Posted on 05/06/2009 10:35:26 AM PDT by cowboyway
One of the greatest misconceptions of American history is that the Civil War was fought over slavery. Those who subscribe to this belief see President Abraham Lincoln as the benevolent leader who made unimaginable sacrifices in human blood to wipe out America’s greatest sin. While the human sacrifice is indisputable and the sin was monumental, the war’s purpose was not to free blacks from the shackles of bondage. Rather, the Civil War was fought with one purpose in mind: To preserve the Union at all costs. And, to put it in Lincoln’s terms, with no ifs, ands, or buts. You’d better agree with the president, or else.
(Excerpt) Read more at tenthamendmentcenter.com ...
If it was about slavery, why didn’t the infamous emancipation proclamation, free the slaves in the US, instead of reintroducing slavery in conquered territory.
barbra ann
I believe you’re forgetting about “Fightin’ Joe” Johnston, who commanded the CSA for much of its life and was appointed Customs Commissioner post-war.
The civil war was largely about slavery and its extension.
Under the 9th and 10th amendments it seems to me that states had and have a right to secede.
However that became moot once Jefferson Davis ordered the attack on Fort Sumter.
Only Hirohito’s attack on Pearl Harbor compares with Jeff’s rash stupidity.
If instead Davis had petitioned the US Supreme Court to approve of succession, they likely would have ruled in his favor, and tied Lincoln’s hands.
It was and remains Jeff Davis’s war.
Well, yes it does. Napolitano takes Lincoln to task for opposing the Southern acts of secession, and compares them to the colonists. He claims that "the right of secession followed from the American Revolution as the colonists separated from the British Empire and declared their independence..." and forgets to mention that the colonists had to fight for that independence. So if he wants to make the comparison with the colonists then why is he so surprised that the Southern acts of 'secession' were opposed as well? Or that they had to fight for their independence?
Maybe it was a matter of “might makes right” when the colonists won independence.
But might was against the colonists. They were fighting one of the strongest countries on earh and they beat them. The confederates couldn't accomplish that.
You may disagree with the rationale (preserving slavery)...
Not at all. What I disagree with is the way the confederate supportes seem embarassed by slavery and are willing to go to any lengths to avoid admitting it was about slavery.
...or its practicality (no world-striding great, old USA if the South leaves; then again, maybe we’d all be richer and more powerful if we’d stayed with the British all along).
No, I'm glad that the United States remained whole and unbroken because that is how our Founding Father's had left it to us.
But that does not address succession as such. I believe in my right to revolt if a Stalin were to rise to power in America, but I don’t at all think Obama qualifies.
And I am not going to disagree with you. But tell me where it says that you have the right to revolt and Stalin or Obama or whoever is not supposed to oppose you.
It's no coincidence that this all took place within a decade of similar nationalist movements all over the world -- including the unification of Prussia under Bismarck, the creation of Italy under Garibaldi, the formal Confederation of Canada, etc.
OK. So Longstreet was bitter after the war.
What then was the issue of the Vice President of the Confederate States of America, when he gave the Cornerstone speech?
You remember that one, right?
Here’s an excerpt: “The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution — African slavery as it exists amongst us — the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.”
The last sentence is pretty clear, doncha think?
Even the famed orator and former slave Frederick Douglass acknowledged as much in his infamous "Independence Day" speech in Rochester in the early 1850s. His basic premise was that Independence Day didn't mean a damn thing to free black men in Union states.
Then you should have no problems providing quotes from Lincoln indicating that, should you?
It's no coincidence that this all took place within a decade of similar nationalist movements all over the world -- including the unification of Prussia under Bismarck, the creation of Italy under Garibaldi, the formal Confederation of Canada, etc.
And only eight decades after that nationalist movement that unified 13 colonies into a single country?
The fact that it would have been unconstitutional if it did apply to Maryland should tell you something as well, shouldn't it?
The irony is that both the Union and Confederate regions of the U.S. were pretty consistent in their attitudes towards state sovereignty even going back to the time these were British Colonies. If it weren’t for the strength and success of the colonial military campaigns in the Southern colonies there never would have been a United States of America to begin with. Much of what later became the dominant centers of the Union remained in British hands throughout the American Revolution (I’ll cite Boston and New York City as two perfect examples), and the fact that the Northeast has historically been one of the most radically leftist parts of the U.S. for generations would lead me to believe that the people in those places would have been perfectly content to remain under British rule.
