Posted on 07/06/2013 7:37:16 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
A Conversation with Thomas Fleming, historian and author of A Disease in the Public Mind: A New Understanding of Why We Fought the Civil War.
Thomas Fleming is known for his provocative, politically incorrect, and very accessible histories that challenge many of the clichés of current American history books. Fleming is a revisionist in the best conservative sense of the word. His challenges to accepted wisdom are not with an agenda, but with a relentless hunger for the truth and a passion to present the past as it really was, along with capturing the attitudes and culture of the times.
In The New Dealers’ War Fleming exposed how the radical Left in FDR’s administration almost crippled the war effort with their utopian socialist experimentation, and how Harry Truman led reform efforts in the Senate that kept production in key materials from collapse.
In The Illusion of Victory, Fleming showed that while liberal academics may rate Woodrow Wilson highly, that he may have been the most spectacularly failed President in history. 100,000 American lives were sacrificed to favor one colonial monarchy over another, all so Wilson could have a seat at the peace table and negotiate The League of Nations. Instead, the result of WWI was Nazism and Communism killing millions for the rest of the century.....
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
I don’t find it admirable in the least. Just to~the~bone stupid.
Pity your state doesn’t share that opinion.
After the campaign in the summer of 1848 and the rise of anti-extensionist pressure Lincoln's position evolved. When a new case to indemnify a slaveholder appeared, Lincoln began by voting in favor of a 'bill for the relief of the legal representatives of Antonio Pacheco,' who had lost a slave during an Indian war, before voting, in vain, against it. Was this a significant change in Lincoln's position on the property rights of slaveholders? Perhaps it was merely a defensive reaction in response to the bitterness of the strictly sectional debate because this position was contradicted by the rest of Lincoln's attitude. He always insisted that the emancipation of slaves should be compensated financially and should be voluntary. This might have been, then, a sort of parliamentary 'war measure,' foreshadowing another war measure taken by the commander in chief 1862.1
Sure it does.
What is that, a joke?
You may know that Rush Limbaugh describes Pennsylvania as two bastions of Liberalism (Philly & Pgh) separated by Alabama.
I live in arguably the most conservative county in "Alabama" Pennsylvania.
We do our best, but are only one of 67 counties here.
In a good year for Republicans, some of the sub-urban counties join us conservatives, and we can elect people to state-wide and even federal offices.
But it's tough to do, and our suburbanites are not very dependable.
“It must be got out of the way to give us permanent peace, and if we have to fight this war till the South is subjugated, then I think we shall be justified in freeing the slaves without compensation.”
As I said, it was faithless negotiation by ‘62. Again - I am not blaming Mr. Lincoln here. It was an idea who’s time had already come and gone.
He was willing to use the power of the state to subjugate the South. End Stop.
But John Brown was a private citizen who was captured by the Federal Government (Col. Robert E. Lee commanding) tried and hanged for treason.
So how many Confederate leaders were treated with equal justice?
JCBreckenridge: "You mean properties that the South had served for, paid for, maintained and protected for decades?"
In fact, "The South" had "paid for" none of those properties, and instead Southerners were paid for every bit of work they performed there.
So they had no more legal claim to own Federal properties than, say, janitors have to school-houses they clean up.
JCBreckenridge: "Well, sure. The aggressor always states there was no alternative.
They were forced to invade the south because the South wanted to leave! How dare they!"
That's false, and you well know it.
In fact, there was no invasion of "the South" until after the Confederacy provoked, started and formally declared war on the United States.
It is a simple fact that when you declare and make war on the United States, the results will not be good for you, FRiend.
So you truly need to find some other way to achieve whatever it is you think you must have.
JCBreckenridge: "The cause of the South is very clear. They wanted to leave the Union the same way they came."
Absolutely false, again, since most Confederate states only joined the Union after Congress approved their applications.
But not one ever wanted to leave the same way.
JCBreckenridge: "They were never allowed to go peacefully."
Totally false, since after secession there was no war -- zero, zip, nada -- until the Confederacy provoked, started and formally declared war on the United States.
I hear your frustration. I’m in Texas and we tire of hearing northern liberals who screwed up their own states coming and berating us on ours.
When are you going to start to understand that they are not your friends? They aren’t going to spare you when the time comes.
