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 ...
“But they absolutely did provoke, start and declare war on the United States”
Provoke? How?
By saying they wished to leave the Union? I am sorry. I disagree. They were free to join and free to leave. That Lincoln chose force to try to keep the Union together isn’t the fault of the South.
Again, the South did not invade the North. The North for the most part escaped unscathed. The same is not so for the South which was destroyed and devastated.
“after which the Confederacy sent armed forces into every Union state and territory they could reach.”
You must have a different history book... Again, the only foray they made into Union territory was at Gettysburg, 2 years into the war.
“because they believed they could win it”
[[citation needed]]
Who believed it? Lee didn’t believe it. Jackson didn’t believe it. Jefferson Davis didn’t believe it.
Where are you getting this from?
“belief was based on their conviction that Northerners could not stomach the cost in blood and treasure of winning.”
There are citations from Lee at the beginning stating that he believed they would lose.
You seem not to understand the concept of duty, of honor. He did.
States could then, and still can, lawfully secede with the approval of Congress, or a Supreme Court decision granting it.
Alternatively, they might consider secession-without-approval, then make d*mn certain to do nothing to provoke war with the United States, while various issues get resolved diplomatically.
But as demonstrated in 1861, that third choice of action is most unlikely to succeed.
JCBreckenridge: "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, Lincoln announced on Day One, in his First Inaugural Address that there could be no war unless secessionists started it, which they soon did.
The choice for war was the Confederacy's, at Fort Sumter, soon confirmed by their formal Declaration of War on the United States, May 6, 1861.
The Confederacy's leaders made poor choices.
Lincoln's only choice was to win or surrender.
Lincoln chose to win.
That was a good choice.
No attempt was made until after the war began and Lincoln realized he’d just condemned hundreds of thousands of men to death.
As you said, the cost of paying for the slaves was substantially less than the cost of the war. Was it worth it? For 90 years of Jim Crow?
No, but since you already agree with my main points of the post, I'll let it go with that... ;-)
“States could then, and still can, lawfully secede”
Nonsense. They voted to leave. They were just as free to leave as they were to join. Lincoln would not have it and invaded the South in his attempt to subjugate the south. He was successful in that - but his legacy isn’t ending slavery. His ultimate legacy is the massive expansion of federal authority.
States, thanks to Lincoln, are not free to leave. Despite the fact that the Constitution says they can. Freely entered, freely they may go.
“Alternatively, they might consider secession-without-approval”
Right. That worked really well last time. The Union will just invade. Again, states, post Lincoln, are no longer a voluntary compact of equals. You have the conquerers and the subjugated as he so put it himself.
“In fact, Lincoln announced on Day One, in his First Inaugural Address that there could be no war unless secessionists started it, which they soon did.”
Lincoln also said that he was willing to hold the union, through force if necessary. He abrogated habeaus corpus and the constitution in order to do so. He succeeded.
“The choice for war was the Confederacy’s, at Fort Sumter”
Lincoln, in forming an army and invading the Confederacy border committed an act of war.
“Lincoln’s only choice was to win or surrender.”
Nonsense. None of the Southern leaders wanted to control the North. They simply wanted to leave the Union, not conquer it.
“No, but since you already agree with my main points of the post, I’ll let it go with that... ;-)”
I hate to tell you but Jackson and Calhoun were very influential in the South.
What is that, some kind of stigmatism in your eyes?
You didn't notice that ex-Confederate Florida and Virginia also voted Obama, both times, along with North Carolina in 2008?
You didn't see that old Border States like Maryland and Delaware are now as blue as blue can be?
So you want to blame "the North" for every problem?
I don't think so.
Virginians refused to take up arms against fellow Americans and are branded traitors. New England refuses to take up arms against an invading foreign nation and are hailed as patriots.
I don’t get it. New England was committing treason when they refused to answer the call to war.
“But that in no way implies that either secession or war were any more necessary in 1860 than they had been in 1820.”
Again, I contend what was possible as late as probably ‘52 or maybe ‘55 was not possible in ‘60. The crisis had been bubbling up for close to 30 years. Remember, Lincoln received the fewest percentage of votes from the American electorate of any president, before or since. He did not have any sort of mandate, especially not in the South where he didn’t even appear on the ballot.
Yes, that’s right - the president of the United States wasn’t even on a Southern Ballot. That says to me that there wasn’t one America in 1860, but 2.
Would you feel represented by a President who didn’t even campaign in PA, or in the NE corner? Who didn’t even appear on the ballot?
“the genius in our Southern Founding Generations, still strong in 1820, had utterly deserted us by 1860.”
