Man Born in 1846 Talks About the 1860s and Fighting in the Civil War

https://www.youtube.com ^ | Jul 10, 2022 | Julius Franklin Howell

[ought-six]

Here is an article for you:

---

UNDERSTANDING THE CAUSES OF THE UNCIVIL WAR

A Brief Explanation of the Impact of the Morrill Tariff
By Mike Scruggs for the Tribune Papers

Most Americans believe the U. S. “Civil War” was over slavery. They have to an enormous degree been miseducated. The means and timing of handling the slavery issue were at issue, although not in the overly simplified moral sense that lives in postwar and modern propaganda. But had there been no Morrill Tariff there might never have been a war. The conflict that cost of the lives of 650,000 Union and Confederate soldiers and perhaps as many as 50,000 Southern civilians and impoverished many millions for generations might never have been.

A smoldering issue of unjust taxation that enriched Northern manufacturing states and exploited the agricultural South was fanned to a furious blaze in 1860. It was the Morrill Tariff that stirred the smoldering embers of regional mistrust and ignited the fires of Secession in the South. This precipitated a Northern reaction and call to arms that would engulf the nation in the flames of war for four years.

Prior to the U. S. “Civil War” there was no U. S. income tax. Considerably more than 90% of U. S. government revenue was raised by a tariff on imported goods. A tariff is a tax on selected imports, most commonly finished or manufactured products. A high tariff is usually legislated not only to raise revenue, but also to protect domestic industry from foreign competition. By placing such a high, protective tariff on imported goods it makes them more expensive to buy than the same domestic goods. This allows domestic industries to charge higher prices and make more money on sales that might otherwise be lost to foreign competition because of cheaper prices (without the tariff) or better quality. This, of course, causes domestic consumers to pay higher prices and have a lower standard of living. Tariffs on some industrial products also hurt other domestic industries that must pay higher prices for goods they need to make their products. Because the nature and products of regional economies can vary widely, high tariffs are sometimes good for one section of the country, but damaging to another section of the country. High tariffs are particularly hard on exporters since they must cope with higher domestic costs and retaliatory foreign tariffs that put them at a pricing disadvantage. This has a depressing effect on both export volume and profit margins. High tariffs have been a frequent cause of economic disruption, strife and war.

Prior to 1824 the average tariff level in the U. S. had been in the 15 to 20 % range. This was thought sufficient to meet federal revenue needs and not excessively burdensome to any section of the country. The increase of the tariff to a 20% average in 1816 was ostensibly to help pay for the War of 1812. It also represented a 26% net profit increase to Northern manufacturers.

In 1824 Northern manufacturing states and the Whig Party under the leadership of Henry Clay began to push for high, protective tariffs. These were strongly opposed by the South. The Southern economy was largely agricultural and geared to exporting a large portion of its cotton and tobacco crops to Europe. In the 1850’s the South accounted for anywhere from 72 to 82% of U. S. exports. They were largely dependent, however, on Europe or the North for the manufactured goods needed for both agricultural production and consumer needs. Northern states received about 20% of the South’s agricultural production. The vast majority of export volume went to Europe. A protective tariff was then a substantial benefit to Northern manufacturing states, but meant considerable economic hardship for the agricultural South

Northern political dominance enabled Clay and his allies in Congress to pass a tariff averaging 35% late in 1824. This was the cause of economic boom in the North, but economic hardship and political agitation in the South. South Carolina was especially hard hit, the State’s exports falling 25% over the next two years. In 1828 in a demonstration of unabashed partisanship and unashamed greed the Northern dominated Congress raised the average tariff level to 50%. Despite strong Southern agitation for lower tariffs the Tariff of 1832 only nominally reduced the effective tariff rate and brought no relief to the South. These last two tariffs are usually termed in history as the Tariffs of Abomination.

This led to the Nullification Crisis of 1832 when South Carolina called a state convention and “nullified” the 1828 and 1832 tariffs as unjust and unconstitutional. The resulting constitutional crisis came very near provoking armed conflict at that time. Through the efforts of former U. S. Vice President and U. S. Senator from South Carolina, John C. Calhoun, a compromise was effected in 1833 which over a few years reduced the tariff back to a normal level of about 15%. Henry Clay and the Whigs were not happy, however, to have been forced into a compromise by Calhoun and South Carolina’s Nullification threat. The tariff, however, remained at a level near 15% until 1860. A lesson in economics, regional sensitivities, and simple fairness should have been learned from this confrontation, but if it was learned, it was ignored by ambitious political and business factions and personalities that would come on the scene of American history in the late 1850’s.

High protective tariffs were always the policy of the old Whig Party and had become the policy of the new Republican Party that replaced it. A recession beginning around 1857 gave the cause of protectionism an additional political boost in the Northern industrial states.

In May of 1860 the U. S. Congress passed the Morrill Tariff Bill (named for Republican Congressman and steel manufacturer, Justin S. Morrill of Vermont) raising the average tariff from about 15% to 37% with increases to 47% within three years. Although this was remarkably reminiscent of the Tariffs of Abomination which had led in 1832 to a constitutional crisis and threats of secession and armed force, the U. S. House of Representatives passed the Bill 105 to 64. Out of 40 Southern Congressmen only one Tennessee Congressman voted for it.

U. S. tariff revenues already fell disproportionately on the South, accounting for 87% of the total. While the tariff protected Northern industrial interests, it raised the cost of living and commerce in the South substantially. It also reduced the trade value of their agricultural exports to Europe. These combined to place a severe economic hardship on many Southern states. Even more galling was that 80% or more of these tax revenues were expended on Northern public works and industrial subsidies, thus further enriching the North at the expense of the South.

In the 1860 election, Lincoln, a former Whig and great admirer of Henry Clay, campaigned for the high protective tariff provisions of the Morrill Tariff, which had also been incorporated into the Republican Party Platform. Lincoln further endorsed the Morrill Tariff and its concepts in his first inaugural speech. Southern leaders had seen it coming. Southern protests had been of no avail. Now the South was inflamed with righteous indignation, and Southern leaders began to call for Secession.

