Posted on 08/01/2022 9:00:05 AM PDT by 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.
Curiously enough, those were pretty similar to orders Jefferson Davis gave CSA Gen. Beauregard -- demand surrender, attack "reduce" fort if not complied.
The difference is, of course, Beauregard was under orders to take the fort by whatever means necessary while Union forces were ordered only to replenish it, by force if necessary.
As it turned out, only Confederates used force in anything other than self defense.
And yet, all hand-waving aside, in all these posts you have never provided evidence to refute my argument or prove your own.
No, in fact, the opposite is true, as the 1858 naval expedition to Paraguay amply proved.
It was called "gunboat diplomacy" and we still use it today on occasion.
In every case the orders are : no first use of force but respond with force if attacked.
DiogenesLamp: "Lincoln started the war. Deliberately."
Davis's order to take Fort Sumter by force was a deliberate act of war, period, which Davis well understood would start war and immediately win at least Virginia.
By no warped twisted logic can the Declaration of Independence be construed to grant an unlimited "right of secession" at pleasure.
Rather, the document speaks first of what is "necessary", and then lays out a "parade of horribles" to prove "necessity" is its root cause.
But your twisting the Declaration's clear language to justify the otherwise indefensible, that is exactly what the Supreme Court has done in several famous cases.
"The naval forces followed the orders to the letter. Even when Sumter was being bombarded, they would not fire on the Confederate Forces because their orders authorized force only to aid the resupply effort, which was never attempted."
Thanks for a great post!
That is just your fantasy. The actual document says nothing of the sort.
I am not going to entertain this idea. It says exactly that.
But I see a pattern. You warp the law and the clear meaning every time it needs to be warped to justify what you want to justify.
This is what modern Democrats do as well.
Probably didn't even read your argument. After so many walls of text, my eyes just gloss over and I skip it.
It is difficult to get up much interest in arguing with a guy who compares Fort Sumter to Pearl Harbor.
Lol...I work with a few Yankees and have worked with a few others over the years. There are a few things they all seem to have in common.
Want to know something? Just ask a Yankee...they’ve always got the answer. Even if they don’t have the answer, they’re going to have the answer.
It’s just the way they are. They can’t help themselves. Squeaky wheels. Always gotta have the boss’s attention. Sucking the oxygen out of a conference room.
My grandad and some of the old timers in the family would always comment on the Yankees they knew. Loud, boisterous, rude, obnoxious know it all’s.
Lol...Sorry y’all. Well, no, not sorry.
đđžđ
Best post of the thread.
Yes, I’m aware of that proposed Corwin Amendment and the other political matters on the forefront of 1860-1861 America. My point is that the “We did It for States Rights” is just a bunch of hogwash revisionism history that tries to deflect from the real root cause - the Abolitionists were abhorred by the evil barbaric practice of Slavery, determined to end this practice in America, and the Elites in the South feared that their Slavery practice was going to end & they went full throttle into leaving the Union for the primary purpose of protecting this Slavery practice.
Go read the Confederate Constitution and compare it word for word with the US Constitution, as it was in 1860. And I’m not going to argue with any liars who try to dishonestly add anything else as a reason for the Southern States leaving the Union than this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Confederate_States#Slavery
There were several major differences between the constitutions concerning slavery.
Whereas the original U.S. Constitution did not use the word “slavery” or the term “Negro Slaves” but instead used “Person[s] held to Service or Labour,” which included whites and Native Americans in indentured servitude, the Confederate Constitution addresses the legality of slavery directly and by name.
Though Article I, Section 9(1), of both constitutions are quite similar in banning the importation of slaves from foreign nations, the Confederate Constitution permitted the Confederate States to import slaves from the United States and specified the “African race” as the subject. The importation of slaves into the United States, including the South, had been illegal since 1808.
Article I Section 9(1)
The importation of Negroes of the African race from any foreign country, other than the slave-holding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.
While the U.S. Constitution reads
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The Confederate Constitution then added a clause that gave Congress the power to prohibit the importation of slaves from any non-Confederate state.
Article I Section 9(2)
Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.
While the U.S. Constitution has a clause that states “No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed,” the Confederate Constitution also added a phrase that explicitly protected slavery.
Article I Section 9(4)
No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
The U.S. Constitution states in Article IV, Section 2, “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” The Confederate Constitution added that a state government could not prohibit the rights of slave owners traveling or visiting from a different state with their slaves.
Article IV Section 2(1)
The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
The Confederate Constitution added a clause about the question of slavery in the territories, the key constitutional debate of the 1860 election, by explicitly stating slavery to be legally protected in the territories.
Article IV Section 3(3)
The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several states; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form states to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states.
From New York Daily Times, Dec 13, 1891 p. 17:
The accomodations [sic] for passengers on the old packet ships were much more confined, mainly owing to the smaller size of the vessels. These ships were the very best as to hull, spars and fittings. Most of them were built in New York by Webb, Smith & Dimon, Westervelt, and other builders on the East River. A few were the outcome of the best builders in the Eastern States.
In their day the sailing vessels were the pride of the New-Yorker and a credit to our merchant marine. They were all American. No foreign flag ever flew at the peak of a packet ship out of New-York that was worthy, and no foreign vessel ever competed successfully for the trade we had inaugurated and made successful. to-day we look in vain for an American vessel among the large fleet of fast European steamers.
BJK: And we know that Southerners did own ocean-going ships because some were famously caught with cargos of slaves in the years just before the Civil war.
