Replies

>>OIFVeteran wrote: "The war happened because of slavery, no slavery no war. The southern states seceded because of the election of a "black" republican. They had threatened to do this in 1856 if Fremont won the election as a republican. This is undisputable historic truth."

That is undisputable revisionist history. The South could have had a new Amendment (the 13th) protecting their slaves forever, it they had stayed in the Union. But they knew that under Lincoln, and his Hamiltonian economic policies, their wealth would have been plundered, like it was in the 20's and 30's. On the other hand, with perpetual free trade from their Southern ports, they would have flourished. At the same time, the Northern manufactures that relied on protective tariffs would have "suffered" due to increased competition.

*****************

>>OIFVeteran wrote: "The United States went to war because it's fort was fired upon by rebel forces that had gained control of the state of south Carolina. The United States fought to suppress a rebellion. They later added the war aim of freeing the slaves."

The United States went to war because Lincoln wanted to go to war, and he did everything he could think of to precipitate it. Lincolnites tend to forget that Lincoln promised war against any state that refused to collect tariffs for him:

"In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall be none, unless forced upon the national authority. All the power at my disposal will be used to reclaim the public property and places which have fallen; to hold, occupy and possess these, and all other property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties on imports; but beyond what may be necessary for these, there will be no invasion of any State."
[First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861, in Roy P. Basler, "The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln Vol 4." Rutgers University Press, 1953, p.254]

In that same statement you will notice that Lincoln also declared all forts and other buildings within the seceded states belonged to the Union, rather than the states of which they were a part of, including Fort Sumter, a tariff collection depot. Is there any reason to doubt why Lincoln attempted to re-supply Fort Sumter? Not according to this letter:

Capt. G. V. Fox Washington, D.C.
May 1, 1861
My dear Sir

"I sincerely regret that the failure of the late attempt to provision Fort-Sumpter, should be the source of any annoyance to you. The practicability of your plan was not, in fact, brought to a test. By reason of a gale, well known in advance to be possible, and not improbable, the tugs, an essential part of the plan, never reached the ground; while, by an accident, for which you were in no wise responsible, and possibly I, to some extent was, you were deprived of a war vessel with her men, which you deemed of great importance to the enterprise."
"I most cheerfully and truly declare that the failure of the undertaking has not lowered you a particle, while the qualities you developed in the effort, have greatly heightened you, in my estimation. For a daring and dangerous enterprize, of a similar character, you would, to-day, be the man, of all my acquaintances, whom I would select."
"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort-Sumpter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result."
Very truly your friend
A Lincoln
[Abraham Lincoln to Gustavus V. Fox, in Roy P. Basler, "The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln Vol 4." Rutgers University Press, 1953, pp.350-351]

The bottom line is, Lincoln manipulated events that caused the bloodiest war in American history.

*****************

>>OIFVeteran wrote: "Here's a breakdown of the context of Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas's ordinances of secession. Keep in mind that when the phrase states rights is used it's almost exclusively to the right to travel freely with slaves, expansion of slavery into the western territories, holding slaves, etc.."

That is grossly over-simplified. The chief cause of the secession was the election of the Plunderer-In-Chief, Abraham Lincoln, whose motive since the beginning of his political career in the early 1830's was the promotion of a high protective tariff, an internal improvement system, and a national bank, all requisites of a crony-capitalist. This is believed to be his first political speech:

"Fellow-Citizens: I presume you all know who I am. I am humble Abraham Lincoln. I have been solicited by many friends to become a candidate for the Legislature. My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman's dance. I am in favor of a national bank. I am in favor of the internal improvement system, and a high protective tariff. These are my sentiments and political principles. If elected, I shall be thankful; if not it will be all the same."
[Announcement of His Candidacy for the State Legislature, about March 1, 1832, in Henry Clay Whitney, "Life and works of Abraham Lincoln Vol 03: Early Speeches." Current Literature Publishing Co., 1907, p.1]

That was consistently Lincoln's agenda.

Mr. Kalamata

Kalamata to OIFVeteran: "That is undisputable revisionist history."

No, based on Confederate "Reasons for Secession" documents, the later revisionist claim is that secession was over something other than the threat to slavery represented by Lincoln's "Black Republicans".

Kalamata: "The South could have had a new Amendment (the 13th) protecting their slaves forever, it they had stayed in the Union.
But they knew that under Lincoln, and his Hamiltonian economic policies, their wealth would have been plundered, like it was in the 20's and 30's."