At first Northern public opinion as reflected in Northern newspapers of both parties recognized the right of the Southern States to secede and favored peaceful separation. A November 21, 1860, editorial in the Cincinnati Daily Press said this:

“We believe that the right of any member of this Confederacy to dissolve its political relations with the
others and assume an independent position is absolute.”

The New York Times on March 21, 1861, reflecting the great majority of editorial opinion in the North summarized in an editorial:

“There is a growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go.”

Northern industrialists became nervous, however, when they realized a tariff dependent North would be competing against a free trade South. They feared not only loss of tax revenue, but considerable loss of trade. Newspaper editorials began to reflect this nervousness. Lincoln had promised in his inaugural speech that he would preserve the Union and the tariff. Three days after manipulating the South into firing on the tariff collection facility of Fort Sumter in volatile South Carolina, on April 15, 1861, Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to put down the Southern rebellion. This caused the Border States to secede along with the Gulf States. Lincoln undoubtedly calculated that the mere threat of force backed by more unified Northern public opinion would quickly put down secession. His gambit, however, failed spectacularly and would erupt into a terrible and costly war for four years. The Union Army’s lack of success early in the war, the need to keep anti-slavery England from coming into the war on the side of the South, and Lincoln’s need to appease the radical abolitionists in the North led to increasing promotion of freeing the slaves as a noble cause to justify what was really a dispute over just taxation and States Rights.

Writing in December of 1861 in a London weekly publication, the famous English author, Charles Dickens, who was a strong opponent of slavery, said these things about the war going on in America:

“The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to conceal its desire for economic control of the United States.”

“Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as many, many other evils. The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.”

Karl Marx, like most European socialists of the time favored the North. In an 1861 article published in England, he articulated very well what the major British newspapers, the Times, the Economist, and Saturday Review, had been saying:

“The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war, is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for power.”

A horrific example of the damage that protective tariffs can exact was also seen in later history. One of the causes of the Great Depression of 1930-1939 was the Hawley-Smoot Act, a high tariff passed in 1930 that Congress mistakenly thought would help the country. While attempting to protect domestic industry from foreign imports, the unanticipated effect was to reduce the nation’s exports and thereby help increase unemployment to the devastating figure of 25%. It is fairly well known by competent and honest economists now that protective tariffs usually do more harm than good, often considerably more harm than good. However, economic ignorance and political expediency often combine to overrule longer-term public good. As the Uncivil War of 1861-5 proves, the human and economic costs for such shortsighted political expediency and partisan greed can be enormous.

The Morrill Tariff illustrates very well one of the problems with majoritarian democracy. A majority can easily exploit a regional, economic, ethnic, or religious minority (or any other minority) unmercifully unless they have strong constitutional guarantees that can be enforced, e. g., States Rights, Nullification, etc. The need to limit centralized government power to counter this natural depravity in men was recognized by the founding fathers. They knew well the irresistible tendencies in both monarchy and democracy for both civil magistrates and the electorate to succumb to the temptations of greed, self-interest, and the lust for power. Thus they incorporated into the Constitution such provisions as the separation of powers and very important provisions enumerating and delegating only certain functions and powers to the federal government and retaining others at the state level and lower. Such constitutional provisions including the very specific guaranty of States Rights and limits to the power of the Federal Government in the 10th Amendment are unfortunately now largely ignored by all three branches of the Federal Government, and their constant infringement seldom contested by the States.

The Tariff question and the States Rights question were therefore strongly linked. Both are linked to the broader issues of limited government and a strong Constitution. The Morrill Tariff dealt the South a flagrant political injustice and impending economic hardship and crisis. It therefore made Secession a very compelling alternative to an exploited and unequal union with the North.

How to handle the slavery question was an underlying tension between North and South, but one of many tensions. It cannot be said to be the cause of the war. Fully understanding the slavery question and its relations to those tensions is beyond the scope of this article, but numerous historical facts demolish the propagandistic morality play that a virtuous North invaded the evil South to free the slaves. Five years after the end of the War, prominent Northern abolitionist, attorney and legal scholar, Lysander Spooner, put it this way:

“All these cries of having ‘abolished slavery,’ of having ‘saved the country,’ of having ‘preserved the Union,’ of establishing a ‘government of consent,’ and of ‘maintaining the national honor’ are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats—so transparent that they ought to deceive no one.”

Yet apparently many today are still deceived, are deliberately deceived, and even prefer to be deceived.

Unjust taxation has been the cause of many tensions and much bloodshed throughout history and around the world. The Morrill Tariff was certainly a powerful factor predisposing the South to seek its independence and determine its own destiny. As outrageous and unjust as the Morrill Tariff was, its importance has been largely ignored and even purposely obscured. It does not fit the politically correct images and myths of popular American history. Truth, however, is always the high ground. It will have the inevitable victory

In addition to the devastating loss of life and leadership during the War, the South suffered considerable damage to property, livestock, and crops. The policies of “Reconstruction” and “carpetbagger” state governments further exploited and robbed the South, considerably retarding economic recovery. Further, high tariffs and discriminatory railroad shipping taxes continued to favor Northern economic interests and impoverish the South for generations after the war. It is only in relatively recent history that the political and economic fortunes of the South have begun to rise.

One last point needs to be made. The war of 1861-65 was not a “civil” war. To call it the “Civil War” is not a historically accurate and honest use of language. It is the propaganda of the victors having attained popular usage. No one in the South was attempting to overthrow the U. S. government. Few Southerners had any interest in overthrowing their own or anyone else’s state governments. The Southern states had seen that continued union with the North would jeopardize their liberties and economic wellbeing. Through the proper constitutional means of state conventions and referendums they sought to withdraw from the Union and establish their independence just as the American Colonies had sought their independence from Great Britain in 1776 and for very similar reasons. The Northern industrialists, however, were not willing to give up their Southern Colonies. A more appropriate name for the uncivil war of 1861-65 would be “The War for Southern Independence.”

But had it not been for the Morrill Tariff there would have been no rush to Secession by Southern states and very probably no war. The Morrill Tariff of 1860, so unabashed and unashamed in its short-sighted, partisan greed, stands as an astonishing monument to the self-centered depravity of man and to its consequences. No wonder most Americans would like to see it forgotten and covered over with a more morally satisfying but largely false version of the causes of the Uncivil War.