I suggest you review Chancellorsville. 60k Confederates attacked 133k Union troops and routed them. Yes, that’s right, Lee attacked despite having half the forces and crushed a Union army twice his size.
Again - it was the Union that invaded them. They defended, and defended brilliantly. That is why it took 4 years despite 2 to 1 odds against, and having to travel scarcely 100 miles from capitol to capitol.
You’re telling me that an army twice the size couldn’t quickly win a war having to travel only 100 miles instead of taking 4 years to win it?
“had nothing to do with anything except slavery”
Then why did Lee, an American hero prior to the war insist that he was obliged to defend his state and resigned his commission? Lee was commissioned by Lincoln himself to head the entire Union army and declined.
So clearly - history shows that the war wasn’t about slavery. It was about subjugation of the South. Lee understood it, and made his decision to defend the state of Virginia, the home once of George Washington.
“Certain individuals in New England talked about secession, but no government ever declared it.”
Yet they are considered patriots. New England established that it wasn’t only proper to secede, but that it was the proper response to foreign invasion.
Why should Virginia bleed and die for such cowards and traitors?
“And when Southern states began declaring secession in 1861, Presidents Buchanan and Lincoln both responded similarly.”
Where was the foreign invasion?
“What actual historical documents show is Deep South secession to protect their “peculiar institution” of slavery, period, nothing else of significance.”
Then why doesn’t their commander mention it? Why didn’t Lincoln say so either? Lincoln was up front - the cause of the war was subjugation of the South.
The South actually says that they simply wished to govern themselves. They had no desire to rule the North. There was a president once who wrote about Self-determination.
“I personally suspect the South’s Final Alternative to Civil War”
Wow, the prophet BroJoeK has spoken.
“was an end to slavery along the lines of Germany’s WWII “Final Solution” of the Jews.”
[[citation needed]]
BTW, there was a person who did advocate genocide of the Black race in America
http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger.html
At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the “black” and “yellow” peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger’s American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood.
That’s right, BroJoeK.
One of *yours*. Not ours. It wasn’t a southerner who spoke to the KKK and who advocated the extermination of blacks through eugenics. But rather, the northerner.
Born Corning, NYC.
As bad as the South is - we’ve never engaged in genocide of the Black race.
Truth hurts doesn’t it. Look at that list of states again....
Show me where it says that.
You do realize that 41% of your fellow Texans voted for Øbongo in 2012 - right?
As soon as BroJoeK shows me evidence that the Confederacy planned to exterminate the black race, like Margaret Sanger of New York did the same.
A perfect compliment to the 41 percent of Washingtonians who voted against him.
FRiend, I don't think you're stupid, just deliberately ignorant of history.
We have review all these facts on many Civil War threads over many years now, and they should by now be very familiar to everyone, even those who desperately want to stay uninformed.
The basic facts are that Secessionists, often even before formally declaring secession, began immediately to seized every Federal property they could, including dozens of Federal forts, ships, armories, arsenals and mints, etc.
These seizures -- not the simple declarations of secession, since many Northerners were just as happy to see the Slave Power depart -- but the unlawful seizures of Federal properties so enraged Northerners they were calling for military action as early as January 1861, two months before Lincoln even took office.
But while outgoing President Buchanan publicly condemned unauthorized secessions, he took no actions to stop the unlawful seizures of Federal property.
So by the time Lincoln finally took office, only two important Federal properties remained in Union hands -- Forts Sumter and Pickens.
Lincoln announced publicly his intentions to hold them, and then advised the South Carolina governor of his mission to resupply Fort Sumter.
SC Governor Pickens had long recommended to Jefferson Davis that Sumter be seized by military force, and now Davis ordered that to happen.
By any standards in the world, a military assault on a defending force is an act of war, and that war was the Confederacy's choice.
JCBreckenridge: "You must have a different history book... Again, the only foray they made into Union territory was at Gettysburg, 2 years into the war."
Again, such facts have been rehearsed on FR threads, including this one, many times over the years.
The list of Union states "visited" by Confederate forces includes: Maryland (1862 Antietam), Pennsylvania (1862, 1863 and 1864), Ohio and Indiana (Morgan 1863), Kentucky, Missouri and Oklahoma (throughout the war), Kansas (1863), New Mexico & Arizona (1862).
Smaller Confederate units also operated in California, Colorado, Vermont and even New York.
For details on any of these, simply google "US Civil War" and add the state name.
The result will be a long list of articles on how Civil War affected each state you request.
JCBreckenridge: "Who believed it? Lee didn’t believe it. Jackson didn’t believe it.
