Posted on 02/20/2020 9:13:10 PM PST by Pelham
Thomas Fleming talked about his book, A Disease in the Public Mind: A New Understanding of Why We Fought the Civil War, in which he portrays the Civil War as a tragedy that American leaders foresaw and struggled to prevent.
He spoke about how public opinion and propaganda helped spark the war, and the longstanding tensions between the North and South. He also discussed events that heightened fear of a slave rebellion in the southern states. The Pritzker Military Library hosted this event.
Free copy here. Thanks for putting me on to this book.
He effectively murdered nearly a million people to keep the "Elite" moneycrats running the system, just as they are still doing today.
Wake up! Look around! Who are our enemy today? Who is the "Deep State" that is trying to stage a coup against our president? Where are they located and who do they represent?
Liberal Democrat elite Wealth from New York, mostly.
Yes. They marched across the border to murder people who had done them no wrong, so as to reestablish control by the Money powers.
They didn't march for freedom, they marched to force others to obey their masters in Washington DC.
The individual men were good, but they had been manipulated into being pawns for an evil cause.
As was Britain. Odd that no great harm has come about as a consequence of Britain separating into two separate countries.
Apparently separating into two separate countries does no lasting ill to anyone. Certainly not enough to kill 750,000 people to stop it.
You can only point that out if you are making the claim that this same greedy slaveocracy would not have existed under a continuation of the Union as it was before the war.
Trying to claim that the war was the consequence of something that would not change without a war is deliberately misleading.
Slavery would have continued for many decades longer in the Union without the war.
Defending your homeland is *NOT* an evil cause. What is an evil cause is invading other people to force your will upon them.
Doing that is very similar to this thing called "slavery."
If it's evil, then the Union is evil in exactly the same way. It's constitution required perpetual enslavement of even more slaves than just the seceded states, and Lincoln was trying to amend it to make slavery even more secure constitutionally!
So claiming the Confederate constitution protected slavery more than the Union Constitution is just false. The CSA constitution was simply more explicit. Both constitutions protected slavery to the degree sufficient to keep it.
Lincoln sent five warships and a troop carrier to *FORCE* the residents to accept *HIS* control over their harbor entrance.
There is also some evidence that the people of Charleston were assured by President Buchanan that Anderson would remain at his assigned station and not move without notifying them.
They awoke in the morning to find Moultrie burning and Anderson occupying a threatening position over them.
So no, the aggression was pretty much one sided in this affair.
Of course that was morally wrong, but it was absolutely legally correct, and nobody invaded them because they owned people.
Stop trying to make the war about "owning people" because that had nothing to do with why Union soldiers marched across the border to kill people in the Southern states.
Trying to pull this bait and switch with slavery as some sort of explanation for why Union armies marched, is just dishonest.
You *KNOW* that Union armies didn't march because of slavery. You *KNOW* that slavery would have continued in the North and the South if the war hadn't occurred, so stop trying to argue from a moral point that was not relevant to why a war was began.
Which means that slavery was not the thing over which each side was fighting, because they both agreed that would be kept without a war.
Meaning the Union war effort was not about slavery. It was about control. (Of the South's economic production for the benefit of the crooks in New York and Washington DC who had manipulated the laws to funnel money into their pockets.)
It prevented West Virginia from being formed out of the territory of Virginia, but they did it anyway. It prevented all the slave "property" in all the southern states to be seized without "due process", but they did it anyway.
They simply ignored the Constitution when it suited their interests, and demanded strict adherence to it when that suited their interests.
and in the U.S. in December 1865 once the 13th Amendment was ratified.
And another example of where they ignored constitutional law. In order to pass an amendment, you have to have *CONSENT* from 3/4ths of the states.
They created a fake "puppet" consent by using occupation armies to force states to vote for this amendment that they were *ORDERED* to vote for by Washington DC.
That is not how the constitutional amendment process works. Duress is false consent, and is therefore invalid.
They didn't care. They passed these amendments illegally anyways. Again, they ignored the constitution when they felt like it.
If you are interested, a good book on that subject is "Complicity." This is from the front dust jacket flap:
"Slavery in the South has been documented in volumes ranging from exhaustive histories to bestselling, novels. But the Norths profit from—indeed, dependence on—slavery has mostly been a shameful and well-kept secret... until now. In this startling and superbly researched new book, three veteran New England journalists demythologize the region of America known for tolerance and liberation, revealing a place where thousands of people were held in bondage and slavery was both an economic dynamo and a necessary way of life."
"Complicity reveals the cruel truth about the Triangle Trade of molasses, rum, and slaves that lucratively linked the North to the West Indies and Africa; discloses the reality of Northern empires built on profits from rum, cotton, and ivory—and run, in some cases, by abolitionists; and exposes the thousand-acre plantations that existed in towns such as Salem, Connecticut. Here, too, are eye-opening accounts of the individuals who profited directly from slavery far from the Mason-Dixon line—including Nathaniel Gordon of Maine, the only slave trader ever sentenced to die in the United States, who even as an inmate of New York's infamous Tombs prison was supported by a shockingly large percentage of the city; Patty Cannon, whose brutal gang kidnapped free blacks from Northern states and sold them into slavery; and the Philadelphia doctor Samuel Morton, eminent in the nineteenth-century field of "race science," which purported to prove the inferiority of African-born black people."
[Farrow et al, "Complicity: How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery." Ballentine Books, 2005, Front Jacket Flap]
Chapter 10, titled "Plunder for Pianos," exposes hypocritical abolitionists who opposed slavery, on the one hand, but supported it when it came to obtaining supplies for their ivory business.
Mr. Kalamata
Stop trying to make the war about “owning people” because that had nothing to do with why Union soldiers marched across the border to kill people in the Southern states.
Trying to pull this bait and switch with slavery as some sort of explanation for why Union armies marched, is just dishonest.
You *KNOW* that Union armies didn’t march because of slavery. You *KNOW* that slavery would have continued in the North and the South if the war hadn’t occurred, so stop trying to argue from a moral point that was not relevant to why a war was began.
All true up until Jan 1863. From that date on everywhere Union troops marched slaves existed no more.
So taking a position on the basis of utility rather than on principle? Do you suppose that if Lincoln had informed the border states in 1861 of his intentions to push the 13th amendment, they would have remained in the Union?
It seems as if you are acknowledging that master manipulator Lincoln was just stringing them along until he could gain sufficient advantage that he no longer had to respect their wishes or interests.
If Lincoln had revealed this idea in 1861, the border states would have left too, and the South would have then definitely won the war. In fact, in all probability, with the remaining border states on their side, the Union would likely have been much less willing to initiate a war.
So claiming the Confederate constitution protected slavery more than the Union Constitution is just false/
Was a Confederate state able to outlaw slavery in that State?
They could do that in the Union. Many all but four of the States that remained loyal to the United States had outlawed slavery.
Lincoln started the violence. Actually Anderson did, but Lincoln greatly escalated it.
If there had been no war, would the North have freed the slaves?
No significant violence involved in any of those incidents. In most cases, they simply walked in and took over. Not unreasonable since it was their own property after they declared independence.
So taking a position on the basis of utility rather than on principle?
Nothing wrong with that approach. In 1861 the 13th Amendment would have guaranteed that the Federal Govt. could not interfere with slavery in any state where it was legal. Border States would have supported that.
“South would have then definitely won the war.”
Pure speculation, not supportable by facts.
Why do you guys do this to yourselves?
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.