The REAL cause of the Civil War.

Vanity | 1957 | Ayn Rand

[DiogenesLamp]

For some time I have wondered how to explain the cause of the Civil War in simple terms that are easy to understand. I now see that Ayn Rand did it years ago. Laws passed by a Northern controlled Congress routed all the money produced by the South into Northern "elite" pockets.

[higgmeister]

A revolution against a monarchy an ocean away is entirely different from armed , illegal secession against a duly and freely elected government put in office in a free and open election Reb.

Major fail on your part. Try again.

In your on musings.   The comparison is exactly the same circumstance because secession was not illegal, it was an understood right.

Our U. S. Constitution is a document defining the limits on Federal authority.   The whole Bill of Rights and especially the Tenth Amendment states anything not in this document is reserved to the States or the People.

You state and agree that secession is not in the Constitution, hence it was not illegal, in spite of what revisionist Justices claimed after the fact.

[DiogenesLamp]

The bastards opened fire on Ft. Sumter ...

Because Lincoln sent a fleet of warships to attack them.

Tell the whole truth.

[DiogenesLamp]

A revolution against a monarchy an ocean away is entirely different from armed , illegal secession against a duly and freely elected government put in office in a free and open election Reb.

Not illegal. Specifically authorized by the Declaration of Independence which declares it a right given by God.

The right to Independence is a human right.

[higgmeister]

The census every ten years lists the agricultural outputs of the States. So it is easy to see how much wheat is grown in Indiana, how much tobacco in Virginia and how much cotton in Alabama.

As you found those records and I couldn't please state how much Indiana wheat was exported to other nations.   That was the question related to trade strictures.

[DiogenesLamp]

You state and agree that secession is not in the Constitution, hence it was not illegal, in spite of what revisionist Justices claimed after the fact.

It was so very *NOT* illegal, that New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island all claimed a right to secede in their own ratification statements.

None of the framers said "You can't do that. It's illegal."

They all simply accepted those state's ratifications and did not see a conflict.

[livius]

Northern people didn’t particularly hate blacks, but by the mid-19th century, there was certainly discrimination, which was why the USCT was so controversial. Many people in the Union Army, btw, weren’t even Northerners, but Irish or other immigrants hired off the docks by wealthy people to take their places in the draft.

Beginning to see a pattern here? One Tennessean said the war was a war of the few (wealthy people) against the many (the rest of us, Southern or Northern, white or black).

Sounds kinda familiar.

[DiogenesLamp]

Northern people didn’t particularly hate blacks,...

To the contrary. They hated black people with a passion bordering on insanity.

You might want to read this example about how the people of Illinois felt about black people.

Many people in the Union Army, btw, weren’t even Northerners, but Irish or other immigrants hired off the docks by wealthy people to take their places in the draft.

I have read that many were simply grabbed off the boat and enlisted into the Army without any choice.

Beginning to see a pattern here? One Tennessean said the war was a war of the few (wealthy people) against the many (the rest of us, Southern or Northern, white or black).

There is a lot of truth in that. It certainly set up the Federal government (and those who control it) as King in the land.

Sounds kinda familiar.

Same playbook the Liberals have been using since 1860.

[BroJoeK]

Albion Wilde: "...the south was defamed for having a slavery economy; but the north was profiting from the south's products and taking more money from the south than fair... "

"Fair"?! But the only money "the North" ever "took" from "the South" were payments for goods & services freely contracted at, we must presume, the best available prices.
You simply cannot insult all Southerners by claiming they would ignore a better price, if they could get one.
The truth is that 5.5 million Confederate state whites paid the same prices for their goods & services, differing only in transportation costs, as did 22 million Union state whites.
Indeed, it's been said Southerners paid less for financial-type services than other Americans because Southern incomes were more stable & reliable.

Albion Wilde: "If the south could have retained more of the profit from their crops, they may have been able to free or indenture their enslaved workers, paying, housing and feeding them for the season. "

Of course you know what "profit" is, right?
It's revenues minus expenses and in business nearly all expenses are freely contracted for based on the best combinations of quality, delivery and price.
And you well know that many Southerners were & are frugal by nature and so eventually grew very wealthy, while many others wanted to look wealthy even when they weren't, and so fell into poverty -- that's just human nature, has nothing to do with tariffs from Washington, DC.

As for freeing their slaves through indentures, that was done a lot, especially in Border States where slavery itself was marginal economically.
In Border States like Maryland about half of African Americans were freedmen.
However... however... freeing slaves was done much less in Deep South states where slavery was seriously profitable and slaves in great demand.