Jefferson Davis didn’t believe it."
If they did not believe they would find a way to win, then why would they start the war?
In fact, what they expected to happen was:
JCBreckenridge: "There are citations from Lee at the beginning stating that he believed they would lose."
Lee and several others certainly knew the Confederacy could not win a long war, but hoped to win enough militarily for a negotiated peace.
But Lee was not in charge -- was still a Union officer -- when Davis made the decisions to start war at Fort Sumter.
So Lee's job, when he first joined the Confederacy, was to make the best of a less than desirable situation.
JCBreckenridge"You seem not to understand the concept of duty, of honor. He [Lee] did."
So now you will cite for us you own military service, FRiend?
Do you suppose that your rank or years of service were higher than mine?
And this will prove that you are "outstanding" and I am less so?
And your point in the exercise is what, exactly?
In fact, I and some of my relatives or ancestors have served this country in every major war, beginning with the Revolutionary War, and up through todays "war on terror."
Is that enough "sense of duty" to satisfy you, our would you insist that the only true "patriots" are those who fought against the United States? </sarc>
“The basic facts are that Secessionists, often even before formally declaring secession, began immediately to seized every Federal property”
Again - they paid for all these things and this property with their taxes. As the property of the government it belonged to the people, not the people to the government. I realize that in this age of imperialism that you believe the people are subordinate to the state, but back then we had freedom.
“Oklahoma”
And, as usual, you are confused about what is Union territory and what is not. Which is to be expected. That the confederacy should march under their own territory is not an invasion.
Again, be honest here. The only major battle fought outside of the Confederacy is in Gettysburg. One battle in 4 years. How many fought on Confederate territory? Every other one.
“If they did not believe they would find a way to win, then why would they start the war?”
They didn’t start the war. Lincoln did. That’s the point. I can quote Lee at length speaking that he believed that they would be defeated in ‘61. He was personally OPPOSED to going to war as the confederacy. He believed the union would win, and win handidly.
Now - you clearly have no understanding of the man, or the South. You need to read up on him more and perhaps you’ll gain understanding.
*THIS* is the difference between us and you. If you don’t get this you’ll never get anything.
As I’ve already shown, you’re completely delusional about Confederacy aims in the war. ‘Final solution’? Please. Show me evidence for this position other than personal prejudice. There’s none whatsoever for this position.
Have you forgotten that Lee, personally, freed slaves? And a quite substantial number before the war? Or did your progressive history textbooks not teach this? That he believed very strongly that slavery was injurious to the white race?
“In fact, what they expected to happen was”
Who is this “who”? BroJoeK? [[citation needed]]
The south did prepare to murder Lincoln. They knew as a western man they could not capture him, but could only kill him. The slave power through its agents in the Department of War created disloyal militia companies so that they could begin the insurrection in the District of Columbia. After Floyd resigned as Buchanan’s secretary of War, loyal officers went around to militia companies in the District of Columbia, and inspected them. As part of the inspection, their officers were required to swear an oath of loyalty to the US government in front of their men. Where militia officers refused, the militia company was disbanded, and the US government owned weapons available to the militia to assist their drill were impounded. Eventually those weapons were distributed to militia companies that were loyal.
It was only because of those loyal militia companies that Lincoln was able to be inaugurated.
It was only because the disloyal officers depended on deluding the members of their militia companies that the approach worked. Once their disloyalty was revealed, their plan for insurrection would not work.
A lot of people don’t recall the hatred of Jeff Davis and Lee that existed in the south. People who knew them, knew them as prize bumblers. Lee was corrupt, paying himself for his slaves to build fortifications around Richmond. Davis was corrupt, refusing to appoint justices to the pretended counterpart to the supreme court, as that would have prevented him from the executive fiats that made his friends rich and powerful until his house of cards came crashing down.
The evidence of the US targeting Jeff Davis is very thin.
The evidence of targeting Lincoln exists from before his inauguration.
Of course the death toll in 1862, terrible as it was, had not yet reached those levels, and Lincoln hoped Emancipation would drastically shorten the war.
The key fact is that no suggestions about compensated emancipation could be made to a Slave Power which utterly refused to entertain the idea that slavery, by whatever method devised, should be abolished.
The Slave Power would and did fight such suggestions to the death.
JCBreckenridge: "Was it worth it? For 90 years of Jim Crow?"
Someone else said it much better than I could:
Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other.
It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged.
The prayers of both could not be answered.
That of neither has been answered fully.
The Almighty has His own purposes:
If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him?
Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away.
Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.' "
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.