Mike Scruggs is an historian who now lives in Hendersonville, NC

Principal References and Recommended Reading:

Charles Adams; For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes in the Course of Civilization, 1993.

Charles Adams; When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession, 2000.

Frank Conner; The South Under Siege 1830-2000; A History of the Relations Between North and South, 2002.

John G. Van Deusen; Economic Bases of Disunion in South Carolina, 1928. Reprinted by Crown Rights Book Company, 2003.

Thomas J. DiLorenzo; The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, 2002.

Ludwell H. Johnson; North Against South: The American Iliad 1848-1977, 2002 printing.

Mark Thornton; Tariffs, Blockades and Inflation: The Economics of the Civil War, 2004.

Principal Reference and Recommended Listening

Dr. David Livingston; Rethinking Lincoln: Abe Lincoln and Slavery, Lectures at League of South Conference, 2000. Available on cassette or CD at Apologia Book Shoppe online. A valuable portion of this lecture concerns the Morrill Tariff.

---

[BroJoeK]

BJK: "“first of all, there was lots of manufacturing in Southern states”

Bull Snipe: That was not really the case. According to the 1860 Census"

You are right depending on perspective.
That's because in 1860 across the entire globe there were only three or four highly industrialized regions:

1. The Northern United States
2. England's central industrial region
3. Northern France and Belgium
4. To a lesser degree, northern to eastern Germany

So sure, in comparison to these relatively small regions, "the South" was less industrialized.
However, it was more industrialized than pretty much any other region, and that's why I say "there was lots of manufacturing in Southern states."

And the key point is that politically, there were lots of Southerners who supported protective tariffs to Make America Great by Putting Americans First.
I've mentioned Presidents George Washington & James Madison (Virginia), Andrew Jackson (Tennessee) and Senator Henry Clay (Kentucky), and we could add to those, in his younger years even South Carolina Senator Calhoun.
Later Calhoun switched sides, but my point remains that not all Southerners opposed protective tariffs, tariffs that also protected their own agricultural products and manufacturing.

In the 1828 vote on the "Tariff of Abominations" while 29 Northern representatives voted against, 17 Southern representatives voted for.
So, tariffs were not all about "North vs. South".

[BroJoeK]

ought-six quoting Scruggs: "Most Americans believe the U. S. “Civil War” was over slavery.
They have to an enormous degree been miseducated.
The means and timing of handling the slavery issue were at issue, although not in the overly simplified moral sense that lives in postwar and modern propaganda.
But had there been no Morrill Tariff there might never have been a war."

The first great historical ground-truth problem with this argument is that while none of the original "Reasons for Secession" documents mentioned the Morrill Tariff, all discussed slavery at great length:

"Reasons for Secession" Documents before Fort Sumter

Reasons for Secession	S. Carolina	Mississippi	Georgia	Texas	Rbt. Rhett	A. Stephens	AVERAGE OF 6
Historical context	41%	20%	23%	21%	20%	20%	24%
Slavery	20%	73%	56%	54%	35%	50%	48%
States' Rights	37%	3%	4%	15%	15%	10%	14%
Lincoln's election	2%	4%	4%	4%	5%	0%	3%
Economic issues**	0	0	15%	0%	25%	20%	10%
Military protection	0	0	0	6%	0%	0%	1%

* Alabama listed only slavery in its "whereas" reasons for secession.

** Economic issues include tariffs, "fishing smacks" and other alleged favoritism to Northerners in Federal spending.

Now, for those who argue that slavery was not the "real reason" for secession, who say slavery was only the necessary "excuse" to get Southern public support, I'd say there might be some truth in that.
However, for those Southern voters who approved secession, the "real reason" was not the Morrill Tariff, it was slavery.

Will study the rest of your post for fuller response later.

[ought-six]

“However, for those Southern voters who approved secession, the “real reason” was not the Morrill Tariff, it was slavery.”

No, it was states’ rights. Which encompasses a wide range of issues. Remember, Lincoln favored a strong and dominant federal government, with the states subordinate. However, he knew that constitutionally he was on thin ice in that regard.

In 1848, Lincoln even alluded to the legality of secession: “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better.”

As for slavery, he even admitted it. Lincoln, in 1858 in the Fourth debate with Douglas, said the issue of slavery was up to the individual states, and not to Congress or the federal government: “I will add one further word, which is this: that I do not understand that there is any place where an alteration of the social and political relations of the negro and the white man can be made except in the State Legislature-not in the Congress of the United States-and as I do not really apprehend the approach of any such thing myself, and as Judge Douglas seems to be in constant horror that some such danger is rapidly approaching, I propose as the best means to prevent it that the Judge be kept at home and placed in the State Legislature to fight the measure.”

Two years later, at his inauguration, Lincoln said: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

So, why would the issue of slavery be so high up on the list for reasons to secede? It WOULDN’T! The Southern states knew that the federal government had to legal power or authority to interfere with the institution of slavery in the several states where it existed. But they also knew that economic strangulation of the South, to the benefit of the North and the federal government, was something entirely different. The tariffs were, arguably, legal. The slaveholding states that didn’t secede (Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri) were not as affected by the tariffs as the Deep South states.

In 1862, Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley: “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 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.”

[cgbg]

“A good example of that is the average German soldier in WW II. He signs up to protect the Fatherland.”

Another good example was Union soldiers. The letters to home are very clear—the vast majority joined up to preserve the union. Almost none of them signed up to free the slaves.

[ought-six]

“However, for those Southern voters who approved secession, the “real reason” was not the Morrill Tariff, it was slavery.”

No, it was states’ rights. Which encompasses a wide range of issues. Remember, Lincoln favored a strong and dominant federal government, with the states subordinate. However, he knew that constitutionally he was on thin ice in that regard.

In 1848, Lincoln even alluded to the legality of secession: “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better.”

