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 ...
Hmmm. Interesting point. Say, can the southern born Democrat Party, say, they ever freed, any slaves?
And yet you still deign to do so. How many times did God send his own people into captivity? Captives not killed were what?
I see. So when Obama passes Obamacare, he can claim credit for the thousands of lives saves by the entire medical system personally?
One hell of a War, as all wars, are. Human dignity, always seems to be the challenge, amongst humans. Story of Life.
You pesky rascal. He was responding to my post. I respect his response. Talk to me, RegulatorCountry, if you can.
If it would do that, I would be happy to have him get credit. I submit that people paying taxes for not having health insurance isn’t going to give good results, and the rationing boards/death panels would give worse results than we see in usually, just as the rationing boards in the UK and Canada give worse results.
Yes, I think it appropriate to blame Hitler and Stalin for millions of deaths. I think it appropriate to blame Jeff Davis for hundreds of thousands of deaths. Don’t you?
Funny how that works.
That the Divine would send His own people into captivity doesn’t make captivity a good thing, nor does it make the Assyrians or Babylonians replace the Chosen People.
Captivity remains a bad thing. That is why it is inflicted on the guilty, and not on the innocent.
Slavery was captivity, inflicted upon the innocent by means of an assertion of corruption of the blood, and should have been recognized as unconstitutional.
Not really, RegulatorCountry. Not at all, coward.
Of course, neither statement is true.
First, the 1814 Hartford Convention wherein secession was merely discussed not declared, soon resulted in the disgrace and destruction of the old Federalist party.
Second, Virginians in 1861 not only refused to support Lincoln's call for troops, they quickly declared secession and war on the United States!
So there's no comparison as you've suggested.
JCBreckenridge: "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..."
Sure, especially in the minds of Deep-South Slave Power.
They felt their "peculiar institution" under criticism as never before, and their only solution recommended by "Fire Eaters" was secession and war.
But the Union in 1860 was just as willing and eager for compromise solutions as it had been in 1820.
The difference was the Slave Power, which had moved beyond any compromises.
JCBreckenridge: "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."
Again, all this has been rehearsed many times on these threads.
Republicans -- aka "Black Republicans" -- in 1860 were the brand new anti-slavery party, which in no way ever would be allowed on Deep South ballots.
Two Southern parties weren't on some Northern ballots, and iirc, only Northern Democrats were on every ballot.
In due time, Republicans could possibly move into Border or even parts of Upper South states, but that was not yet the case in 1860.
But the key fact to remember about 1860 is that the politically dominant Democrat party engineered its own defeat, when Southern Democrats walked out of their Convention in Charleston, SC., forming a new party lead by your own namesake.
Had Democrats remained as united in 1860 as they were in 1852 and 1856, they could still have elected a president, and maintained strong coalitions in both houses.
Yes, Republican anti-slavery was gaining strength, but it did not have to mean total defeat of the Slave Power.
But once Slave Power chose self destruction, Republican victory was inevitable.
JCBreckenridge: "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, we have debated RE Lee's military prowess at great length, and doubtless he was one of the best.
It certainly helps that at Chancellorsville his opponent was not capably lead.
When Lee finally did face a half-worthy opponent at Gettysburg, Lee lost the battle.
And in the face of fully capable opposition (Grant) Lee lost the war.
But set all that aside as irrelevant to our current discussion, which is how the Civil War first started, and the answer is because of a severe case of political stupidity amongst the Fire-Eating Deep-South Slave-Power class.
Lee had nothing to do with all that, and indeed had recommended against their chosen course of action.
JCBreckenridge: "So clearly - history shows that the war wasn’t about slavery.
It was about subjugation of the South."
So clearly -- history shows that secession was all about protecting slavery against the perceived threat to it represented by the election of "Black Republican" President Lincoln.
War was all about the Confederacy hoping to expand its domain out of the Deep South and into the Upper South and Border States.
Confederates tried and failed.
War is hell, best not to get into it unless absolutely necessary.
JCBreckenridge on the 1814 Hartford Convention: "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."
Again, as has been pointed out now several times: New England secessionists were not considered "patriots" by anybody in 1814 or later.
Just the opposite -- their secession talk disgraced and destroyed the old Federalist Party.
Democrats, of course, never have a problem with treason-trash talk, they're fine with it, and all you old Southern Democrats who now vote Republican probably miss those "good old days", right?
Sorry, but real Republicans just don't like that kind of trash-talk, FRiend -- didn't like it from Federalists, don't like it from Democrats, and sure as h*ll don't want to hear it from fellow Republicans.
Comprender?
Yes, I figured that would charge you up a bit JC, but underestimated your willingness to distort my words.
