“War was only avoidable through surrender and destruction of the United States to the CSA. In that event millions of white Unionist in Southern states would be sacrificed to the Slave Power”
The Confederacy was not the aggressor, but thank you for reminding me of another point I wanted to make:
History is written by the conqueror, and never was that more the case than with The War of Northern Aggression. For 150 years our children have been taught the North’s rationale for the War and what led up to it:
The corrupt and treacherous South wanted to protect the evils of slavery and expand it westward and split the union in two, while the morally superior North wanted to free the slaves and hold the union together.
If the South had won the war a completely different history would have been taught:
Secession was the South’s only remaining peaceful response to the economic tyranny the North imposed on the southern states at every turn. The South could purchase industrial equipment from Europe for less than what the Northern states wished to charge, and could get more for their agricultural and textile produce than what the North wished to pay. So the North used legislation to coerce the south through tariffs, price controls and other political mechanisms. The northern states schemed to finance a transcontinental railway with the proceeds from tariffs on Southern exports. One of the northern railroad lawyers got himself elected president by promising the powerful railroad lobby that he would advance that scheme once in office, namely, Abraham Lincoln, esq.
The North refused to accept the South’s secession and chose to wage war. 600k lives were lost, but the real casualty was the hard-fought independence from a tyrannical government which the states had won in the American Revolution less than 100 years previous. The War of Northern Agression proved once and for all that the States were not willing partners joined by mutual consent, but were subjects yet again.
We would be wise to doubt our understanding of the two sides of the story when only one side is taught.
Look, I’m not defending slavery; good riddance to it. I’m defending the South which has been demonized for 150 years while the North has sanctified itself for all posterity with a self-serving version of the truth.
Consider this: Slavery came to a quick end in Haiti while the slave population in the American southern colonies continued to grow. Was this because Haitian owners were more enlightened and morally superior? No, quite the contrary. In the American south the population increased because conditions were better. More slave families were kept intact, reproduced and flourished while in Haiti and elsewhere the slaves were all-male work camps unable to reproduce and either dwindled through attrition, desease or starvation, or ended even more abruptly through slave rebellion, NOT because the owners were more enlightened.
In the industrial northern colonies, slavery was unpopular NOT due to moral superiority, but because the non-slave population needed the work and understood that slavery devalued their labor.
When slavery was abolished in the northern colonies and states, and in Europe it was often phased out in a way that did not cause loss of wealth or hardship to slave owners - slave trade ended, but existing slaves would continue to be owned until their death or for 20 years whichever came first, and children born to slaves after a certain date would be free. Many southern slave owners advocated and would have gladly accepted such a phase out.
Another perspective: one of the grievances that led to the American Revolution was slave trade forced upon the colonies by the Crown. By 1776 slave trade was mostly outlawed but the slave population in the southern colonies was rising due to reproduction. Among the many justifications for why the American colonies should not be allowed their independence was the British accusation that American colonies depended on slavery, which was immoral. This was the height of hypocracy since the British had so recently abolished slavery and had along with the Dutch been the driving force behind the slave trade for nearly a century.
The point being that if we had lost the revolutionary war rather than won it, history would not depict the North on its high horse laying the blame on the south for slavery and the civil war. Ironically, history would depict England on its moral high horse laying the blame on the American colonies (both north and south) for both slavery and the war itself. And the war would certainly not be called the American Revolution, but rather the colonial rebellion - and the reason for the rebellion? We wanted to preserve slavery. Oh, the irony.
In war, to the victor goes the spoils, including the exclusive right to tell only their self serving version of the story.
enumerated: “ The Confederacy was not the aggressor...”
That’s an article of faith among pro-Confederates, but like so much else, it’s myth not fact.
In fact, secessionists began aggressing against the Union in November 1860 and never stopped.
Over time the only limiting factors were Confederate capabilities and imaginations.
From Day One Confederates threatened or attacked union officials, seized Union properties in Union states, fired on Union ships, killed Unionists in Union states, invaded Union states with Confederate armies which “lived off the land”, seized any “contraband” they could for return South including African-Americans and destroyed anything not movable, i.e., railroad bridges.