Yes, some Southerners did purchase and run slave ships, but New York City was where most slave ships outfitted and set sail for Africa. From the New York Herald of May 22, 1860 [Link, third column]:
There are two parties, and two parties alone, responsible for the fact that the slave trade is more vigorously carried on at the moment than it has been for a long time â namely the British government and the merchants of our Northern cities. The government of England keeps up a show of preventing the running off of slaves from the African coast by maintaining a squadron there; but it happens, as we see, that they are of little of no service. The black republicans of our Northern States, while they are foremost in the agitation against the institution of slavery in the South, are the very men who, for the sake of profits accruing from the slave trade, which they hypocritically denounce, fit out these vessels, destined for the coast of Africa. It requires all the vigilance of government to prevent the sailing of slavers from our Northern ports and the landing of negroes on the coast of Cuba; yet it is remarkable that the very same parties who most loudly condemn the democratic administration as the friends of slavery are the most active instruments if fostering the importation of slaves â a forcible commentary upon the hypocrisy of abolition agitation, both at home and abroad.
From [The New York Based Slave Trade]:
One of historyâs curious episodes was a rise in transatlantic slave trading based in the United States in 1850 that continued through 1863. ...
Harris tells how Portuguese and Brazilian slave traders relocated to New York City, establishing a new slave triangle: New York to Southwest Africa to Cuba). New York had everything they needed. The USâs biggest seaport, it was a city of immigrants, and the United States did not ban equipping ships as slaver. US flag ships could only be arrested carrying slaves. (Those of other nations could be seized for having slave decks and shackles.)
Harris tells a fascinating story. He shows how the trade grew, sheltered by US politics in the buildup to the Civil War, and funded by Free-State money. He traces the struggle, often underground, between the slavers and Great Britain. âThe Last Slave Shipsâ is an interesting look at an odd corner of history.
The first half of the book deals with the long history of the various European countries that were in charge of the African Slave Trade over the centuries. Countries would often pass the control of the slave trade to other European countries by treaty. It seemed like every country was in charge of the slave trade at one time or another.
My interest in the book was mainly Georgia history. One of my favorite places along the Georgia coast is the Fort Frederica National Monument on St Simons Island, near the present town of Brunswick, Georgia. Fort Frederica has some of the most beautiful moss-covered oak trees I've ever seen.
Fort Frederica was established by General Oglethorpe in 1736 to protect the new British colony of Georgia from the Spanish in Florida. He had earlier established the city of Savannah in Georgia further north up the coast in 1733.
The War of Jenkins Ear was named for a British ship captain who was captured by the Spanish. The Spanish cut the ship captain's ear off, hence the name of the short war that resulted from that incident.
Here is some information about the conflict between Britain and Spain and The War of Jenkins' Ear: Link
Come on, man! Tell the whole story. Let's get it straight.
In 1861 almost 80% of the population was in the northern states. There were 20 states in the north and 11 in the south. The northern states absolutely controlled congress -- period. They did exactly as Ayn Rand stated in that quote. In 1928 congress, controlled by the northern states, passed the "Tariff of Abomination," which shifted funds to the northern industrial states at the expense of the less populated rural and agrarian southern states.
The bottom line is the country was as divided in 1861 as it is today (although not exactly along geographical lines). Clearly, expansion of the southern way of life was a major part of the "War of Northern Aggression," and a big part of that war was exactly as described in the Ayn Rand quote -- benefits for the north at the expense of the south.
And my point "We did it because of slavery!" is even worse hogwash. The Union had *NO*, *NONE* intentions of doing anything about slavery when they launched the invasion of the South.
Efforts to make the war about slavery are just propaganda lies stirred up by the invaders to justify what they did. *THEY* are the revisionism. The war was launched by the North to subjugate the South and it had not a d@mn thing to do with slavery. It was about economic control.
he Abolitionists were abhorred by the evil barbaric practice of Slavery, determined to end this practice in America, and the Elites in the South feared that their Slavery practice was going to end & they went full throttle into leaving the Union for the primary purpose of protecting this Slavery practice.
The abolitionists were considered nuts and kooks by the majority of people at the time, not unlike the rest of us today look at the LBGQ+ advocates as nuts and kooks.
And your very own sentence contradicts itself. You argue that the only thing the South wanted was protection for slavery, and that is exactly what the Corwin amendment offered them, yet they weren't interested in it.
If *YOUR* theory were correct, they would have jumped at the change to protect slavery indefinitely, but they just didn't care that the Union was offering this.
You completely ignore the money evidence, which has always been the correct indicator of what is going on. It's always about the money. Have you ever heard "follow the money"?
And Iâm not going to argue with any liars who try to dishonestly add anything else as a reason for the Southern States leaving the Union than this.
You are like a brainwashed Communist who only believes what he has been taught to believe and not only isn't aware about the larger truth, he will resist any effort to be shown the larger truth.
You have been lied to all your life about the cause of the civil war, and this is because the winners controlled the government, publishing, education and so forth. They were never going to tell you anything that didn't make them look like the good guys.
Get a clue. The same Lying Liberals who now say January 6th was an "Insurrection" and "treason" are the same type of liars that has controlled Washington DC (and the press) since the era of George Washington.
You have been lied to, and if you could think about the fact the Union offered the Corwin amendment and the South didn't accept it, you can break the conditioning that has been drilled into you your whole life.
Such a good Catholic. It's inspiring, really.
“In 1928 congress, controlled by the northern states, passed the “Tariff of Abomination,”
The Tariff of Abominations was passed in 1828, not 1928. At the time there were 24 states in the Union. In 12 of those states’ slavery was illegal. Slavery was legal in the other 12. The vote for the Tariff of Abominations in the House of Representatives 105 for and 94 against. In the Senate 26 for and 21 against. Some slave state senators and representatives voted for the Tariff, some free state senators and representatives voted against the tariff.
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.