And as James Madison said, "An inference from the doctrine that a single state has a right to secede at will from the rest, is that the rest would have an equal right to secede from it; in other words, to turn it, against its will, out of its union with them." Is he right?
As for slavery, everyone admits that it was horrible and a black mark (no pun intended) on our history. But again, as Dr. Williams has noted, he is much better off today because his ancestors were brought here as slaves than he would be if they had been left in Africa.
Then given the conditions in much of Africa today, would Dr. Williams or you advocate reintroducing slavery as a way of saving all those poor wretches in Darfur or the Congo or Rwanda from their miseries?
What you don't understand is that slavery was the occasion; states rights was the cause.
Can you answer the question in my hypothetical secession case?
The fact is that the Emancipation Proclamation was as meaningless as a statement that 2+2=74 . . . but only in the Confederate states.
“The fact that Lincoln’s “Emancipation Proclamation” didn’t apply to the “border states” like Maryland pretty much puts the whole idea of slavery as the driving purpose of the Civil War to rest.”
That’s perfectly silly.
Lincoln recognized that he had no constitutional right to end slavery, except for the right of a Commander in Chief to use any necessary measures to win a war. Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, Tennesee, Western Virginia, and New Orleans were under US control, so they were not covered by the Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln was a careful lawyer.
It’s also hard to fathom how a speech by Frederick Douglass in the early 1850s somehow comments on an action by Lincoln in 1862. It’s a matter of record that Douglass became Lincoln’s admirer and friend by 1865.
The states created the Union, not vice versa. They joined it by their consent (along with the Federal government's but only if they applied.) There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits secession. Thus, any state can legally secede any time. All of them could if they chose to.
Then given the conditions in much of Africa today, would Dr. Williams or you advocate reintroducing slavery as a way of saving all those poor wretches in Darfur or the Congo or Rwanda from their miseries?
Of course not, and don't be silly. But let's stop dwelling on slavery. And if we can find a way to help the oppressed of Congo or Rwanda to escape their misery, that is a good thing. We don't want to simply change their slave masters, but lift them out of the slavery they're in.
Do you dispute Dr. Williams's observation? Would he be better off if he were in Congo or Rwanda or Kenya or whichever tyrannical African satrapy than he is in America?
I seem to recall that there was a fair amount of fighting up North as well.
(I’ll cite Boston and New York City as two perfect examples)
You might want to cite at least one other one. The British evacuated Boston in March of 1776 and never returned.
...and the fact that the Northeast has historically been one of the most radically leftist parts of the U.S. for generations would lead me to believe that the people in those places would have been perfectly content to remain under British rule.
Yes, well if not for men like Sam Adams, John Adams, John Hancock, and Benjamin Franlin the South might well still be under British rule.
Yes, and considering how many of his actions were upheld by the Supreme Court I'd say well constrained.
The fact is that the Emancipation Proclamation was as meaningless as a statement that 2+2=74 . . . but only in the Confederate states.
Upwards of 200,000 black Union troops - most of whom were slaves when the Southern rebellion began - would probably disagree with you.
But it demonstrates where the people are; much like a poll. You know that, but the typical NS MO is to lie, spin and lie some more. A yankee judge is in my corner and it's killing you. (To All: I predict that NS will not sleep tonight unless the staff gives him an extra sedative.)
Ronald Reagon won the election in 1980 with 50.75% of the popular vote, a bare plurality. But he took 91% of the popular vote and his election is seen as a landslide victory and a repudiation of Jimmy Carter.
Huh?
Not at all. If anything the miserable quality of the work is making Napolitano look stupid.
You wanna see stupid? Look in the mirror.
Your sense of self worth is only exceeded by your inability to admit that you're wrong.
Exactly. NS has cherry picked a few quotes much in the same way that the left wing cherry picked a few generals that were against the Iraq War and somehow tried to convince the public that that was the consensus at the Pentagon.
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.