As OIFVeteran pointed out, Southern Fire Eaters threatened secession in 1856 if Republican John Fremont was elected president.
Fremont was defeated by Doughfaced Northern Democrat James Buchanan, who supported the Supreme Court's Dred Scott ruling.

In 1860 Fire Eaters again threatened, if Lincoln was elected, but this time they also sabotaged their own national Democrat party, splitting it and insuring Lincoln's minority victory.
In neither 1856 nor 1860 was the main issue tariffs, it was always slavery.

Were some Southerners concerned about tariffs?
Sure, a small number of Southern elites doubtless did worry about such things.
But the vast majority of Southerners, even in the Deep South, could not be persuaded to reject their own country over the difference between 20% and 25% tariffs on the price of raw materials for clothing.

Only slavery had the power to move a majority of voters, and even then the vote was quite close in Louisiana, Alabama and Georgia.
Even in 1861 a lot of Southerners weren't buying the nonsense pro-Confederates were selling.

Kalamata: "On the other hand, with perpetual free trade from their Southern ports, they would have flourished.
At the same time, the Northern manufactures that relied on protective tariffs would have "suffered" due to increased competition."

There was never a proposal in the Confederate Congress for "free trade".
In fact the first Confederate tariff was basically the old Union 1857 tariff, but redirecting the proceeds from Washington to Montgomery.
It was also proposed to collect tariffs on "imports" from Union states, expected to bring total Confederate tariff revenues to maybe $20 million per year.
This would compare to 1860 Union tariff revenues over $50 million per year.

In fact, Confederate tariff revenues totaled about $3 million ($Confederate) over four years.

Kalamata: "The United States went to war because Lincoln wanted to go to war, and he did everything he could think of to precipitate it."

The United States went to war because Jefferson Davis started it at Fort Sumter, then Confederates formally declared war on May 6, 1861.

Kalamata: "Lincolnites tend to forget that Lincoln promised war against any state that refused to collect tariffs for him:"

Indeed, Confederates at the time called Lincoln's First Inaugural a "declaration of war", but it wasn't.
It simply informed them that Lincoln would carry out his oath of office by repossessing the seized forts and collecting tariffs.
Lincoln did not "ask states to collect tariffs for him".
The decision for war was Jefferson Davis', and he made it.

Kalamata: "In that same statement you will notice that Lincoln also declared all forts and other buildings within the seceded states belonged to the Union, rather than the states of which they were a part of, including Fort Sumter, a tariff collection depot."

And still another lie straight from the Lost Causers' inventory.
No tariffs were collected at Fort Sumter.
In 1860 Charleston harbor contributed roughly one half of one percent of all Federal tariff revenues.
This is precisely the reason that Lost Causers like DiogenesLamp have concocted their ridiculous "money flows from Europe" and "northeaster power brokers" conspiracy theory -- because there were effectively no tariffs collected at Charleston, SC, it sort of mocks their "tariff theory of secession".
So they have to retreat to ever more obscure and fanciful explanations for why majorities of Southern voters agreed to secession.

Kalamata: "Is there any reason to doubt why Lincoln attempted to re-supply Fort Sumter?
Not according to this letter:"

Lincoln's letter to Fox expresses his sincere regret at the failure of Fox's mission, but he offers as consolation the fact that, as they expected, even in failure "the cause of the country" was advanced.
Fort Sumter had the same effect on Americans as December 7 and September 11.

Kalamata: "The bottom line is, Lincoln manipulated events that caused the bloodiest war in American history."

The bottom line is that Jefferson Davis provoked, started, formally declared and waged the bloodiest war in American history.
And from Day One, Davis called it "a war of extermination on both sides."

Kalamata: "That is grossly over-simplified.
The chief cause of the secession was the election of the Plunderer-In-Chief, Abraham Lincoln, whose motive since the beginning of his political career in the early 1830's was the promotion of a high protective tariff, an internal improvement system, and a national bank, all requisites of a crony-capitalist."

Talk about "oversimplified" -- all of that was just "politics as usual", none of it ever caused serious threats of secession, compromises were always reached and life went on as before.
What changed in 1860 was the election of Lincoln's "Black Republicans" who many Southerners saw as an existential threat to their own "domestic institutions" and "way of life".
Those terms referred to slavey, not tariffs or infrastructure.