Albion Wilde: "Instead, southern agriproducers were being gouged by northern profiteers whose preachers and editors grabbed the moral high ground, the same way today's power-thieves yell "racist!" whenever they don't get their way."

"Profiteers and preachers"? I don't think so.
The fact is, you have no idea how many of these "profiteers" were Southerners themselves, or were, for example, British merchants & financiers investing in reliable American business opportunities.
But Northerners in Pittsburgh who manufactured & sold, for example, iron stoves, charged the same prices to their Southern customers as they did to those in, for example Wisconsin. Profiteering? Naw, that's just Confederate propaganda.

As for "preachers", yes, that is a different story, the truth is Northerners did first learn abolitionism in their churches.
But when they tried to "export" their new abolitionist ideas to the South, they were met with a solid wall of resistance -- no books, pamphlets or newspapers advocating abolition were ever allowed in the antebellum South.

Albion Wilde: "We can't go back and do it again. But the north can stop moral preening over the history of U.S. slavery."

Nobody on Free Republic is moral preening over US slavery, but neither do we ignore or lie about basic facts, which seems to be the stock-in-trade of our Southern Democrat pro-Confederates.

Albion Wilde: "Whereupon northerners passed red line real estate laws, segregation schemes and all kinds of mess that helped us get to where we are today -- a large subculture of angry, lawless, fatherless people constantly spoiling for a fight.
But all the racism is blamed on the south."

The truth of this matter is, there's only one real reason we have so many "racism" allegations -- institutional, systemic or otherwise -- that's because it's incredibly profitable politically and economically for our racism-industry to ignore the facts and keep up unrelenting pressure on guilty-feeling white liberals, "progressives" & "woke" activists.
"Racism" will end when race hustlers can no longer make a living off it and people can get on with their lives in peace.

And that will happen when? Probably the same day that heck freezes over...

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Once again, *AFTER* the troops showed up and arrested everyone Lincoln's people thought might vote otherwise.
Not how the "will of the people" is supposed to work."

No Marylander -- zero, zip, nada Marylanders -- were arrested before the state legislature voted 53-13 against secession on April 29,1861.

Just one week later, May 6, 1861, the Confederate congress declared war against the United States, making, by definition, any pro-Confederate activities in Maryland a matter of treason.

That's when the arrests started.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "I guess that depends on where the HQ was, but this was in early morning, probably during dead silence."

No, it was not in the morning of April 12, it was in the evening of April 11, before the "festivities" at Fort Sumter had kicked off, so to speak.

And little revenue cutter Harriet Lane was the only Federal ship near Charleston Harbor at that time -- it wasn't "Lincoln's war fleet", it was one small ship.

[DiogenesLamp]

"Fair"?! But the only money "the North" ever "took" from "the South" were payments for goods & services freely contracted at, we must presume, the best available prices.

Wrong assumption right off the bat. Grossly overpriced goods and services that were made to appear cheaper than imports because of Washington DC policies favoring the North.

Remember American Buyers versus American Sellers? The Government was favoring the sellers... who also were wealthy and had great influence in Washington DC and the "elite" social circles. Same then as today.

And the tariff money obtained by people buying European goods was also sown right back into the North.

As for freeing their slaves through indentures, that was done a lot, especially in Border States where slavery itself was marginal economically. In Border States like Maryland about half of African Americans were freedmen. However... however... freeing slaves was done much less in Deep South states where slavery was seriously profitable and slaves in great demand.

Funny how profit drives everything. As i've said before, if they could have figured out a way to make a profit off of slavery, the Northern states would have kept it. They didn't seem to realize it was a great moral crises until it was no longer profitable.

And people wonder why i'm so cynical.

You can believe in money or the milk of human kindness, but my bet is that money wins every time.

We are still financing slavery in China today!

[DiogenesLamp]

No Marylander -- zero, zip, nada Marylanders -- were arrested before the state legislature voted 53-13 against secession on April 29,1861.

When did the Union troops arrive?

Just one week later, May 6, 1861, the Confederate congress declared war against the United States, making, by definition, any pro-Confederate activities in Maryland a matter of treason.

We see that same sort of thuggery still today. Protesting a stolen election is now regarded as "insurrection" and some people go so far as to claim "treason."

Same old lies. Same old corruption.

[jeffersondem]

“No. The rule of law Reb. Suck it up.”

I understand you are enamored with blue states, the legacy of blue states, and the devolved blue state culture.

I'm not; and I have the kind of personality that doesn't prevent me from saying so.

But my back-talk is not something that you and Biden's bayonets couldn't outlaw with another one million page anti-misinformation rule added to the Federal Register.

