Posted on 11/18/2017 6:36:43 AM PST by iowamark
This a very interesting interpretation. In effect, taking away slaves from the plantation was exactly what Rome did to Carthage -- salt their fields to kill their agriculture and their economy.
Of course, the North has an interest in ensuring the "peace" was permanent and they wouldn't have to fight the Confederacy as second time. But killing their industry certainly sounds like destroying their future.
Are you saying former slaves had the right to vote but Southern whites did not? Never heard that before.
No more vital interest that were threatened by the North. Yet the Confederacy felt that Fort Sumter was worth a war. And they acted unwisely.
You constantly trot out this dodge, and yet I have met few people in my life who do not automatically answer "slavery" when you say "civil war." Whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, the vast bulk of the population believes the war was fought to free the slaves.
Why do they believe this? Because that is the propaganda that has been spread about it ever since it happened.
Well then, for what were they fighting? What necessity compelled them to send husbands and sons to the South to be killed?
If you are going to split silly hairs, Union troops fired on Florida Militia before either of the events you mentioned.
They didn't do that initially, but they started doing that after a month or so. But while we are on the subject, what was their legal basis for doing that?
The way I read the relevant part of the US Constitution at the time, what they did was against the law. Or should I say, it was against the law if the US Constitution still applied to the South, which the North claims it did, though they did not act in this case as if they believed it did.
They did in fact behave in this case as if the South truly was an independent country to which the US Constitution no longer applied.
Because if they believed the South to still be part of the US nation, they could not lawfully free those slaves.
Of course it's pretty clear that no law or principle held sway, and people just did pretty much whatever they wanted to do.
Because one person doing something wrong, completely justifies another person doing something wrong.
Or was the invasion a direct result of Germany starting the war in the first place?
You may not be aware of this, but Germany did in fact declare war on us. Congress then moved to declare war on Germany. It was more constitutionally lawful than the Civil War, which did not receive a congressional declaration of war, as outlined in the Constitution.
To quote John Maynard Keyes, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do sir?"
To which the corollary is, "when the facts don't change, why should I change my mind?"
Slavery could not have been abolished if the states had been allowed to express their own free will. You yourself said exactly this same thing earlier in the thread. Have you forgotten?
You clearly recognize the truth, even though you are loath to speak the truth on this matter. Had the Southern states not been coerced into agreeing, that amendment would never have passed.
But this begs the question of what is the purpose of getting the states consent when you are forcing them to consent by military pressure? The states become nothing but a sock puppet for the master of the Military, which is effectively what a Dictator is.
Of all the assaults on constitutional governance, using the threat of military force to compel states to pretend they acquiesce to something, is by far the worst abuse of power this nation has ever seen.
I never thought much about the true cause of the Civil War, but your argument makes a lot of sense to me.
And it shows the Deep State was already in high gear back in 1860. And Abraham Lincoln was really a 19th century Mitch McConnell.
I might change my mind for facts, but not for your opinion.
Slavery could not have been abolished if the states had been allowed to express their own free will. You yourself said exactly this same thing earlier in the thread. Have you forgotten?
Slavery was abolished in the U.S. by states ratifying the 13th Amendment through their own free will.
You clearly recognize the truth, even though you are loath to speak the truth on this matter. Had the Southern states not been coerced into agreeing, that amendment would never have passed.
Coercion because you say so?
But this begs the question of what is the purpose of getting the states consent when you are forcing them to consent by military pressure? The states become nothing but a sock puppet for the master of the Military, which is effectively what a Dictator is.
Now you're getting silly again.
Are you saying you were wrong resorting to the Nazi analogy?
You may not be aware of this, but Germany did in fact declare war on us. Congress then moved to declare war on Germany.
And the Confederacy initiated the conflict by firing on Sumter. Any invasion, as you term it, would not have happened had they not done so. Likewise Germany initiated the war. Any invasion would not have happened had they not done so. In neither case can the invader be called the aggressor.
It was more constitutionally lawful than the Civil War, which did not receive a congressional declaration of war, as outlined in the Constitution.
You declare war on other countries. The Confederacy was not a sovereign country, not in the eyes of the U.S. or the rest of the world. They were, in the eyes of the U.S. and the rest of the world, a rebellious part of the United States. One does not declare war on oneself in order to quell a rebellion. It was more constitutionally lawful than the Civil War, which did not receive a congressional declaration of war, as outlined in the Constitution.