As for slavery, he even admitted it. Lincoln, in 1858 in the Fourth debate with Douglas, said the issue of slavery was up to the individual states, and not to Congress or the federal government: “I will add one further word, which is this: that I do not understand that there is any place where an alteration of the social and political relations of the negro and the white man can be made except in the State Legislature-not in the Congress of the United States-and as I do not really apprehend the approach of any such thing myself, and as Judge Douglas seems to be in constant horror that some such danger is rapidly approaching, I propose as the best means to prevent it that the Judge be kept at home and placed in the State Legislature to fight the measure.”

Two years later, at his inauguration, Lincoln said: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

So, why would the issue of slavery be so high up on the list for reasons to secede? It WOULDN’T! The Southern states knew that the federal government had no legal power or authority to interfere with the institution of slavery in the several states where it existed. But they also knew that economic strangulation of the South, to the benefit of the North and the federal government, was something entirely different. The tariffs were, arguably, legal. The slaveholding states that didn’t secede (Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri) were not as affected by the tariffs as the Deep South states.

In 1862, Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley: “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 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.”

[x]

Southerners also wanted a strong Federal government so far as slavery was concerned. No states rights there.

[BroJoeK]

ought-six: "No, it was states’ rights.
Which encompasses a wide range of issues.
Remember, Lincoln favored a strong and dominant federal government, with the states subordinate.
However, he knew that constitutionally he was on thin ice in that regard."

No, check out my table in post #43 above.
Of the six well-known "Reasons for Secession" documents issued before Fort Sumter, states' rights and slavery were both mentioned, but slavery at much greater length, by a factor of three to one.
Clearly slavery was the dominant issue, and the Morrill Tariff was never mentioned.

As for "Lincoln favored a strong and dominant federal government, with states subordinate" that is pure Lost Causer fantasy, because Lincoln never said anything remotely resembling that.
Nor was there any constitutional "thin ice" involved in resisting & defeating Confederates' rebellion.

ought-six: "In 1848, Lincoln even alluded to the legality of secession: “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better.”"

"Being inclined and having the power", neither of which conditions did Lincoln believe existed in 1860.
Instead, Lincoln considered Confederates as merely, "combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by law...".
In early 1861 Lincoln believed there was still a large reservoir of Southern sympathy for the Union which would manifest once those "combinations too powerful" were effectively opposed.

What our Founders and later Unionists all believed and practiced is that secession, or disunion, are entirely acceptable under two, but only two, conditions:

1. From the necessity of "...a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism...", such as spelled out in their 1776 Declaration of Independence.

2. By mutual consent such as they achieved with their 1787 new Constitution, Article 7: "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

Since neither condition existed in 1860, Lincoln believed Confederates fell under President Washington's 1792 Militia Act** and President Jefferson's 1807 Insurrection Act.

**"...whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act". (art. I, ss. 2)"

ought-six: "As for slavery, he even admitted it. Lincoln, in 1858 in the Fourth debate with Douglas, said the issue of slavery was up to the individual states, and not to Congress or the federal government: "

Of course, that's what everyone believed in 1858.
As late as 1860 Lincoln wrote to his friend Alexander Stephens of Georgia:

"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves?
If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears.
The South would be no more danger in this respect, than it was in the days of Washington.
I suppose, however, this does not meet the case.
You think slavery is right and ought to be extended; while we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted.
That I suppose is the rub.
It certainly is the only substantial difference between us.”
A. Lincoln to A. Stephens December 1860

ought-six: "So, why would the issue of slavery be so high up on the list for reasons to secede?
It WOULDN’T!
The Southern states knew that the federal government had to legal power or authority to interfere with the institution of slavery in the several states where it existed.
But they also knew that economic strangulation of the South, to the benefit of the North and the federal government, was something entirely different."

And yet... and yet... slavery was the single biggest reason given for secession in six "Reasons for Secession" documents, while economic strangulation was never mentioned, not even once.
So all you are doing here is putting your own opinions into the minds & words of 1860 Fire Eater secessionists.
But the fact remains that what they said at the time was "slavery", not "Morrill Tariff" or "economic strangulation".

ought-six: "The tariffs were, arguably, legal.
The slaveholding states that didn’t secede (Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri) were not as affected by the tariffs as the Deep South states."

No Deep South state was affected by tariffs since 93% of those tariffs were paid by Northern & Western ports outside the South.
The whole issue is pure fantasy concocted by Lost Causers long after the fact, to defend the indefensible and justify the unjustifiable.

ought-six: "In 1862, Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley: '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 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 Lincoln ended that letter with the following:

"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."
Lincoln to Greely, August 22, 1862

Lincoln was, at that moment, writing his Emancipation Proclamation.

[BroJoeK]

ought-six quoting Scruggs: "High tariffs are particularly hard on exporters since they must cope with higher domestic costs and retaliatory foreign tariffs that put them at a pricing disadvantage.
This has a depressing effect on both export volume and profit margins.
High tariffs have been a frequent cause of economic disruption, strife and war."

After the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations" which triggered threats of secession from South Carolina, US tariffs trended downward gradually until, by 1860, they were at historically low levels, around 15% on average.
The Morrill Tariff bill debated in 1860 at first only raised tariffs to roughly the levels of the 1846 Walker Tariff, which had been supported by Southern Democrats and signed by Southern Democrat President Polk, from Tennessee.
The Morrill Tariff bill was defeated by Democrats in 1860 and only passed in 1861 after Southern representatives seceded.

ought-six quoting Scruggs: "The increase of the tariff to a 20% average in 1816 was ostensibly to help pay for the War of 1812.
It also represented a 26% net profit increase to Northern manufacturers."

President Madison's (from Virginia) War of 1812 increased US national debt from $48 million to $127 million.
Increasing tariff rates in 1816 was supported by many Southerners including Madison (Virginia), Henry Clay (Kentucky) and John C. Calhoun (South Carolina).

ought-six quoting Scruggs: "In the 1850’s the South accounted for anywhere from 72 to 82% of U. S. exports."

Bogus numbers based on false definitions of "Southern products" and "total US exports".
The real number is roughly 50% of US exports came from Southern cotton.
Every other major export (i.e., tobacco) was arguably mainly produced in Union states.

ought-six quoting Scruggs: "Northern political dominance enabled Clay and his allies in Congress to pass a tariff averaging 35% late in 1824.
This was the cause of economic boom in the North, but economic hardship and political agitation in the South.
South Carolina was especially hard hit, the State’s exports falling 25% over the next two years."

