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.
I don't think that's a fair description of conditions in 1860.
What Republicans wanted in 1860 -- just as in 2020 -- was to Make America Great by Putting Americans First.
Southern slavocrats had a different idea.
No, I really don't get how a section of the nation that produces 28% of the total export value for a nation can buy more than 28% of the products from Europe, (your investment argument notwithstanding) unless they somehow get that money from the people who produced 72% of the total.
And the evidence indicates that's what they did. They got that money from the South.
By that logic it really was the slaves' money.
I agree. Absolutely. The money rightfully belonged to the slaves, but the laws of that era made the slave's money into the master's money.
It was wrong and immoral, but that is the way it was. Washington DC didn't seem to have a problem with the money being taken away from the slaves and put into their own pockets.
Even today, Americans buy slave made products from China.
I have come to realize, a lot of people will support slavery if they are benefiting from it.
Kentucky was certainly a slave-state, but the vast majority of Kentuckians were Unionists.
Regardless of what deluded pretenders in Richmond, VA, imagined, most Kentuckians were not Confederates.
Slavery.
Don't be obtuse. They were telling them what to do about taxes. A guy (gal?) just posted Lincoln's quote upthread.
"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.”’
Lincoln repeatedly said before and after Sumter that he had no power to do anything about slavery. In fact, he would urge people to pass an amendment guaranteeing slavery.
I find myself constantly wrestling with this idea.
Which Americans get put first? The ones buying or the ones selling? What makes one group of Americans more entitled to government favoritism than others?
I'm talking about now, in modern times. Policies that favor one group of Americans often disfavor the other group of Americans.
Protectionism made a sort of sense in the 19th century because the Nation was trying to grow it's industry and economy, but it still favored American sellers over American buyers.
And now that I suspect corruption in everything, I cannot help but wonder if it was something less altruistic that convinced past legislatures to enact the laws they did.
Hunter Biden got rich selling government favors to countries. I think this crap has been going on a long time.
” My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.”
Yours, A. Lincoln
You see things that aren’t there (Ayn Rand) and miss the oft-expressed personal wish of Lincoln.
Even in the Revolutionary War armies declared slaves of rebels freed -- See Lord Dunmore's & Sir Clinton's (Philipsburg) Proclamations.
In 1861 the US Congress authorized confiscation of Rebels "Contraband" property.
Well especially after the Union troops showed up and told them how they ought to think. Same thing in Missouri.
Even so, it's my understanding that Kentucky had a lot of men go fight for the Confederacy.
I think Maryland would have done as well. In fact I think a lot of men in different states were discouraged from going over to the Southern government by the presence of Union troops.
Lincoln may not have respected certain principles, but he was no fool.
I keep mentioning it because it proves the Federalists had no intent of abolishing slavery. Their intent was all about control, not human rights.
Speaking of Slavery, here is what Abe had to say about it:
He said that he believed he didn't have the legitimate power to abolish slavery. Then one day he woke up and decided that he did.
That it would be useful to him in winning the war had nothing to do it. It was a sudden moral need to do it.
I think Lincoln genuinely abhorred slavery, but not enough to get rid of it unless it was politically beneficial to him.
Fifth amendment doesn't allow that. Congress can make no law overriding the Constitution.
But even saying you could, they were still freeing slaves after the war was over. Where was their authority to do that once the "rebellion" was quashed?
Your hatred for Lincoln is disgusting. It is poisoning you.
I don't "hate" him. In fact, i've put myself in his position and concluded I would have probably done exactly what he did.
At least I hope I would have been smart enough to pull the stunts he pulled.
That is laughable.
Yes, I didn’t mean to imply that Whitney invented all three phases of machinery, but that the advent of machinery for all steps in the cotton crop was inevitable at that time due to the fast-spreading Industrial Revolution.
The tariffs hurt the South but enriched the North.
It was the war for “Manifest Destiny”. Discuss.
“They unilaterally left.”
The British North American Colonies ‘unilaterally left’ 90 years earlier. King George reacted the same way that Lincoln did.
By 1860, public opinion had shifted enough from 1783 that northerners were no longer willing to compromise on fugitive slaves, or on the expansion of slavery into new territories. There wasn’t yet a majority for abolition, but the lines had definitely shifted to the point where there was no longer an acceptable middle ground.
Two points.
First point. There was no compromise on the issue of fugitive slaves. The US Constitution REQUIRED they be returned to their masters. The only choice states had was whether they were going to obey constitutional law, or refuse to obey constitutional law. (Which is rebellion.)
Second Point. Slavery was not going to "expand." There was no place where plantation slavery could go to add new cotton crops beyond where it already existed.
This is not absolutely true. A teeny portion of southern Kansas can grow cotton in modern times, but it doesn't amount to much in the larger cotton crops, and there is no guarantee it could have grown cotton then.
Cotton cannot be grown in any other territory in 1860. It was actually impossible. No cotton, no "expansion" of slavery into the territories.
The whole thing it appears, was a lie created for the purpose of keeping the Southern representation a minority in Congress. The entity most responsible for spreading this claim of "slavery expansion" was the "Free Soil Party."
Which was headquartered in New York New York.
It wasn't in Kansas. it wasn't even in Chicago. It was in the city which stood the most to gain by keeping the Southern representation in Congress as small as possible.
It was a thousand miles away from the territory in question.
There wasn’t yet a majority for abolition,
And there never was going to be in this era. They wouldn't have been able to even pass the 13th amendment without putting guns in the backs of legislators and forcing them to vote for this thing which all the Northern side has been claiming ever since the South was fighting to prevent.
We are led to believe that the Southern states fought only to keep slavery, and yet they would simply give it up willingly by a vote?
No. Without duress, it was impossible to reach the required 3/4ths majority to pass the 13th amendment.
All the Southern states which voted for it were simply puppets of the DC government, and they were voting as they were ordered to do instead of espousing the actual will of the people.
That is *NOT* how the founders meant for amendments to be passed. When they are coerced, they are illegitimate.
Not quite. He simply wasn't as willing to get so many people killed as was Lincoln.
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.