I think the North could have said that they supported freedom and liberty, but that time has passed now.
Do you not comprehend the fact that 1820s era nullification issues were not even the same generation of men as 1860s secessionists?
By 1860 President Jackson, Senator Calhoun and all those people were long dead, and secessionists were not seceding because of a Bank of the United States.
They seceded in 1860 to protect their "peculiar institution" of slavery against threats represented by the first "Black Republican" President-elect, Abraham Lincoln.
Certainly true.
So long as we remember that: first, it was all about slavery, and second, it was all about the Slave-Power's fears of what might happen at some point in the future, not some grievous "oppression" already happening.
“But John Brown was a private citizen who was captured by the Federal Government (Col. Robert E. Lee commanding) tried and hanged for treason.”
And hailed as a hero by your side despite being nothing of the sort, oppressed by the south and slavery. What he was was a northern gun runner who shot and killed innocents. He was justifiably hanged.
Which raises the question - if the issue is slavery - why is John Brown a hero to northern abolitionists? If the issue is, as Lincoln said, subjugation - then he’s a perfect rallying cause. He’s your Barrabbas.
“In fact, “The South” had “paid for” none of those properties, and instead Southerners were paid for every bit of work they performed there.”
Southerners paid for them the same way the folks in the North did. Through their taxes. It was just as much theirs as yours. The federal government had no more of a legal claim to it than the Confederacy.
Now, if the North were willing to compensate the South that would be one thing.
“So they had no more legal claim to own Federal properties than, say, janitors have to school-houses they clean up.”
That’s like arguing that the school district has no claim to the schoolhouse because of the federal government’s participation. The people of South Carolina did in fact contribute mightily to the construction of the fort, and thus have a claim to the proceeds of the Fort if the fort is to be turned over to the federal government. Or, perhaps, the Union can seek compensation from the South if they do not want the fort.
“That’s false, and you well know it.”
All the south wanted was to leave. Full stop. Freely they entered the compact between the states. Freely they could leave. Lincoln invaded because he wanted to keep the union together by force. The South was perfectly happy to leave *without bloodshed*, but Lincoln would not let them go.
“In fact, there was no invasion of “the South” until after the Confederacy provoked, started and formally declared war on the United States.”
What, did the Confederacy build an army and march on Washington? Oh wait - no. That’s what Lincoln did. Built an army and sent it into South Carolina. Than the South decided to fight back in self defense.
If the South were invading the North, you would have seen a Southern seige on Washington to open the war. We do not. All of the fighting was on Southern territory save Gettysburg. 4 years of brutal fighting in the South, and yet it’s a southern invasion? BS.
“So you truly need to find some other way to achieve whatever it is you think you must have.”
Some of us still value the constitution.
“Absolutely false, again, since most Confederate states only joined the Union after Congress approved their applications.”
So you are saying they entered voluntarily? Then they can leave voluntarily.
“Totally false, since after secession there was no war”
Yes, there was a war. Lincoln built an Army and shipped it to South Carolina after being warned that doing so was an act of War. He did it anyway. The South fought back.
He himself said ‘subjugation of the South’.
That’s a direct quote from your friend’s source.
Are you calling Mr. Lincoln a liar?
“Do you not comprehend the fact that 1820s era nullification issues were not even the same generation of men as 1860s secessionists?”
Yes, and?
“By 1860 President Jackson, Senator Calhoun and all those people were long dead, and secessionists were not seceding because of a Bank of the United States.”
Yes, and?
“They seceded in 1860 to protect their “peculiar institution” of slavery against threats represented by the first “Black Republican” President-elect, Abraham Lincoln”
Yes, and?
I do hope you have a point in it. Are you saying that ideas only live as long as the person who first said them?
I know what you mean - we get southern liberals coming into our state wanting to bring their leftist ways with them all the time.
Of course, there were abolitionists in the 1820s -- many lived in the South -- just as there were at the Constitutional Convention of 1787.
But abolitionists were a minority, and were dealt with politically by majorities in both North and South.
And sure, over the years the numbers of abolitionists increased in the North, while they were shut-down or driven out of many (but not all) Southern areas.
So, no doubt the political calculations were different in 1860 than in, say, 1820.
But that in no way implies that either secession or war were any more necessary in 1860 than they had been in 1820.