Henry Clay was a slaveholding Southerner, from Kentucky.
Among those supporting higher tariffs were supporters of another slaveholding Southerner, Andrew Jackson from Tennessee.

Despite the best efforts of Democrat propagandists, the fact remains that US import tariffs had nothing to do with rising or falling US exports.

ought-six quoting Scruggs: "In 1828 in a demonstration of unabashed partisanship and unashamed greed the Northern dominated Congress raised the average tariff level to 50%.
Despite strong Southern agitation for lower tariffs the Tariff of 1832 only nominally reduced the effective tariff rate and brought no relief to the South.
These last two tariffs are usually termed in history as the Tariffs of Abomination."

No, the "Tariff of Abominations" was not strictly North vs. South.
In fact, many Southerners supported it while many Northerners opposed it.
Supporters included followers of Tennessee slaveholder Andrew Jackson, opposition included many New Englanders.
Here again is the breakdown on for & against in 1828:

House Vote on Tariff of 1828

Regional States	For	Against
New England (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine)	16	21
Middele States (New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware)	56	6
"Western" Free States (Ohio, Indiana, Illinois)	16	0
"Western" Border Slave States (Missouri, Kentucky)	13	1
South (South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana,North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Maryland)	4	64
Free States	88	29
Slave States	17	65

And here is the chart of average US tariff rates, showing their steep decline after 1830's Nullification Crisis in which Tennessean President Jackson refused to repeal the "Tariff of Abominations".

ought-six quoting Scruggs: "Henry Clay and the Whigs were not happy, however, to have been forced into a compromise by Calhoun and South Carolina’s Nullification threat.
The tariff, however, remained at a level near 15% until 1860. "

Nonsense. In fact, tariff rates rose & fell throughout the period from 1828 to 1861.

1. The Compromise of 1833 reduced "Tariff of Abominations" average rates from circa 35% to 14%.

2. The "Black Tariff" of 1842 raised average rates back up to ~32%.

3. The Walker Tariff of 1846 reduced average rates from ~32% back to ~25%.
   The 1846 Walker Tariff was supported by Southern Democrats and signed into law by Tennessean slaveholder President James Polk.

4. The Tariff of 1857 further reduced rates from 25% down to about 15%.
   This new tariff was supported by Southern Democrats and signed into law by Doughface Northern Democrat President James Buchanan.

5. The Morrill Tariff -- first debated in 1860, responded to the doubling of National Debt as result of the lower 1857 Tariff -- Morrill originally intended only to return average rates back to the levels of the 1846 Walker Tariff.
   Morrill was defeated by Democrats in 1860 and only passed in 1861 after Southern representatives seceded from Congress.

ought-six quoting Scruggs: "In May of 1860 the U. S. Congress passed the Morrill Tariff Bill (named for Republican Congressman and steel manufacturer, Justin S. Morrill of Vermont) raising the average tariff from about 15% to 37% with increases to 47% within three years."

Sorry, but that is a total, absolutely unmitigated propaganda lie.
In historical fact, the Morrill Tariff bill was defeated by Democrats in 1860 and only passed in March 1861 after Southern representatives left Congress.
It was signed into law by Doughface Democrat President Buchanan.

The original Morrill proposal only raised average rates back to 1846 Walker Tariff rates.
However, by the time it finally passed in March 1861, with the dangers of Civil War looming, Congress increased the rates both to cover potential war costs and to encourage more domestic production.

ought-six quoting Scruggs: "U. S. tariff revenues already fell disproportionately on the South, accounting for 87% of the total. "

And yet another total absolute bald-faced propaganda lie.
In fact, Southern ports paid less than 10% of total Federal tariff revenues, and 2/3 of that came from just one Southern port: New Orleans.
Everything else was paid by Northern and western ports.

ought-six quoting Scruggs: "While the tariff protected Northern industrial interests, it raised the cost of living and commerce in the South substantially.
It also reduced the trade value of their agricultural exports to Europe.
These combined to place a severe economic hardship on many Southern states.
Even more galling was that 80% or more of these tax revenues were expended on Northern public works and industrial subsidies, thus further enriching the North at the expense of the South."

And still more bald-faced lies, since none of that happened, because Morrill was defeated in 1860.
Morrill only passed in 1861 after the Deep South declared secession and left Congress.

Further, from 1790 to 1860 Federal expenditures were roughly equal, North vs. South -- that 80% Northern expenditures is total complete nonsense.
The only way to make 80% remotely true is to redefine "the North" as everywhere north of South Carolina!

ought-six quoting Scruggs: "Lincoln further endorsed the Morrill Tariff and its concepts in his first inaugural speech.
Southern leaders had seen it coming.
Southern protests had been of no avail.
Now the South was inflamed with righteous indignation, and Southern leaders began to call for Secession."

And yet... and yet... in their calls for secession they never once mentioned the Morrill Tariff.
What they did mention at great length was: slavery.

ought-six quoting Scruggs: "A November 21, 1860, editorial in the Cincinnati Daily Press said this:

“We believe that the right of any member of this Confederacy to dissolve its political relations with the others and assume an independent position is absolute.” "

Southern Ohio was home to many pro-Confederate Democrats, then known as Copperhead Democrats, most notably Congressman Clement Vallandingham, who Lincoln later had arrested and deported to the Confederacy.

ought-six quoting Scruggs: "The New York Times on March 21, 1861, reflecting the great majority of editorial opinion in the North summarized in an editorial:

“There is a growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go.”"

I am certain, if you read the entire article, you'll find the NY Times argues against "letting the Gulf States go."
As for New York's Democrats, in 1861 Mayor Wood proposed that New York should also secede and so maintain close relations with the Confederacy.

ought-six quoting Scruggs: "Northern industrialists became nervous, however, when they realized a tariff dependent North would be competing against a free trade South.
They feared not only loss of tax revenue, but considerable loss of trade.
Newspaper editorials began to reflect this nervousness."

