The Author of the Civil War

At the height of the holiday shopping season of 1860, a bookseller in Richmond, Va., placed a telling advertisement in The Daily Dispatch promoting a selection of "Elegant Books for Christmas and New Year's Presents." Notably, the list of two dozen "choice books, suitable for Holiday Gifts" included five works by the late Scottish novelist and poet Sir Walter Scott in "various beautiful bindings."

Sir Walter Scott not only dominated gift book lists on the eve of the Civil War but also dominated Southern literary taste throughout the conflict. His highly idealized depiction of the age of chivalry allowed Southern readers and writers to find positive meaning in war's horrors, hardships and innumerable deaths. And his works inspired countless wartime imitators, who drew upon his romantic conception of combat.

In 1814 Scott had begun his ascension to the heights of literary stardom with the publication of the historical romance "Waverley," which was soon followed by other novels in the so-called Waverley series. The works were an immediate and immense success in Great Britain and America. Over the course of many volumes, Scott glamorized the Middle Ages, at once shaping and popularizing what we now consider the classic tale of chivalry. As one enamored 19th-century reader explained, each of Scott's romances focused upon the "manners and habits of the most interesting and chivalrous periods of Scottish [and] British history."

Among Scott's most famous works was "Ivanhoe," published in 1820. The romance, set in the 12th century, presents a tale of intrigue, love and valor. The plot traces the fortunes of young Wilfred of Ivanhoe as he strives, despite his father's opposition, to gain the hand of the beautiful Lady Rowena. In the course of Ivanhoe's adventures, Richard the Lionheart and Robin Hood appear, and Ivanhoe performs many a remarkable feat.

I realize that telling you to get your facts straight is like King Lear raging against the storm.

There were no shots fired at Fort Pickens until after the Slaver forces attacked Ft. Sumter.

Confederations of states are forbidden in the constitution without Congressional approval. Secession was illegal.

Federal property is always federal property unless Congress allows it to be returned. Ft. Sumter was federal property in 1860.

Indeed it took 700,000 deaths to defend the Union and the constitution from the Slaver Revolt. Freedom does not come cheap.

Why would you mention my education as if it was I who brought it up rather than one of your deluded friends?

I do have a bias in history, I am anti-Anti-American and totally biased towards those who love and protect the United States of America.

The prosperity you reference was because there was a strong Union. And you don’t remember any history correctly only as a mint-julip drenched compendium of crap.

See Washington’s Farewell Address for the warnings of our greatest president against the poison of secession. That was what the document was really about.

I might “know the rest” but you apparently do all you can to substitute falsehood at every step of the way.

For me, and I suspect for others, this started with people saying that "we" all lost our freedom and became "slaves" with the Civil War, and all the badmouthing "Yankees" that went along with it.

I certainly didn't have anything against Robert E. Lee when I came here, but after years of Yankee-bashing and Lincoln hating, I don't really care to hear any more about the saintly Marse Robert.

Maybe that's part of growing up -- being able to see the faults or flaws of Lincoln or Lee or Davis or Jackson or Grant or Sherman. It doesn't mean that you don't have respect for them, just that you can see that they had their own failings as all people do.

The idea that Johnny Reb and Billy Yank were the best of friends and wouldn't have had any quarrel with each other if it weren't for those pesky abolitionists is gone and isn't coming back any time soon. It was a sweet story, but certainly not the whole truth. That doesn't mean America is going to put Che Guevara, Mao, or Malcolm X in the place of Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln, though.

But you might be right. There might be good reason to worry about the future. If you're concerned you might tell your secessionist friends to cool it and not antagonize conservatives and Republicans who don't share their point of view about what happened long before any of us was born, rather than always taking their side. Respect is a two-way street.

Clearly we are dealing with someone who knows nothing that wouldn’t have been at home in Margrett Mitchell’s nonsense.

Years ago, people had to make tough choices, for or against slavery, for or against secession, civil war, reconstruction, segregation, industrialization, desegregation. Nowadays people don't even have to put up with the weather, thanks to heating and air conditioning.

So it's easy for some people to forget all those hard choices and pretend that it was always much simpler, always just the good us against the bad government. Nothing against a little libertarian rebelliousness against big government, but Washington DC isn't the only enemy liberty's ever had.

What I think they forget is that the Confederate government was a government that aspired to exercise power over people, not a bunch of anti-government Tea Party guys who got together in their garages to chew the fat and were attacked by the feds.

You started your commentary with: "I realize that telling you to get your facts straight is like King Lear raging against the storm.

"There were no shots fired at Fort Pickens until after the Slaver forces attacked Ft. Sumter."

It looks like you should be more careful in your assertions.

Union troops at Ft. Pickens opened fire on Florida militia around midnight, January 8, 1861. Here

The Confederacy fired on Ft. Sumter three months later. here What is to be learned here is that if you have a preoccupation with who fired the first shots, you have been wrong up until this point.

You are also not King Lear.

"Confederations of states are forbidden in the constitution without Congressional approval. Secession was illegal."

There was no confederation of states in the Union. There is no Constitutional prohibition regarding secession. The United States Congress upheld that understanding in December of 1860. Point irrelevant.

Federal property is always federal property unless Congress allows it to be returned. Ft. Sumter was federal property in 1860.

In December of 1860, there were three commissioned, staffed, and occupied Federal posts in Charleston S. C. . Sumter was under construction and not a commissioned or posted Federal emplacement. At the time that Anderson seized it, it was nothing more than a reinforced field position.

The land had been ceded to the Federal government with stipulations regarding its improvement and occupation, which the Federal government had let expire over the 33 year history of its construction.

You may argue that Anderson's position was attacked, but his location was nothing more than a vacant building.

