The REAL cause of the Civil War.

Vanity | 1957 | Ayn Rand

[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.

[Bull Snipe]

Wasn’t allowed to use foreign ships.

Dead wrong. A British flagged ship could take on a full load of cotton in Charleston and sail to Liverpool England without any problem. A French flagged ship could take on a full load of tobacco in Norfolk and sail to LaHarve France. No U.S. law prevented Southerners from shipping anything in a foreign flagged ship from a Southern port to a European port.
The 1814 Navigation act did prevent foreign flagged ships in intercoastal trade in the United States.

[DiogenesLamp]

Tell the whole truth.

That is a good practice for all of us. You cite the Navy secretary's order.

Now cite General Winfield Scott's order. I believe it is clearer on the point.

Force is authorized only if the resupply effort is opposed by Confederate forces. That is the whole truth.

That is absolutely correct. Rational people see it as a forgone conclusion that the "resupply effort" was going to be opposed, so therefore the orders become "use force."

The Confederates saw it as engagement orders. That is the rational way to see it. That is how Lincoln wanted them to see it, all the while allowing him to maintain plausible deniability to people in the North who would only see it as a "supply" mission. The warships might give them pause, but only briefly.

Lincoln was a very clever wordsmith and political manipulator.

[DiogenesLamp]

So, Confederate bombardment of Fort Sumter began at 4:30 AM, April 12, before the arrival of any Federal ship other than USRC Harriet Lane.

Beauregard clearly waited until the very last moment in the hopes a battle could be avoided.

The Harriet Lane must have proved to him that the reports of warships coming was true.

DiogenesLamp: "Why announce to the word that you are sending a battle fleet, and then quietly paralyze it by stopping the command ship from arriving? Must have been a "mistake."

All totally irrelevant!

I notice you have a tendency to say "irrelevant!" when you don't have a good answer for something.

[BroJoeK]

odawg post #336: "Lincoln referenced the government’s loss of revenue were the Southern states to secede."

odawg: "How can you be so freaking stupid?
The first state to secede was after the November election of 1860.
They felt no need to wait until Lincoln assumed office."

It's true, we do see a lot of stupidity posted on these threads, but I don't mind stupidity or honest mistakes nearly as much as I loathe intentional dishonesty, and that's just what I see from most Lost Causers -- they know better, but still chose to lie.

In this particular example, Lincoln himself did NOT discuss the potential loss of Federal revenues due to secession before he took office.
All the allegations that Lincoln did publicly decry lost revenues came from pro-Confederate propagandists after Lincoln was in office.
They are not confirmed by any non-hostile original sources.

odawg: "And, according to historians, which you are obviously not one, the South was being rolled by the Federal government over revenues."

No, not according to legitimate "historians", only according to pro-Confederate propagandists.
In fact, over time, "the South" both paid & received back a fair share of Federal revenues.

odawg: "You must be one of these idiots that fervently believe the North was righteous and justified in what it did."

I think, under Lincoln's leadership the Union did the best it could have done, given the circumstances it faced.

[DiogenesLamp]

You asked me that about a year ago, DiogenesLamp.

Here is a link to my reply back then: Link

For some reason I have you associated with that information. It's probably because I recall you providing some very useful and insightful information in the past, not unlike that which I was seeking.

And you did remember who had made the remark you were trying to remember: Link 2

Thank you for reminding me. The old noggin isn't as great as it used to be. :)

You remembered that it was a poster named "WarIsHellAintItYall", who hadn't posted since 2016. I had been on the thread at the same time as that poster.

I fear that many good Freepers have gone on to their reward. I haven't heard from "Ohioan" in a very long time, and there are several others who's names do not come to me right away.

[Yaelle]

Wow. Those white slave owners literally missed the message from Gd before laid before each of them. It is truth that people are created equal and that genetics has equally scattered its range of intellect and strength amongst the peoples of the world. Connecting different cultures have always seen and understood that.

How did the landowning south DENY the truth before their eyes, that though imprisoned and uneducated, the human brain was represented to the highest potentials in their owned slaves?? You know damn well their were duties some slaveowners could trust better to a slave than their own son. This document is racism based as always in utter ignorance.

[Bull Snipe]

The Harriot Lane immediately fired on the Nashville.

Not the case. Harriot Lane fired a shot across her bow. A common practice in the navies of the world to get a ship to stop. She did not fire at Nashville.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Yeah, but it wasn't the "moral roots" that were driving northern opposition to slavery. It was hatred and fear.
They hated blacks, and they feared they would take away their jobs."

Naw... that's just you, DiogenesLamp, typical Democrat projecting your own feelings onto people you don't know, never met, have no real clues about, but must abuse to get rid of your own nasty feelings.

It's unbecoming and you should just stop it.
See a therapist, if necessary.

[DiogenesLamp]

No U.S. law prevented Southerners from shipping anything in a foreign flagged ship from a Southern port to a European port. The 1814 Navigation act did prevent foreign flagged ships in intercoastal trade in the United States.

Rust Bucket was kind enough to find me a link to the person I spoke of who had more insight on this point. It was a system of control, and the Navigation Act of 1817 was a major component of it, but not the only component.