First of all, there was never a proposal to make the Confederacy a "free trade zone", so that's pure nonsense.
For one thing, the Confederate government was in desperate need of revenues and so not about to eliminate their biggest potential source, tariffs.
At best (or worst) original Confederate tariffs roughly matched those of the Union 1857 Tariff.
Later in 1861 Confederates revised their Tariff schedule, however, by then the Union blockade made it almost entirely an academic exercise and Confederates actually collected very little from their tariffs.

Moreover, there was no possible way merchants would ever ship goods intended for Union customers through the Confederacy, since that would require them to pay tariffs twice.
So the threat of Confederate "free trade" was effectively non-existent, while the loss of cotton exports was a serious matter in 1861, but did not permanently cripple the Union economy, which quickly adjusted to get along without them.

ought-six quoting Scruggs: "Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to put down the Southern rebellion.
This caused the Border States to secede along with the Gulf States. "

No, the five Border Slave States remained loyal -- Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri.
Four Upper South states did declare secession after Fort Sumter -- Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas.

ought-six quoting Scruggs: "The Union Army’s lack of success early in the war, the need to keep anti-slavery England from coming into the war on the side of the South, and Lincoln’s need to appease the radical abolitionists in the North led to increasing promotion of freeing the slaves as a noble cause to justify what was really a dispute over just taxation and States Rights."

The real truth here is that no cause other than slavery was strong enough to drive otherwise loyal Southern Americans to declare secession and war against the United States.
In 1860, just as in 1830, no Southerner was willing to risk everything for the sake of tariff rates that they themselves never directly paid.
But a threat against slavery was a threat to their "way of life" and so constituted a casus belli.

ought-six quoting Scruggs: "Writing in December of 1861 in a London weekly publication, the famous English author, Charles Dickens, who was a strong opponent of slavery, said these things about the war going on in America:"

In 1861 Dickens hated US Northerners because he believed they'd cheated and stole from him.
Dickens did not think Northerners were capable of anything other than corrupt motives.

ought-six quoting Scruggs: "Karl Marx, like most European socialists of the time favored the North.
In an 1861 article published in England, he articulated very well... "

Marx was a Marxist meaning, by definition, he only considered class economic motives as true and valid.

ought-six quoting Scruggs: "How to handle the slavery question was an underlying tension between North and South, but one of many tensions.
It cannot be said to be the cause of the war.
Fully understanding the slavery question and its relations to those tensions is beyond the scope of this article, but numerous historical facts demolish the propagandistic morality play that a virtuous North invaded the evil South to free the slaves."

Correctly stated: the Union Army & Navy defeated Confederates who invaded 1) Union states & 2) Union territories, on 3) the high-seas and in 4) Confederate states, in order to preserve the Union and destroy slavery.

From Day One many Union leaders understood that in order to permanently defeat Confederates, slavery would also have to be destroyed.
That combination of military necessity and Republican moral imperative made the war's eventual outcome almost inevitable.

[ought-six]

“No, check out my table in post #43 above. Of the six well-known ‘Reasons for Secession’ documents issued before Fort Sumter, states’ rights and slavery were both mentioned, but slavery at much greater length, by a factor of three to one. Clearly slavery was the dominant issue, and the Morrill Tariff was never mentioned.”

Nice evasion. That’s like colonials saying “No taxation without representation,” and not mentioning the Stamp Act or the Townshend Act or the Intolerable Acts. By your reasoning, since those two tax laws were not specifically mentioned, they must necessarily not have been a cause celebre for revolution.

“As for ‘Lincoln favored a strong and dominant federal government, with states subordinate’ that is pure Lost Causer fantasy, because Lincoln never said anything remotely resembling that.”

Well, you have outed yourself with the “Lost Causer fantasy” denigration.

In any event, Lincoln WAS a proponent of a strong central government.

Remember, Hamilton was the quintessential federalist; and, Lincoln was very much a Hamiltonian. Federalists (especially Hamilton) subscribed to a powerful and dominant central government, superior to the states. Federalist supporters could be found among the businessmen and merchants, who also supported a strong national government. They liked Hamiltonian economics, especially the application of tariffs.

Lincoln, too, believed in the supremacy of the central government, as can be seen in his comment that, “American nationalism transcended the contractual arrangement embodied in the Constitution.” Hamilton championed the idea of executive power, and Lincoln was the first president to embrace Hamiltonian concepts of executive power.

Anti-federalists, on the other hand, opposed a powerful central government, as they foresaw such a construct as leading to tyranny.

Lincoln did not hold the states in very high esteem, vis-a-vis the federal government.

Lincoln said the states did not create the Union, but that the people created both State AND Union. Lincoln was being overly simplistic. The people’s DELEGATES created the states, which in turn created the United States, and subsequently the Constitution that defined it.

Remember, in 1775 the Second Continental Congress, which consisted of delegates from thirteen colonies, met in Philadelphia. This Congress created the United Colonies (which in 1776 was renamed the United States of America), and declared official independence in July, 1776. This Congress was the de facto first “national” United States government, which was provisional. It drew up the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union (literally, a confederacy) — of which the independence and sovereignty of the states was pre-eminent —which was then submitted to the thirteen states for ratification. This was the first constitution of the new nation.

With the Revolutionary War ended, the new nation moved forward under the Articles of Confederation, but it was deemed ineffectual; thus, it was concluded that a more defined central government with certain, limited powers was necessary. This resulted in the U.S. Constitution, which was very specific in the limited powers delegated to the federal government by the states and the people. The states and the people retained all rights not specifically delegated to the federal government, Hence, subject to those limited powers delegated to the federal government, the individual states and, by extension, the people of those states – retain all other rights and powers (i.e., sovereignty).

Hamilton saw the Constitution as a hindrance to central government control (and, remember, Hamilton firmly opposed the Bill of Rights). Lincoln lamented the restrictions the Constitution placed on the federal government.

Then you claim that Lincoln’s 1848 comment about the right of the people to throw off the existing government and form a new one did not apply to the realities of 1860 and 1861. If that were the case, then why did Lincoln make such an issue of it in 1860 and 1861?

d powers delegated to the federal government, the individual states and, by extension, the people of those states – retain all other rights and powers (i.e., sovereignty).