THE law book of that era was Blackstone’s Commentaries. Politicians writing books was not unusual.

That IS Blackstone's Commentaries annotated to incorporate the Constitution of the United States you twit! And it was THE law book of THIS land for more than 50 years whether or not YOU or Lincoln like it!

There was NO procedure placed into the constitution wherewith a state could regain its independence.

There sure does appear to be someone around here who clearly does not understand the Constitution and that would be YOU!

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Show me the article, word, or phrase of the constitution which prohibits a state from withdrawing from the union and you've won. Fail to do so and you loose!

If such sentiment had ever been strong throughout the country it should have been easy enough to propose, and ratify an amendment allowing just such an event.

Why on earth would they need to do that since they already had, and still have today, the right?

I knew that Fort Pickens had resisted repeated assaults by the confeds throughout the war but wasn't aware of the date of the first such assault.

It's interesting that person or persons unknown operating under no flag chose to attack a federal structure in a time of peace. Seeing as how Florida didn't make their attempt at secession until two days later this assault would constitute the textbook definition of rebellion against recognized authority. Thanks for clearing that up for us!

You may argue that Anderson's position was attacked, but his location was nothing more than a vacant building.

Even if so (which wasn't the case) it was a vacant building that belonged to the US government.

The Continental Congress preceded the states

You are truly confused. The Continental Congress & the Committees of Correspondence between the leaders of distinct & functioning communities preceded the States gaining recognized independence in the Treaty Of Paris; but the colonies that later achieved their sovereign independence had functioned as established societies, in some cases for five or more generations.

No one later joined the Union to have their diverse cultures overridden by bureaucrats or politicians, seeking to force social change on other people. If you read the Declaration of Independence--actually read it in context--you will see that much of it relates to opposition to an over-reaching central authority. The Founders did not rebel against an overreaching Government in London, to create one in Washington or Philadelphia.

For the deliberate revival of an anti-Southern ideological sectionalism by the American Left, see Civil War, Reconstruction & Creating Hate In America Today.

Your peppering you comments with abusive terms reduces them to rants. You will not likely persuade anyone who does not already hate traditional values; but, in so ranting, you do help others to understand who are the real aggressors in all of this.

The real issues concern the rights of distinct peoples & communities to define their own cultural values. We do, indeed, have many cultural values in common in America--at least among those rooted in American culture. We also have a great many local nuances of culture. The Founders never intended to interfere with those--hence the absolute absence of any functional delegation to Congress of powers to engage in social engineering. Even John Marshall, a strong advocate for Federal Powers, recognized that control over Health, Safety & Morals (the Police Powers) were left to the States.

William Flax

Well said!

Well said indeed and ABSOLUTELY true!

Your legal arguments are sound, but you are tilting with a man apparently driven by hate. His seasoning of his arguments with slurs against historic figures who offered reasoned arguments that he rejects out of hand, without a reasoned response, demonstrates that.

He also seems to confuse the significance of even the terms that he uses. The debate in 1860 was over the Union. It was a Union of States. To understand the concept, the term "Nation" does not really apply. For example, Sioux were a Nation. England & Scotland were States, united in the United Kingdom at the time. In the Elizabethan era, Scotland was a State, the Scots as a people, scattered in many cases as mercenaries all over Europe, were a Nation--hence the term "Mary Queen of Scots," not "Mary Queen of Scotland."

The fundamental issue over the American Union was really the same in 1860 as now. It goes to the function of a political institution that the Founders Created. It is a structure adopted by an American ethnicity, intended to secure the common interests & liberty of those of that ethnicity. The question then, as now in the age of Obama, is has that structure been corrupted from its purpose.

Those who appeal to it as something created in Heaven--something analogous to the former doctrine of the "Divine Right of Kings," need to go back and read the foundational documents--need to understand what the Declaration of Independence, actually demanded; what the Constitution actually required.

William Flax

Thank you! Our latest posts to each other crossed, as you will see.

While on this thread, I will agree with x to this extent--and this extent only. We ought all to try to resist the temptation to hurl insulting adjectives at others who simply disagree with historic interpretations. That does not mean that Lincoln, Calhoun or any other advocate of an historic position is above challenge on a position. But people who may be dead wrong on historic issues may yet be reachable on current issues, and we need every ally we can muster to regain the America intended.

Besides, gentlemanly methods of discourse are always more persuasive; and posts at Free Republic may be read by a great many people who do not chime into the debate, but may yet be influenced by it.

William Flax

There are many clues to the individual's fanaticism in his posts on this thread, alone. For example, he disparages the journalist Margaret Mitchell, who simply wrote an excellent historic novel. Does that have anything to do with the subject, or even with the arguments that broke out? But it displays a need to deny reality--Mitchell's picture of the old South was based on the lady's spending an enormous amount of time, interviewing survivors of the era, before they died.

That race relations in the Old South were as she pictured, is fully confirmed by the address of Booker T. Washington at the Atlanta Exposition in 1895.

Why would any American feel the need to endeavor to spread hate by denying the existence of relations based upon mutual respect, that did in fact exist? If you can answer that, you will begin to see a pattern that has persisted in the West among people of a certain mind set, since the Jacobins began butchering traditionalists in France in the "Reign Of Terror." It is the world view of Karl Marx, the sociopath John Brown, Thaddeus Stevens, Lenin, Hitler, Castro, Pol Pot and many others who have compulsively sought uniformity of the human condition.

The American South has long been the object for the hatred of such, perhaps because you have produced so many smiling, happy & tolerant, individualists. (But see, Compulsion For Uniformity, for examples of manifestations of this form of intolerance.)

William Flax

We are in complete and total agreement and you should know also that every bit of this has been discussed on previous threads of this nature on this site.

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.