America’s Next Civil War Will Be Worse Than Our Last

The American Spectator ^ | 07/26/18 | H. W. Crocker III

[Enlightened1]

Of that we can be sure.

In the summer of 1862, just weeks before the Battle of Sharpsburg (or Antietam) — the bloodiest single day of fighting in American history — Union Captain George Armstrong Custer attended the wedding of Confederate Captain John “Gimlet” Lea at Bassett Hall in Williamsburg, Virginia, as best man. The Union officer was dressed in blue, the Confederate officer in grey, and Custer being Custer spent the next two weeks flirting with the Southern belle cousin of the bride, even joining her in singing “Dixie.”

At one point she told him, “You ought to be in our army.”

“What would you give me if I resigned my commission in the Northern army and joined the Southern?”

“You are not in earnest, are you?”

 

He wasn’t, of course. Custer was nothing if not loyal, and he believed that he was bound to the Union by the oath he had sworn at West Point, whatever his affection for Southern officers and their ladies.

Such gallantry seems unthinkable today, when members of the Trump administration are hounded from restaurants and theatres, and Confederate officers like John Lea, if they are remembered at all, are considered precursors of the German National Socialists, and their once famous and respected commanders like Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and Jeb Stuart have their statues toppled and banished from public squares, their names stripped from public schools, and their memories spat upon and disgraced.

[BroJoeK]

That was number 7.

Do I foresee number 8?
Calling number 8, going once...

[usconservative]

If there really is another Civil War, there won't be a city, town, village or area untouched by it. Not one. It'll be ugly, brutal, bloody, cost millions of lives and hopefully ... swift.

Just sayin'...

[usconservative]

If you live in red mid western state your legislature and governor will temporarily fill in and will be there for you. Of this I am sure. But make no mistake the converse is also true, if you live in a blue state, I feel for you. You will be the enemy my friend. Either fight guerrilla style or get to a red state.

If a civil war does break out, there will be no hiding behind any politician, including a Republican/Conservative governor. I think you underestimate the fomenting rage that really exists out here, especially in the midwest whether one lives in a red or blue state.

Using Illinois as a prime example (and since I live here ...) the absolute HATRED of Chicago by the rest of the state would mean a very swift end to anyone who tries leaving it to spread their crap out here in the rest of the state.

I guarandamntee it.

People have this perception that Chicago's a warzone and everyone's armed and shooting each other. Not true. There are a handful of neighborhoods where all the murders and shootings typically occur. Anyone who wants to confirm that can go to SecondCityCop.com for example and see the stats for themselves. There's also HeyJackass.com where even more stats are kept.

These gang-bangers wouldn't last an hour out here in the rural parts of the state. They think they're well armed? ROFL!

Try spreading that Chicago hoodrat crap out here and they'll get shot dead so fast that their own momma's won't remember them being born.

[FLT-bird]

I’ll keep responding as long as you do.

[BroJoeK]

That was your number 8, should you go for number 9?

Number 9, number 9, calling John Lennon, number 9?

Nine posts without a word thread related?
Really?

[FLT-bird]

1st desperate cry for attention of the day noted.

Let’s see how many times you cry for attention from me today.

[BDParrish]

But the Bible strongly opposes slavery for God's people, indeed it is one long anti-slavery document -- from Exodus out of Egypt to Jesus freeing all of us from slavery to sin. But your comment here shows that like everything else in Lost Cause mythology, claims that the Bible supports slavery are built on lies.

I think you have a good mind and I enjoy reading your comments. I realize that you are a true historian, (so is my daughter,) and that is partly what is moving you in all this.

It is certainly true about slavery, and our southern position was indefensible considering Philemon! Our hypocrisy was there to see, were we willing to be honest. We were outraged at the legal plunder by the Yankee tariffs, while ignoring that slavery is also, in another form, exactly that, legalized plunder! Holding slaves while attempting to evangelize them was such hypocrisy. "Thou shalt not steal" the labor of another man!