Remember, your question is: was the Civil War worth it?
My answer is: compared to what likely alternative?
If you wish to suggest the rosiest of possible alternatives, while citing no evidence to support that, then I can fairly suggest the worst possible alternative while citing just as substantial "evidence", right?
Same as before -- Obama wins include Southern states of Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland and Delaware.
So your suggestion that only Northern states ever voted "blue" is off the mark, a bit.
Of course, the lists' messages are obvious, I'm only saying, don't get to all-fired cocky about how conservative your state is right now.
The history of the future is not yet written, could bounce just about anywhere.
Armchair quarterbacking from nearly two and a half centuries into the future regarding what you believe our Founding should or should not have been, after having presumed to speak for God. My goodness. You do think rather highly of yourself, I’ll grant you that much.
Human bondage has existed in one form or another for all recorded history and still does, don meaker. It’s addressed Biblically, both Old Testament and New. Is it treated therein as a good thing? No, it’s not. Is it treated therein as a bad thing? Can’t really make that claim, either.
You’re on no more solid footing in suggesting that the north was on the side of the “Angles” than slaveholders were in justifying themselves with certain Biblical passages.
From Christianity arose the belief that slave and free, Jew and Gentile were equal as children of God in the body of Christ. Our political system sought to codify this to the extent then practicable. Not all shared the sentiment that human bondage was inherently wrong. Many did though. Compromises were made, a nation was founded. The seeds of war were planted then, according to some.
They were right. The practice was ended as a result of that war. There were injustices created from it, just as there were injustices resolved by it.
That’s all any honest observer can say.
Schoolyard taunts? Please. Just go away.
So, you have nothing to say. Good.
I say goodnight.
To you.
This is not a difficult question, and your case has no merit, period.
To see that, simply ask yourself this question: who lawfully held the deeds to those properties?
In any court of law anywhere in the world, the lawful deed holder owns the property.
So, tell us, which Federal property did the Confederacy lawfully own deeds to?
JCBreckenridge: "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."
Well, since Gettysburg in Pennsylvania was the largest single battle of the war, by that measure there were no other battles, and the war was fought only in Pennsylvania! ;-)
See, two can play that game.
Oh, so now you wish to talk about some smaller campaigns & battles too?
I've already summarized any number of those, from Maryland to New Mexico.
And all of your ludicrous claims that these somehow weren't really "Union territory" only prove-positive that the Confederacy far from wishing to be just "left alone" was actually out aggressing on the United States where-ever and when-ever it could.
JCBreckenridge: "‘Final solution’? Please. Show me evidence for this position other than personal prejudice."
I'll say it again: that is just as likely (meaning: most unlikely) as any more "rosy scenario" alternate history you might suggest.
It answers your question: was the Civil War worth it?
Yes, certainly compared to that.
Interesting argument you two. Keep it up. I did find it interesting that you decided to bring in the 1920’s eugenics movement in an argument on the civil war.
Particularly, Margaret Sanger’s support for Malthusian eugenics which broadens the scope of the eugenics movement from targeting just the mentally infirm and includes a racial aspect to it.
Now I’m not going to throw around the word genocide when it comes to this since there is a significant difference between a eugenics movement and an all out genocidal effort. See the differences between Germany’s T4 program and the “Final Solution” if you are wondering what I mean.
However, the eugenics movement was not isolated to Sanger or the North. The South had eugenic laws of their own. Now keep in mind that none of the eugenics laws that ever were placed on the book specifically targeted race. How they were applied on the other hand was a different story.
Take North Carolina for example. Southern state. Their eugenic law was pretty boiler plate when compared to the ones in other states. Sterilizations were performed in the state from 1929 until 1973. Across that entire time-span, the black population in North Carolina was around 25%. Overall, the percentage of blacks sterilized under the program was 39%. This percentage trended up in the 1960’s when the number of blacks sterilized in the program reached 60%. At this point 70% of those sterilized were listed as “mentally deficient”. A bit ambiguous if you ask me.
When compared to Sanger’s New York the difference is a bit startling. New York’s eugenics laws were passed earlier in 1912. But they were not enforced with much vigor. While North Carolina in the previous example performed over 8000 sterilizations under its law, New York only performed 42, and the law was repealed in 1920.
In fairness, I’m not saying that all the southern states were Malthusian with their eugenic laws or that all the northern states were not. Virginia performed over 7000 sterilizations under their laws and the demographic for the operations fall in line with the population distribution. There are no real Malthusian traits to it at all.
The University of Vermont did an interesting study on the specific laws and numbers which you can look at here. http://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/
Thanks!
Any honest observer can say that Article 3 of the constitution required states to resolve controversies at the Supreme court rather than starting a war.
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.