Then you claim that Lincoln’s 1848 comment about the right of the people to throw off the existing government and form a new one did not apply to the realities of 1860 and 1861. If that were the case, then why did Lincoln make such an issue of it in 1860 and 1861?

“Lincoln was, at that moment, writing his Emancipation Proclamation.”

One of the greatest frauds in American history, because it freed NO ONE! It only applied to the seceded states, or states or territories or areas that were “in rebellion,” and over which Lincoln had no control. It did not apply to the slave states that had not seceded. It did not apply to those areas of seceded slave states that fell under Federal control (such as parts of Louisiana). Slavery was not abolished until the 13th Amendment was ratified in December, 1865, AFTER the war and AFTER Lincoln was dead and gone.

I get it: Lincoln is your hero. I do not hold him in such high esteem; except, perhaps, for some of his quips — which were quite clever — and, certainly, the wonderful prose of the Gettysburg Address (though I question whether Lincoln himself really subscribed to it in its entirety).

[ought-six]

I see you copied the usual South-bashers. You forgot to include “non-sequitur.” Oh, wait; he was banned because of his over-the-top hatred of the South.

Question: You are well-known for condemning the South and exalting Lincoln and the North (and that goes back years here on FR). So, do you also possess such disdain for the colonists who rebelled against King George? All things being equal, you must.

[GOPJ]

People fight for their homes, communities and loved ones - their 'country'...

Same same 'elites' we have today who risk World War III so their whore-monger drug addicted sons can earn $60,000 a month in foreign hellholes (while not showing up for work) also existed in other times.

Soldiers are lied to in most wars. Young southerns were fighting for a 'way of life' they didn't benefit from... It's why in a free county Congress is suppose to 'weight in' on wars. They're suppose to represent us - the people. Have you noticed how DC has poo-pooed that little detail? They want us to die for THEM - for 'elites' who feed of the rest of us.

So ask yourself...

Do YOU want to die for Hunter Biden's excess? And the excess of his sniffer father and the rest of the indulgent filth in DC living off the work and sweat of the American people?? Well, not to worry - they'll tell you a different story - one about your need to defend your home, your community your loved ones. And sometimes that story is true and we need to stand together - and sometimes it's a lie...

[central_va]

Soldiers are lied to in most wars. Young southerns were fighting for a 'way of life' they didn't benefit from...

Total crock of poo poo.

[gitmo]

I spent time in a section of the Appalachians that seceded from the Confederacy immediately after the Confederacy was formed. Thy area was called Mayland (not Maryland).

There was no slavery in this area, and they didn’t want to defend such.

Both the North and the South ruthlessly attacked the people in this area. I’ve been to the caves (really rock formations) that the families hid in to avoid lynchings and mass murder.

[BroJoeK]

ought-six: "I see you copied the usual South-bashers.
You forgot to include “non-sequitur.”
Oh, wait; he was banned because of his over-the-top hatred of the South."

There are no "South-bashers" on Free Republic.
Every poster here loves the South, has lived, worked or vacationed there, has family & friends there.
We love the South and Southerners.
Some of us hate the Lost Cause lies that some Southerners tell themselves and want us to buy into.

We are simply the truth squad correcting your many Lost Cause lies.

ought-six: "Question: You are well-known for condemning the South and exalting Lincoln and the North (and that goes back years here on FR).
So, do you also possess such disdain for the colonists who rebelled against King George?
All things being equal, you must."

That's total nonsense -- first, I never "condemn the South", only Lost Cause lies.
Second, there is no legitimate comparison between conditions of our Founders 1776 Declaration of Independence, and those of 1860, when Southern Democrat Fire Eaters began engineering and organizing to declare secession and war against the United States.

[rockrr]

Thanks for the post gitmo.

I’m familiar with “The Free State of Jones” in Mississippi and some other communities who chose to go their own way and I’m interested in learning more. Unfortunately my web searches have (so far) failed to reveal any literature or references to these Appalachian communities.

Can you recommend any books that reference them?

[ought-six]

“There are no ‘South-bashers’ on Free Republic.”

Bull crap.

“We are simply the truth squad correcting your many Lost Cause lies.”

Your term ‘Lost Causers’ is an old pejorative applied to Southerners. It can just as easily be applied to any group or nation that lost a war or a political or social movement. Thus, it is pretty much meaningless, as it is too broad a brush. Just as the pejoratives “racist” and Nazi” have become meaningless slanders because they are applied to anyone with whom the slanderer disagrees. Did you vote for Trump? If you did, according to the present US government, and probably half of the country’s citizens, you are a Nazi. See how that works?

“first, I never ‘condemn the South’, only Lost Cause lies.”

Oh, but you do. Your posting history on the subject does not separate the two.

“Second, there is no legitimate comparison between conditions of our Founders 1776 Declaration of Independence, and those of 1860, when Southern Democrat Fire Eaters began engineering and organizing to declare secession and war against the United States.”

Read some history, son.

[rockrr]

The term “lost cause” is generally attributed to author Edward Alfred Pollard (February 27, 1832 – December 17, 1872), a confederate sympathizer.

Yes, there are some who use the term disparagingly, but then there are also those who paint with exceptionally broad-brushes using terminology like “South-bashers” to insult anyone who criticizes the defunct confederacy.

Fortunately, those folks number in the distinct minority of opinion...right?

[ought-six]

I remember you. You and non-sequitur, and trumpinator, and bootless, and littleelbowgrease, and donmeaker, and ccmay, and bullsnipe, and celmak, et als.

Your posting history identifies you for your anti-South bias.

And, do you think the term “lost cause” originated with Pollard? The term is ancient, and has been applied throughout history. But, only someone with an anti-South bias would claim it originated with Pollard.

[BroJoeK]

ought-six: "Bull crap."

Those crude words well describe your posts here.

ought-six: "Your term ‘Lost Causers’ is an old pejorative applied to Southerners. "

No, it's a historical term used to describe some people who believe a pack of lies about the Civil War.

