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.
Hi.
Article V of the Constitution insurers the states a republican form of government and protection from invasion.
Well, that’s not working out to good.
5.56mm
IHOP is in all 50 states and DC, as well as several foreign countries.
It's a bit hard to find. They don't want people to notice this. Here's what Wikipedia says about it. It's not much but it confirms what I just told you.
In January 1861, the ship was hired by the government of the United States to transport military supplies and reinforcements to the U.S. military garrison of Fort Sumter."
After I posted that, I found this better version.
Never heard any such thing.
You will never hear anything that makes it look like the North was the bad guy. Just as all the main players suppress conservative speech nowadays and label stuff "misinformation" if they don't want people to know about it, so too has it always been with the power structure from Washington DC.
Even if true, the south still fired the first shot.
I'm about to tell you something else that you've never heard. No, the South did not fire the first shot. The North, fired the first shot.
In March of 1861, Lincoln ordered the Navy to prepare a fleet of ships to attack the confederates at Charleston. The fleet consisted of Five warships and 1 large passenger carrying ship loaded with troops. These ships left New York around April the 1rst and were set to arrive in Charleston around April 12. The first one to arrive was the "Harriet Lane" and it immediately fired shots at the Nashville.
Confederate forces surrounding Sumter had been aware the fleet was coming, and the arrival of the Harriet Lane confirmed to them that the rest of the warships would soon arrive. They knew what were the official orders of those warships, and they knew they would shortly be attacked by them.
General Beauregard (commander of the confederate forces) attempted to make a truce with Major Anderson. He informed Anderson that those ships were coming, and they would likely engage in battle with the Confederate forces. If Anderson would not fire on his forces, he would not fire on Anderson. Anderson refused, and said that if he fired on any of those ships, Anderson would fire on him with Ft. Sumters guns.
This left Beauregard in the position of having to neutralize Fort Sumter, or risk it attacking him when the rest of the warships arrived. The rest is history.
Sending that fleet of warships with orders to attack them was the "first shot." Lincoln fired it.
The north had every right to resupply the fort.
Firstly, the fort had never been "supplied" because it was never garrisoned before. It wasn't even finished. When Anderson violently took it over in the middle of the night, there were only construction workers there. There were no soldiers, and therefore no "supplies" there. Anderson carried over everything with him in the way of "supplies."
Secondly, Anderson bought food from the locals in Charleston up until late March of 1861 when the Confederate authorities discovered the plot to use Warships to reinforce Sumter, at which point they cut off further supplies to the fort.
Thirdly, the original land grant by the Legislature of South Carolina only gave the land to the Federal government for the purpose of defending the people of Charleston, not to oppress them. The land grant was conditional, and the Federal government never lived up to it's requirements.
There was a second land grant later in which the conditions were removed, but the expectations and purpose of granting the land was still for the purpose of defending the people of Charleston South Carolina.
Also, the Southerners paid for it far more than the Northerners did. The South produced 72% of the total tax revenue stream for the Federal government.
President Buchanan initially wanted to send the Brooklyn loaded with troops to Sumter, but then he thought this would provoke a war, so he ordered the USS Brooklyn to offload the troops onto the Star of the West and sneak them into the fort secretly.
Why would a Southern Democrat president do that, at all? He was the president immediately before Lincoln and the one under which the Southern states abandoned the United States.
Yes but the Waffle Houses are not. They are mostly restricted to the South. Which is a shame because we should have many thousands more of them.
The simple fact that you can see the cause of the Civil War in the Ayn Rand quote says more about you than the Civil War or Ayn Rand.
According to Lincoln, there was no way to do it in 1861 either. Or 1862. By 1863, he'd figured out a new power he didn't realize he had to do it.
Took him almost two years to decide to stop slavery, but only in "rebel" states. He didn't want to stop any slavery in loyal states. As the London Spectator noted right after the Emancipation Proclamation:
"The Union government liberates the enemy's slaves as it would the enemy's cattle, simply to weaken them in the conflict. The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States."
.
.
It appears that it wasn't actually about slavery, but was instead about power.
.
.
But that doesn't matter in the end anyway because so what if the Founders didn't place that high a priority on limiting/eliminating slavery?
You are moving the goal posts. Slavery wasn't even a priority July 4th, 1776. The only priority was their own independence. Apparently they didn't see owning slaves as a barrier to gaining independence.
You mean the people who won decide they were right? Astonishing.
Your argument is not with me, it is with history, because that is what happened.
I will point out that the first Southern Democrat President threatened to kill John Calhoun if he tried to secede from the Union.
"John Calhoun, if you secede from my nation I will secede your head from the rest of your body."
This was in the 1830s.
The same nasty, evil, arrogant, corrupt power structure is still ruling this nation today, and they still live in Martha's vineyard and the Hamptons.
And they are still making dumb people think they care about the poor.