It was General Lee who ordered us to furl the flag. He set the example by NEVER participating in any such debates with the Yankees on moral justification for the lost cause. Other generals and especially the vice president were not so good or wise. The issue has been settled. As Lee would say, "God's will."

BTW if we "lost causers" would grant that the war was fought over slavery and that the war decided that issue and not secession, then we might better maintain that the issue of secession has not been settled and a philosophy of state rights might be resurrected in people's minds and hearts if it ever came to blows.

[BroJoeK]

#9!

[BroJoeK]

BDParrish: "...we might better maintain that the issue of secession has not been settled and a philosophy of state rights might be resurrected in people's minds and hearts if it ever came to blows."

The issue of secession is totally settled in my mind.
Our Founders proposed and practiced what we might call "secession" under two, but only two, conditions:

1. Necessity, as they experienced in 1776 forcing them to declare independence from the Brits.
   Their Declaration makes clear it was necessity which drove them to declare unilateral unapproved Independence, not what James Madison later called "at pleasure".

2. Mutual Consent: but our Founders also proposed & practiced at pleasure "secession" in 1788, leaving the old Articles of Confederation to adopt their new Constitution -- by mutual consent.

Necessity and mutual consent were the two conditions which our Founders left to us for declaring "secession".
But no Founder ever proposed or consented to unilateral unapproved declaration of secession at pleasure, and yet that is what happened in late 1860 and early 1861.
It's simply fact that nothing in any 1861 "Reasons for Secession" document remotely resembled conditions spelled out in the 1776 Declaration of Independence, nor was there anyting remotely resembling the mutual consent of 1788.

Further, the key point that every Lost Causer tries to obscure (and in so doing identifies themselves as Lost Causers) is that secession alone did not cause Civil War.
Indeed, Lincoln promised in his March 4, 1861 Inaugural that secessionists could not have civil war unless they themselves started it.
And Jefferson Davis acknowledged (to Braxton Bragg) that it would be better to let the Union start war, but when Confederates were ready to attack Fort Sumter, that "better" would be outweighed by other considerations.

In short: it was more important to Davis to have a war, seizing Forts Sumter & Pickens, than to worry about maneuvering to make the Union start it.

And so the war came...

[BDParrish]

In short: it was more important to Davis to have a war, seizing Forts Sumter & Pickens, than to worry about maneuvering to make the Union start it.

And most important of all to win it! And if he had, then we would not be having this discussion. I appreciate your writing BroJoeK, but I did not understand your point about the Declaration of Independence since we had already been killing the redcoats for a year when that document was signed.

Thanks!

[BDParrish]

Further, the key point that every Lost Causer tries to obscure (and in so doing identifies themselves as Lost Causers) is that secession alone did not cause Civil War.

Did not understand. Did you mean that the Lost Causer is identified solely by his saying that secession was the only cause? I never heard that before. It is sure that the south made possible the abolition of slavery by leaving the union. Lincoln believed that slavery could not be touched where it existed as it would require a constitutional amendment. On this he was certainly correct.

As far as secession being settled in your mind, what about West Virginia? Or more to the point, do you believe that rural counties in California could separate from the liberal metropolises without the effusion of blood? Do you believe that the federal government could break up a state like California without the approval of the stinking rascals that infest the government in Sacramento?

[BroJoeK]

BDParrish: "I did not understand your point about the Declaration of Independence since we had already been killing the redcoats for a year when that document was signed."

Exactly, that's what made it, as they said at the time, necessary:

1. "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands..."

2. "Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. "

3. "We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends."

True necessity drove the Declaration of Independence, but no remotely similar "necessity" drove any 1861 "Reasons for Secession" documents.

[BroJoeK]

PDParrish: "Did you mean that the Lost Causer is identified solely by his saying that secession was the only cause?
I never heard that before."