1. "The term "Lost Cause" first appeared in the title of an 1866 book by the Virginian author and journalist Edward A. Pollard, The Lost Cause: A New Southern History of the War of the Confederates.[23]
   He promoted many of the aforementioned themes of the Lost Cause.
   In particular, he dismissed the role of slavery in starting the war and understated the cruelty of American slavery, even promoting it as a way of improving the lives of Africans:"

2. "The Southern states set up their own pension systems for veterans and their dependents, especially for widows, since none of them was eligible to receive pensions under the federal pension system.
   The pensions were designed to honor the Lost Cause and reduce the severe poverty which was prevalent in the region.
   Male applicants for pensions had to demonstrate their continued loyalty to the "lost cause"."

3. "In his novels about the Sartoris family, William Faulkner referenced those who supported the Lost Cause ideal but suggested that the ideal itself was misguided and out of date.[104]"

4. "One Dallas newspaper editorial in 2018 referred to the Texas Civil War Museum as "a lovely bit of 'Lost Cause' propaganda".[118]"

5. "Stampp also cited Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens's A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States as an example of a Southern leader who said that slavery was the "cornerstone of the Confederacy" when the war began and later said after his defeat that the war had not been about slavery but states' rights.
   According to Stampp, Stephens became one of the most ardent defenders of the 'Lost Cause' myth.[124]"

That term, "Lost Cause" originated with Southerners and has been used by Southerners to refer to certain ideas about the Civil War.

ought-six: "It can just as easily be applied to any group or nation that lost a war or a political or social movement.
Thus, it is pretty much meaningless, as it is too broad a brush. "

Naw, "the Lost Cause of the Confederacy" is a specific term referring to a specific set of beliefs:

"Tenets of the Lost Cause movement include:[90][91]

1. Just as states had chosen to join the federal union, they could also choose to withdraw.

2. Defense of states' rights, rather than the preservation of chattel slavery, was the primary cause that led eleven Southern states to secede from the Union, thus precipitating the War.

3. Secession was a justifiable and constitutional response to Northern cultural and economic aggression against the superior, chivalric Southern way of life, which included slavery.
   The South was fighting for its independence.
   Many still want it.

4. The North was not attacking the South out of a pure, though misguided motive: to end slavery.
   Its motives were economic and venal.

5. Slavery was not only a benign institution but a "positive good".
   It was not based on economic greed, and slaves were generally happy and loyal to their kind masters (see: Heyward Shepherd).
   Slavery was good for blacks and whites alike, a symbiosis of races which were inherently unequal by nature.
   The lives of enslaved blacks were much better than they would be in Africa, or as free blacks in the North, where there were numerous anti-black riots.
   (Blacks were perceived as foreigners, immigrants taking jobs away from whites by working for less, and also as dangerously sexual.)
   It was not characterized by racism, rape, harsh working conditions, brutality, whipping, forced separation of families, and humiliation.[92]

6. Allgood identifies a Southern aristocratic chivalric ideal, typically called "the Southern Cavalier ideal", in the Lost Cause.
   It especially appeared in studies of Confederate partisans who fought behind Union lines, such as Nathan Bedford Forrest, Turner Ashby, John Singleton Mosby, and John Hunt Morgan.
   Writers stressed how they embodied courage in the face of heavy odds, as well as horsemanship, manhood, and martial spirit.[93]

7. Confederate generals such as Robert E. Lee, Albert Sidney Johnston, and Stonewall Jackson represented the virtues of Southern nobility and fought bravely and humanely.
   On the other hand, most Northern generals were characterized by brutality and bloodlust, subjecting the Southern civilian population to depredations like Sherman's March to the Sea and Philip Sheridan's burning of the Shenandoah Valley in the Valley Campaigns of 1864.
   Union General Ulysses S. Grant is often portrayed as an alcoholic.[94]

8. Losses on the battlefield were inevitable, given the North's superiority in resources and manpower.
   Battlefield losses were also sometimes the result of betrayal and incompetence on the part of certain subordinates of General Lee, such as General James Longstreet, who was reviled for doubting Lee at Gettysburg.

9. The Lost Cause focuses mainly on Lee and the Eastern Theater of operations, in northern Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania.
   It usually takes Gettysburg as the turning point of the war, ignoring the Union victories in Tennessee and Mississippi, and that nothing could stop the Union army's humiliating advance through Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina, ending with the Army of Northern Virginia's surrender at Appomattox.

10. General Sherman destroyed property out of meanness.
    Burning Columbia, South Carolina, which had been a hotbed of secession, served no military purpose.
    It was intended only to humiliate and impoverish.

11. Giving the vote to the newly freed slaves could only lead to political and social chaos.
    They were incapable of voting intelligently and were easily bribed or misled.
    Reconstruction was a disaster, only benefitting greedy Northern interlopers (scalawags).
    It took great effort by chivalrous Southern gentlemen to reestablish law and order through white dominance.

12. The order and customs of Southern society were in accordance with Christian virtue and God's will, given the inherent moral weakness of mankind."

So, the Lost Cause is a historical ideological commitment to a set of lies about the Civil War.
It was concocted by some Southerners and is still advocated today by a few, mostly Southerners.

ought-six: "Just as the pejoratives “racist” and Nazi” have become meaningless slanders because they are applied to anyone with whom the slanderer disagrees.
Did you vote for Trump?
If you did, according to the present US government, and probably half of the country’s citizens, you are a Nazi.
See how that works?"

Sure, but the fact is there were/are Nazis, racists and Lost Causers even if some propagandists misuse those terms for their own nefarious purposes.
Here we're talking about actual historical Lost Causers and their defenders today, which apparently includes ought-six.

BJK: "first, I never ‘condemn the South’, only Lost Cause lies."

ought-six: "Oh, but you do.
Your posting history on the subject does not separate the two."

And that's exactly the kind of lie you Lost Causers just love, love to tell!

BJK: "Second, there is no legitimate comparison between conditions of our Founders 1776 Declaration of Independence, and those of 1860, when Southern Democrat Fire Eaters began engineering and organizing to declare secession and war against the United States."

ought-six: "Read some history, son."

You've obviously read nothing but Lost Cause lies, FRiend.