For many weeks I have seen interesting comments here that are truly misleading. My direct and indirect family ties date to the mid 1700s. They were engaged in ship building and finance. Some here would recognize names.

For decades following the use of the gin, the planters controlled their own cotton industry. Southern cotton was shipped directly from southern ports by its owners or brokers to the textile mills of England or Lowell. During the three decade period before 1860, with our politicians action, our shippers forced the cotton trade to into our ships. First, the Navigation Acts authored by Congress at the turn of the century had established protectionist laws favoring our shipping over foreign interests. Southrons were required by law to either use our ships for their shipping, or pay to the Treasury compensation for their use of foreign ships. Foreign ships were prohibited by law from engaging in coastal trade between US harbors. Federal law cut them out. The laws highly discouraged southern boat builders from becoming involved in the shipping business by prohibiting their purchase of finished ships from overseas. To our benefit and profit and with the aid of Federal laws, we came to dominate the carrying trade of the South. As our trade in cotton increased, our financial people saw opportunity and began sending agents south to purchase all the cotton they could, and ship it on our packet ships to England and Europe. Direct purchase of cotton by the “factors” enabled the Southern growers to quickly turn a profit instead of waiting months for the cotton to be sold, and the money to return to them. But this benefit also cut their profits. Business was business and our men in Washington ensured that we would have most of it.

[DiogenesLamp]

Not the case. Harriot Lane fired a shot across her bow. A common practice in the navies of the world to get a ship to stop. She did not fire at Nashville.

A couple of points. "Firing at" and "across the bow" can mean the same thing depending on how close that shot gets. The Star of the West got a shot across it's bow too. I think one of them went through it's sail. :)

Secondly, why would it have been the business of the Harriet Lane to stop any ship? Northern revenue laws no longer applied, nor did their authority to stop anyone.

In any case, Gran Tornio, I hope you can regard this as confirmation that the Harriet Lane fired a cannon shot in the general direction of the Nashville near the entrance to Charleston Harbor, and it was likely this incident that triggered Beauregard's attack on Sumter.

[DiogenesLamp]

Wow. Those white slave owners literally missed the message from Gd before laid before each of them.

So did all the ones in the Northern slave states, which in 1776 was *ALL* the states.

How did the landowning south DENY the truth before their eyes

Or the slave ship building, transporting and selling North? How could they not see these were people and should not be transported and sold for profit?

It was the evil Northerners who brought this scourge into the land. Their descendants and endowments still wallow in the ill gotten wealth they made from human misery and blood.

I think all the Ivy League Universities are tainted with slave blood. They should be smashed such that no stone lies upon another. Their multi billion dollar endowments should be given to black people.

Everything built with slave money should be taken away from them. The vast wealthy Northeastern places like Boston, Cambridge, New York, New Jersey and so forth should all be given to black people as atonement for the blood money that was used to build those places.

[Bull Snipe]

if you send warships with orders for them to fight

The warships had no such orders.

Force was to be used only if the Confederated resisted the resupply of the fort and restricted to assisting in that resupply effort only.

[DiogenesLamp]

I said this: if you send warships with orders for them to fight

You said this:
The warships had no such orders.

And then you said this:

Force was to be used only if the Confederated resisted the resupply of the fort and restricted to assisting in that resupply effort only.

You don't see the dichotomy?

[Bull Snipe]

against international law to sail without showing the flag of the nation owning the ship. Sailing without a flag is not uncommon for pirates or slavers. Any naval vessel would challenge any ship sailing without a flag.

it was likely this incident that triggered Beauregard’s attack on Sumter.”

Beauregard already had orders from Davis to reduce the fort by force prior to Lane’s incident with Nashville. He opened fire after Anderson refused his last offer to surrender.

[Bull Snipe]

Probably not. The troops were two companies of artillerymen. The army did not issue rifles to artillery troops. The troops were armed with 6 shot pistols.

[Bull Snipe]

Not at all. If the Confederates had allowed Sumter to be resupplied, the warships would have returned to their home ports without firing a shot. The ships were authorized to use force “only” to assist the resupply efforts if those efforts were resisted by the Confederates.

[Degaston]

What caused the American Civil War of 1861-1865? Go read the Secession records that took place in the States that left & go compare the Confederate Constitution with the US Constitution. It was the institution of Slavery, period. Anyone who says otherwise is one of those Revisionism Liars.

For example, see this explanation by South Carolina’s Convention that was the first to secede and quickly followed by most of the other slaveholding States with the same rationale.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170611201541/http://www.teachingushistory.org/pdfs/ImmCausesTranscription.pdf

[central_va]

Lincoln said the “warrah” was not about slavery so I’ll take ole Honest at his word.

[x]

Like I said, Diogenes hatred does "border on insanity," and you see it in his response. He oversimplifies. Doesn't provide evidence. Makes things up. Doesn't consider anything that doesn't support what he already believes.

Consider the success of Uncle Tom's Cabin, the runaway best selling novel, turned into an extremely popular play. Clearly many Northerners did have sympathy with the slaves. Many more probably didn't think about them much at all.

[x]

Some of WarIsHellAintItYall’s posts read suspiciously like Pea Ridge’s or HistorianDorisKearnsGoodwad’s. He or she may have done some research, but I wouldn’t take the claims of personal knowledge and ancestral connections seriously.