I think pretty much any Lost Causer will tell you Lincoln started war at Fort Sumter to stop secession, and will then go on to argue 1861 secessions were constitutional and legal, therefore Lincoln was in the wrong morally, constitutionally and legally.

My responses are:

1. Lincoln did not start war at Fort Sumter, Davis did, so the appropriate question should be: why?

2. Secession as practiced in 1861 was neither constitutional, legal nor moral, and was not the reason for Civil War's start.

BDParrish: "As far as secession being settled in your mind, what about West Virginia?"

West Virginia was formed according to Constitutional requirements, with mutual consent of all parties.

PDParrish: "do you believe that rural counties in California could separate from the liberal metropolises without the effusion of blood? "

Certainly, given mutual consent of all parties, including Congress.
Absent mutual consent of voters and legislatures it becomes a law enforcement issue and whether local authorities are overcome, in Lincoln's words:

"...by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by law... "

Peaceful constitutionally approved secession is one thing, acts of rebellion are something else entirely.

PDParrish: " Do you believe that the federal government could break up a state like California without the approval of the stinking rascals that infest the government in Sacramento?"

Normally no, but as with West Virginia, conditions of a civil war may make the impossible possible.
What happened at the end of the Civil War was former Confederates temporarily lost their franchise to vote while former slaves gained theirs.
The results included legislatures throughout the South which ratified the 13th, 14th & 15th amendments and, in Virginia, approved the separation of West Virginia.
Congress and West Virginians also approved, hence: mutual consent.

Mutual consent is required for lawful separations.
Necessity must be a last resort and must be real, not just some snowflakes' hurt feeeeeeeeeeelings.

[BDParrish]

I have seriously never heard anyone say that Lincoln started the war at Fort Sumter to prevent secession. I started my study of the civil war in 1967 when I began and eventually finished reading the entire York Co., SC, library section on the war. I have a lifelong fascination with the war but especially reconstruction. Yours is the typical Yankee position with no surprises really except that I have not followed these silly debates on Free Republic and I had no idea that any Lost Causers thought Lincoln started the war at Sumter. It was widely thought that we had been at war for a long time when Ruffin was granted the privilege of firing the “first shot” of the war. But everyone agreed that this would be the official start of the war otherwise it makes no sense to have Ruffin fire the cannon.

[FLT-bird]

Make it 10

[BroJoeK]

BDParrish: "I have seriously never heard anyone say that Lincoln started the war at Fort Sumter to prevent secession."

I'm not trying to be facetious.
"Lincoln started war at Fort Sumter" is Lost Causer orthodoxy on Free Republic threads, with countless electrons spurred into motion defending or attacking such claims.
"Lincoln invaded the South to stop secession" is the only narrative Lost Causer's here even recognize.
And the reason Lincoln wanted to stop secession, they claim, was 100% economic, to prevent Northern collapse from the loss of $200 million in Southern exports.

BDParrish: " It was widely thought that we had been at war for a long time when Ruffin was granted the privilege of firing the “first shot” of the war.
But everyone agreed that this would be the official start of the war otherwise it makes no sense to have Ruffin fire the cannon."

You'll make no FRiends among Lost Causers with talk like that.
They insist that Lincoln started war by ordering his "war fleet" to "attack" Confederates in Charleston.
No war fleet, no war, they claim.

As for war starting before Fort Sumter, of course I'd agree with that except for: before Fort Sumter the Union never fired back, pushed back or took back anything seized by Confederates.
Fort Sumter was the first serious response to Confederate aggressions against Union properties and officials.

BDParrish: "Yours is the typical Yankee position with no surprises really... "

I have no idea what "the typical Yankee position" is, have simply responded as best I can to whatever is the latest Lost Causer nonsense posted here.
My opinions, so far as I can tell, are in accord with our Founders, especially as expressed by Madison.

You disagree?

[BDParrish]

Lincoln invaded the South to stop secession" is the only narrative Lost Causer's here even recognize. And the reason Lincoln wanted to stop secession, they claim, was 100% economic, to prevent Northern collapse (what?) from the loss of (tariff revenue from) $200 million (?) in Southern exports (imports?).