One difference between 1820 and 1860 was the genius in our Southern Founding Generations, still strong in 1820, had utterly deserted us by 1860.
JCBreckenridge: "See, you don’t understand this conflict which is why you think it suddenly burst out in 1860 out of nowhere.
No, no it didn’t.
The conflict between the states and the federal government goes back a long time."
Of course, there was always political conflict -- that's just what our form of government is intended to resolve, peacefully.
But secession and war were decisions made by the Deep-South Slave-Power for reasons which had nothing to do with anything except slavery, and when examined in the clear light of 20-20 hindsight were utterly irrational.
To put it bluntly, by 1860 the Slave Power had grown politically insane.
JCBreckenridge: "We see in the war of 1812 - that the North, when it suited her interests was willing to defy the federal government and seek secession."
False again.
Certain individuals in New England talked about secession, but no government ever declared it.
And indeed, the mere talk of secession was enough to make President Madison (from Virginia) move US Army forces from their war-time posts near Niagara Falls to positions nearer the potential rebellion.
So when individuals in the North talked secession in 1814, Southern President Madison had no doubts about the appropriate Federal response.
And when Southern states began declaring secession in 1861, Presidents Buchanan and Lincoln both responded similarly.
Until the Confederacy started & declared war, and then the entire game changed.
JCBreckenridge: "Again, it had nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with the same dispute that consumed Jackson and Calhoun."
Sorry, but that's sheer fantasy -- no documentary evidence for it whatever.
What actual historical documents show is Deep South secession to protect their "peculiar institution" of slavery, period, nothing else of significance.
JCBreckenridge: "So the Union invaded.
Thank you. Rather than permit the South to leave the same way they came (the same argument advanced by New England), the almighty federal government said no."
So now, as your final desperate effort, you resort to misquoting me?
Really? Right here, where everyone can see it?
Have you no shame?
Here again is my actual quote:
JCBreckenridge: "At a cost of half a million Americans. Was it worth it?"
That depends on what you might consider were the alternatives.
I personally suspect the South's Final Alternative to Civil War was an end to slavery along the lines of Germany's WWII "Final Solution" of the Jews.
After all, if that could happen in a country among the most civilized, educated and industrialized on earth, then why not in a far more "backward" Deep South?
For another example of "slaves" who lose their economic value to politicians, consider Stalin's 1930s actions against the Ukraine.
Millions died without a shot being fired.
Of course, I'm not suggesting that necessarily would happen, only that among several historical alternatives it is one to consider carefully.
If it could happen in a Germany or a Russia, then why not here?
So, yes certainly, half a million white American lives is a terrible, terrible price, but what if to save not only freedom, but life itself for millions of slaves?
What was the alternative?
Of course, but the single biggest reason no proposal ever made headway is because slave-holders categorically rejected any such suggestion.
So our pro-Confederates today suggesting that government compensated emancipation was the answer: they are simply ignoring the historical fact that Slave Power literally prohibited any such talk in Congress.
But they absolutely did provoke, start and declare war on the United States, after which the Confederacy sent armed forces into every Union state and territory they could reach.
So the truth of the matter has to be that the Confederacy's leadership wanted a second "War of Independence", because they believed they could win it, and that belief was based on their conviction that Northerners could not stomach the cost in blood and treasure of winning.
Confederate leaders forgot, or likely had never learned, that Wide Awake Republicans are by nature made of sterner stuff.
All conservatives -- North, South, East or West -- support more freedom and liberty than we enjoy now.
And no state -- not one -- is free of Liberal/Progressives whose every waking moment is consumed by finding ways to increase the size, cost and regulations of Big Government.
In some states conservatives slightly outnumber liberal/progressives and so keep government on a slightly shorter leash.
In other states Liberals dominate politics and government grows correspondingly.
I'm only saying: if you live in a more conservative state, then be thankful, but don't get too all-fired cocky about it, because you don't know how long before you'll join some of the rest of us... ;-)
I’m looking at the roster of states.
Minnesota
Michigan
Illinois
Pennsylvania
New York
New Jersey
Connecticut
Rhode Island
Vermont
Ohio
New Hampshire
Maine
Wisconsin
Iowa
All voted for Obama.
So you’ll forgive me if I think we’d be best off without you folks. Then you can form your own state.
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.