Where you and the writer from the London Spectator both err in common is that you overlook the fact that Lincoln had no authority to abolish Slavery in the Union. Can you really say, with a straight face, that “Lincoln didn’t want to stop slavery in loyal states”?
That is an area in which things might not have turned out better.
While Eli Whitney was a northerner, he would naturally have tried to create the largest market for the cotton gin where the cotton was actually grown. Slavery inexorably would have become less cost-effective than machine cultivation and harvesting.
If the south had succeeded in leaving the union and become self-governed nation, they could have developed options such as trade schools or armed forces training for blacks, or expatriation schemes to Africa, the Islands or South America.
Lincoln sent ships to resupply Sumter, and notified South Carolina governor Francis W. Pickens of an impending expedition to provision the fort, an action that Lincoln said would not involve bringing any additional men or arms into the garrison. Jefferson Davis was a hothead who turned a winning 10th amendment Supreme Court legal case into a losing war. The South elected the wrong man and lost their independence. And now every state stills suffers from Davis’s blunder, since the illegality of secession is considered “settled” by the stupid war Jeff Davis started.
In my opinion, while FDR was secretly delighted that Pearl Harbor was attacked, Lincoln really preferred peace. As he said in his inaugural address: “there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.” and ‘In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to “preserve, protect, and defend it.”’
I realize that convincing a Southern sympathizer of anything is even more hopeless than convincing a critic of the Warren Commission that Oswald was the lone assassin. But, for the record, the above is what I honestly believe.
LOL, alright yankee clown simmer down ROFL . I award you the participation trophy for your retarded emotional outburst haha
You really don't get it -- or really don't want to get it.
Of course I think it was the South's money. They produced it didn't they?
By that logic it really was the slaves' money.
And the North was telling the South what to do about what?
Slavery.
And Lincoln's argument in raising an army was that the seceded states were still in the Union.
He maintained this throughout the war. It was his legal justification for doing what he did.
If he had no power to abolish slavery in the Union, how can he have power to abolish it in the Southern states which he maintained were still in the Union?
Can you really say, with a straight face, that “Lincoln didn’t want to stop slavery in loyal states”?
He didn't want it as badly as he did control of the Southern states.
He promoted the passage of the Corwin Amendment, didn't he?
I think he probably didn't like slavery, though i've read claims that he was in reality indifferent to it, but knew he had to articulate this position for political reasons.
If only he had also invented a cotton picker and planter. The world would have been very different.
If the south had succeeded in leaving the union and become self-governed nation, they could have developed options such as trade schools or armed forces training for blacks, or expatriation schemes to Africa, the Islands or South America.
It is an interesting notion to contemplate what would have happened had slavery simply died out naturally.
I expect you may be right. It is my understanding that the Southerners loved their slaves as people, and wanted them to be happy. Would their concern for the well being of former slaves have manifested as efforts to make them productive citizens? It very well might have.
We could probably look to how it played out in Northern states that gradually abolished slavery for an idea of how it might have happened in the Southern states.
Of course there may be some cultural differences that may have affected the outcome.
How much grain was exported by Northern farmers? Do statistics even exist that removes Southern grain production from Northern grain production? I didn't think so either.
In light of the fact that the Governor of South Carolina allowed Gustavus Fox to go to Sumter to meet with Anderson to see about the well being of his soldiers, but in reality Fox was going to meet with Anderson to tell him of the treachery they planned, and in light of the efforts to sneak federal troops into Sumter by hiding them below decks on the Star of the West, If you were the governor of South Carolina would you trust the word of Lincoln?
Also, the Newspaper in Washington DC had announced in March of 1861 that at a cabinet meeting it was decided Fort Sumter would be turned over to South Carolina.
So there are three examples where the Federals could not be trusted at their word. The governor found out that Gustavus Fox lied to him. He found out about the Federal Troops being attempted to be snuck into Sumter. And he found out Lincoln had no intention of turning the fort over to them despite what it said in the newspaper. So now he's supposed to take Lincoln's word that they wouldn't try to reinforce the fort?
And now every state stills suffers from Davis’s blunder, since the illegality of secession is considered “settled” by the stupid war Jeff Davis started.
When you understand the economics of the situation, you will realize that a war was going to start no matter what. You may also be unaware that the Orders Lincoln gave to Lieutenant David Porter would have started a war in Florida if the effort to start it in Charleston failed.
The powerful interests of the North needed a war. They would lose 200 million per year from their control, and likely a great deal more with the loss of their protectionist policies from DC.
In my opinion, while FDR was secretly delighted that Pearl Harbor was attacked, Lincoln really preferred peace.
So long as he was in control. He would rather have a war than lose control, and that is what he did.
I realize that convincing a Southern sympathizer...
I am not a Southern sympathizer. As I have explained numerous times in threads like this, I don't live in a Southern state, I've never lived in a Southern state, my family is not from any Southern state and they did not arrive in the US until the 1900s. (From Denmark.)
I am a reality sympathizer. I try to see things as they truly are, even if they conflict with what I would prefer to believe.
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.