Yes that is how I understand the position which I have heard all my life. I never thought that it mattered who fired the first shot or even where or when the shooting started. "Well, HE started it!" is playground talk, and does not bear on either side's moral argument. At least I would not be interested in anyone's moral position if it hinged on such a mere fact.

I can understand why the fighting children on the playground will say that to the teachers who come to break it up, but I don't think there would be any valuable instruction in their explanations. "But he was about to attack ME!!" I like the playground analogy in discussion of the causes of the war for various reasons but the "Who started it?" question does not in my humble opinion give virtue to either side's moral argument so I will continue ignore it.

I enjoy these posts by you. You have a good mind and you seem to have more actual historical knowledge about the subject than any Yankee I ever interacted with. My wife is from East Longmeadow, Mass. They will say, "You people are still fighting the war down there." We will reply, "What? You mean it's OVER???" Always gets a laugh.

I would love to spend an afternoon with you over this. And would you ping me next time all this comes up? I am out on your final with many thanks!

[BroJoeK]

Quoting BJK: "...to prevent Northern collapse [what?] from the loss of [tariff revenue from] $200 million [?] in Southern exports [imports?].**"

**BDParrish comments in italics

I hesitate calling on DiogenesLamp, but it's his arguments I'm attempting to rehearse.
The explanation is: $200 million in 1860 represented roughly the value on Deep South cotton exports, earnings from which paid for imports on which Federal tariff revenues depended.
But Lost Causers claim that much or most of the $200 million was being siphoned off by "New York power brokers" who used it to buy influence in the Washington D.C. Deep State, influence inimical to Southern interests.
That's what forced secession in late 1860 and it's also why the big devil Lincoln invaded the South, killed 700,000 soldiers plus millions of civilians, destroying $billions in Southern property assets, all to protect the $200 million "money flow from Europe."

It's the reason Lincoln was not just our worst Democrat president, he was also one of the worst human beings ever, equivalent to some of our 20th century monsters.

Do you suppose I mistakenly called Lincoln a "Democrat" president?
No, no mistake by me -- that is imho the focus and key point in all Lost Causer propaganda -- to turn 1860 Northern Republicans into today's Liberal Progressive Democrats and make 1861 secessionists into conservative Republicans.

What do you think, DiogenesLamp, did I state your views accurately?

BDParrish: "I never thought that it mattered who fired the first shot or even where or when the shooting started.
"Well, HE started it!" is playground talk, and does not bear on either side's moral argument."

Oh but it's critical to assigning blame to Lincoln for millions of deaths and $billions in treasure lost due to the Civil War.
I mean, if Lincoln was not to blame, then who was, Grant, no must be that little demon Sherman, it's all his fault, right?
No blame must ever besmirch such noble conservative Republicans as, say Jefferson Davis or Alexander Stephens or William Lowndes Yancey, for examples.

Out of time for now, must run, back later...

[DiogenesLamp]

I don't see Civil War 2.0.

I see a decentralized guerrilla war. The decision to fight will not be collective, but individual.

This sounds more realistic about what it would look like.

[DiogenesLamp]

We were outraged at the legal plunder by the Yankee tariffs, while ignoring that slavery is also, in another form, exactly that, legalized plunder!

Enslaving fellow citizens is a breaking of the Compact known as the "Constitution." The enslavement of Blacks, while immoral, was completely legal under the system of government enacted in 1776 and that which was redesigned in 1787.

BTW if we "lost causers" would grant that the war was fought over slavery

Except in fact, the war was not fought over slavery. The Union kept Slave states operating within the Union for the entire duration of the war. Therefore their fight was not with slavery, but with those who sought independence of Washington/New York's economic control of their production.

That the war was about slavery was War Propaganda, but the existence of certain facts demonstrate to any reasonable man that slavery was not the reason the North sent men into the South to conquer them.