[DiogenesLamp]

No, it was not in the morning of April 12, it was in the evening of April 11, before the "festivities" at Fort Sumter had kicked off, so to speak.

I think you are right. The attack on Sumter began in the morning. The shots from the Harriet Lane were earlier.

And little revenue cutter Harriet Lane was the only Federal ship near Charleston Harbor at that time -- it wasn't "Lincoln's war fleet", it was one small ship.

I don't believe that is true. I think the Baltic was already there, but I don't remember for certain. I know the rest of the ships got there and waited for Captain Mercer in the Powhatan, but he was never coming.

Some sort of mistake or screwup on Lincoln's part that accidentally paralyzed the entire mission without letting the Confederates know that the ships were not going to do anything because the command ship would not arrive.

Amazing how clever Lincoln is all through his career, but he screws up on something as critically important as the Charleston mission by detaching the command ship and sending it to Pensacola under secret orders of which the other ships were not told.

Of course he made certain none of the secret orders ever went through the Navy's command structure. Just those orders to attack them went through official Navy channels.

Why do you suppose that is?

Why announce to the word that you are sending a battle fleet, and then quietly paralyze it by stopping the command ship from arriving?

Must have been a "mistake."

[BroJoeK]

BJK: "Republicans were indeed the anti-slavery party -- they wanted to abolish slavery in US territories, ..."

DiogenesLamp: "Why? No one will like a truthful answer to this question."

The moral roots of abolitionism are the Bible and Northern churches.

The economic roots of abolitionism came from free-men not wanting to compete against "free" slave labor.

The political roots of abolitionism came from Northern politicians not wishing to grant Southern slavocrats more unbalanced political power than they already enjoyed, via the Constitution's 3/5 rule.

Those seem perfectly reasonable to me, so your problem with them is what, exactly?

DiogenesLamp: "But he did. No due process and continued confiscation after the war. Also the intimidation of states to force them to vote for an amendment they did not want."

First, Congress defines "due process" and second, there was no intimidation -- none, zero, nada intimidation -- of lawful voting Southern US citizens after the Civil War.
Of course, that category did not include those who had declared themselves to be non-citizens!

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Who's to say who's in Rebellion?
Earlier in the thread someone posted about Mayland.
They wanted nothing to do with secession, but Union forces attacked them anyway. So did Confederate forces."

On May 6, 1861 Confederates declared themselves to be at war against the United States.
That and that alone ended all lawful discussion of secession in Union states like Maryland.
From May 6, 1861 onward, any discussion in favor of secession was, by Constitutional definition, treason.

DiogenesLamp: "Now you are engaging in hair splitting sophistry. The war was over when Lee Surrendered. Yes, elements fought in Texas later, but word had not yet reached them."

Regardless of your pro-Confederate fantasies, the Civil War was declared officially over by President Johnson on August 20, 1866.

[Albion Wilde]

You done? Self-important spew.

[BroJoeK]

odawg: "No it is not. Lincoln referenced the government’s loss of revenue were the Southern states to secede."

Rubbish, because by the time Lincoln took office Southern Fire Eaters had already declared secession & Confederacy.
And there was already a reduction in Federal tariff revenues, due to the disruption in normal economic activities.
However, that reduction proved temporary and the Federal government never had difficulty borrowing enough money to finance itself.

Collecting Federal tariff revenues had nothing to do with Lincoln's actions regarding Fort Sumter, despite what pro-Confederate propagandists claimed then, and now.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "But 60% of their earnings were taken before they ever saw them. That's why most of them never "directly paid a Federal Tax." New York and Washington DC were working hand in glove to make certain they got their cut before the money ever reached the people who produced it."

Rubbish, the truth is, when a Southern planter sold his cotton to "factors", he received full market value for his cotton, then & there.
"Factors" then transported the cotton to, eventually, a sea port like New Orleans where it was sold again at market prices there.
Most cotton then shipped directly to ports in Britain & France, where it was again sold, each time at then available market prices.

If the Southern planter decided to keep ownership of his crop, and himself transport it to a port and then Europe, he would indeed make much more in gross revenues.
But he would then himself have to pay all the transportation, shipping & warehousing costs, meaning there was likely a "break even point" of quantity below which it was no longer profitable for the Southern planter to himself pay for transportation & sales overseas.

[odawg]

“Rubbish, because by the time Lincoln took office Southern Fire Eaters had already declared secession & Confederacy.”

How can you be so freaking stupid? The first state to secede was after the November election of 1860. They felt no need to wait until Lincoln assumed office.

And, according to historians, which you are obviously not one, the South was being rolled by the Federal government over revenues.

You must be one of these idiots that fervently believe the North was righteous and justified in what it did.