No rational person “enshrines” a term or concept that they are too “squeamish” to utter out loud. Slavery was not enshrined in the Constitution (but I think I see why you feeeeeeel that it is).
And I can reply with the very real threat to the safety of Major Anderson and his men being spread around Charleston and which caused the move to Sumter. We can take this back as far as you want to go but the truly deciding factor was when they bombarded Sumter into submission.
To suppress the armed rebellion started by the Southern states when they fired on Sumter.
You won't hear of it because it doesn't fit the narrative people want to believe. It's true. The edict went out that all people who had been in "rebellion" were disenfranchised, and only those who had not been in rebellion were allowed to vote.
This effectively meant whites in the South were not allowed to vote, and former slaves were. This had the effect of electing nearly entire black legislatures to several states, and black congressmen to the congress.
Years ago I had a history book that covered this aspect of the aftermath of the Civil war, but I haven't seen it in any books since then, and I have long noticed how difficult it is to find information on the topic. People simply do not want to admit this section of history happened. I found this. It isn't much, but it somewhat confirms what i've been saying on this point.
According to the book I had, (which I believe was published in the 1960s) the whole thing turned into a farce, because former slaves did not know how to be legislators. They would show up dressed in their best clothes, and they would speak in very courtly manners to each other, but they would then do little else.
Eventually their behavior became an embarrassment to the Federals and so they eventually relinquished control and began allowing whites to vote again.
Possibly because "slavery" was the cause, at least from the Southern side. The motivation for the North was always preservation of the Union.
Whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, the vast bulk of the population believes the war was fought to free the slaves.
And a considerable percentage of Confederacy supporters deny the Southern actions were motivated by slavery - including most of the ones around here. I cannot be responsible for people holding beliefs that are contradicted by all available evidence.
Why do they believe this? Because that is the propaganda that has been spread about it ever since it happened.
Propaganda is not always correct.
You don't think having guns threatening your shipping in one of your most important port cities is not a vital interest? Especially given the fact that Northern newspapers had already called for those guns to be used against the port itself?
"With regard to the customs revenues in South Carolina, it may be questionable whether the best plan is to send a new collector or to repeal the acts creating the several ports of entry on the coast of South Carolina. This latter arrangement would avoid the collision of two sets of officers, and would prevent trade with foreign countries. It would be proper, we suppose, to prohibit coast-wise trade to and from the ports of South Carolina, whilst she is in her present attitude of armed defiance of the United States. In the enforcement of the revenue laws, the forts become of primary importance. Their guns cover just so much ground as is necessary to enable the United States to enforce their laws."Philadelphia Press, January 15, 1861
It took me years of looking at this situation to realize this explanation makes a lot more sense than what I had been taught all my life. The Blockade, for example, never made sense to me because the vast bulk of the major battles were fought on land. Why is it the first thing Lincoln did?
Well it cut off the economics of the South and forced all trade traffic to go through Northern (mostly New York) ports.
And it shows the Deep State was already in high gear back in 1860. And Abraham Lincoln was really a 19th century Mitch McConnell.
I have only recently come to believe that the "deep state" "crony capitalist" system in control of Washington DC had it's origins in the runup to the Civil War. The Civil War was the first time it came together to project it's power, and it has been running Washington DC ever since.
There is a reason why the era subsequent to Lincoln was an era of the worst corruption the nation has ever seen. They got so accustomed to behind the scenes deals, and selling government influence that it became a routine for them, and they became more brazen and careless.
And yet during the whole time that Anderson was in Sumter not a single ship had been threatened. Not a single ship had been fired upon. Ships were entering and leaving Charleston up to the day the South bombarded it into surrender.
Philadelphia Press, January 15, 1861
Northern newspapers did not run the country. In the almost three months following that editorial the guns of Sumter were not used, as the Philadelphia press demanded, to enforce their laws.
It is in fact your own opinion as you demonstrated previously on this thread.
Slavery was abolished in the U.S. by states ratifying the 13th Amendment through their own free will.
So am I to believe you now that you are saying this, or am I to believe what you were saying before?
Which one of your opinions should I believe?
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.