. It rebuts nothing. It asserts 29 million dollars worth of wool imports balances the ~300 million dollars in Southern Agriculture product exports because Northerners wore wool.
It is an analysis written by a child, not someone seriously addressing the issue. It is the opinion of someone intent on dismissing the claim without putting forth any real effort to discredit it, knowing full well that the vast majority of his Union supporting audience wouldn't bother to critically dissect his claims.
There is a simple fact that remains. Imports coming into the Country have to be paid for by Foreign money received, and since that comes mostly from Domestic exports, you have a conundrum explaining how all the Northerners got all that European money to pay their share (80%) of the tariff duties on imports.
Since Southern Agriculture products made up 75% of exports, where did the Northern states get their European money?
You are portraying the abolition of slavery as "optional" rather than the purpose of the war. You made my case for me. Thank you.
It's the same old, same old.
Lincoln sent an armed force to Ft. Sumter. He said he wasn't going to do that, but he lied. He did not send them to play patty cake, he sent them there to fight.
How is it a lie? In his message sent to Governor Pickens and delivered by Robert Chew, Lincoln told the governor "...to expect an attempt will be made to supply Fort-Sumpter with provisions only; and that, if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or amunition, will be made, without further notice, or in case of an attack upon the Fort." It would be hard th throw in men, arms, and ammunition if they weren't there. Lincoln made it clear that men and munitions would be on the resupply fleet, but also made it clear that they would not be landed in the fort unless the resupply effort was opposed. There was no lie.
Good work
What you’re not pro slavery?
Darn
Don’t fall for their crap
I can argue all day a clarification of the integrity of Dixie to these disgruntled disingenuous slavery concern trolls without having to say I’m anti slavery
I can also crow about how much I love rolling around with a fine firm lush naked aching woman without having to validate that I’m against rape btw
This is how these turds control the debate
Just saying
You obviously didn't read the messages Pea Ridge posted. One Officer was already making his attack run and was only stop because another officer imposed his ship into the path and forced him to desist. The message makes it clear that the one officer was going to start the fight, and was only prevented by the luck of the other officer stopping him before he could do it.
Now you may argue that all those ships, men and war material were simply brought along in case of need, but the statement of that one officer makes it clear that his orders were to start the conflict.
In other words, Lincoln lied. Deliberately, and with malice aforethought, or are you going to argue that the officer took it upon himself to do this against Lincoln's orders?
I'd say Occam's razor points towards Lincoln lying.
So now are you saying that the cotton states were not paying most of the import tariffs, but are instead arguing that southern exports provided the foreign currency to purchase imports?
Very little of the cotton crop was sold directly to European customers, just as very little of any commodity product today is directly sold to the final consumer today.
Northern merchants bought most of the cotton crop and paid the planters in US dollars, not foreign currency. Those merchants then took on the expense and risk of shipping and warehousing that cotton and selling it on the global market. When they sold that cotton to foreign buyers, they got the foreign currency which they used to purchase foreign goods, while also paying the tariff on imports. That is why the lion's share of tariffs were collected in New York.
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.