By my count, in addition to the eleven Confederate states, by war’s end Confederate military invaded or operated in 14 of the remaining 30 Union states & territories.
Sure *most* of the Civil War was fought in Confederate States, but Confederates took the battle to Union regions whenever they could.
It helped make them existential threats against the United States which had to be defeated until Unconditional Surrender.
And myths are written by the losers, again never more the case than with the War of Southern Rebellion. As you so aptly demonstrate.
Working with this limited tablet I’ll have to take smaller bite-sized pieces at a time.
enumerated: ** “Secession was the South’s only remaining peaceful response to the economic tyranny the North imposed on the southern states at every turn.” **
Total Lost Cause myth.
In fact, from Day One of our republic in 1788, Southern Democrats dominated Federal government, controlling both houses of Congress, the Presidency and Supreme Court almost continuously until the end of 1860.
So, whatever the Slave Power wanted, it got, whatever seriously opposed to didn’t happen.
The **only** thing new in November 1860 was the election of “Honest Old Ape” and his Black Republicans.
They scared the be*esus out of Deep South Fire Eaters driving them to immediately declare secessions before Lincoln even took office.
enumerated: ** “So the North used legislation to coerce the south through tariffs, price controls and other political mechanisms.” **
Total nonsense, since Southern Democrats effectively controlled Congress and set tariffs where they wanted them.
That’s why, in 1860 US tariffs were low not just by world standards but also by historical US standards.
Yes, Republican wanted higher protective tariffs, to “make America great again,” but Southern Democrats effectively blocked that until the day they seceded and walked out of Congress.
Also, any tariffs protected ALL US manufacturers — North, South, East & West — not just “the North.
enumerated: ** “The northern states schemed to finance a transcontinental railway with the proceeds from tariffs on Southern exports.” **
Complete rubbish, since first there never were any tariffs on US exports, Southern or otherwise.
Second, about 1/3 of US railroads were then being built in the South.
The Northern transcontinental railroad was started long after secession and did not use US government moneys.
However, in 1854, Secretary of War Jefferson Davis helped negotiate the $10 million Gadsen Purchase from Mexico to be used for the Southern Transcontinental Railroad, completed in 1882.
enumerated: ** “The North refused to accept the South’s secession and chose to wage war. 600k lives were lost... “ **
No, the Union totally accepted Deep SOuth declarations of secession.
But then for months in early 1861, secessionists provoked war by seizing Federal properties, threatening Federal officials and firing on Union ships.
In April 1861 Jefferson Davis started Civil War by ordering military assault on Union troops in Union Fort Sumter.
Then on May 6, 1861 Confederates formally declared war against the United States.
At the same time Confederates killed Union troops in Union Maryland and sent military aid to Confederates fighting in Union Missouri.
All that happened weeks & months before a single Confederate soldier was killed in battle with any Union force and before any Union Army invaded a single Confederate state.
Moreover, Confederates could have ended their war on any given day before April 1865 on ** much better terms ** than “Unconditional Surrender”, but refused.
So Civil War was started & waged by Confederates, its cost in lives & treasure are on them.
enumerated: ** “The War of Northern Agression proved once and for all that the States were not willing partners joined by mutual consent, but were subjects yet again.” **
Total rubbish & myth.
Secession, peaceful, lawful constitutional secession remains today as ever, by mutual consent & approval.
What you never could do, from Day One, was declare unilateral secession and then war on the United States.
Such unlawful secessions will get you Unconditional Surrender as always.
enumerated: ** “We would be wise to doubt our understanding of the two sides of the story when only one side is taught. “ **
But in reality, one is the side of historical facts, reasons & truth.
The other side is pure Lost Cause mythology, only loosely related to actual events of that time.
enumerated: ** “I’m defending the South which has been demonized for 150 years while the North has sanctified itself for all posterity with a self-serving version of the truth.” **
But nobody but nobody on Free Republic ** ever ** “demonizes”
“the South” of then or today.
All we do is correct the anti-US myths, lies & nonsense you folks frequently post.
enumerated: ** “In the industrial northern colonies, slavery was unpopular NOT due to moral superiority, but because the non-slave population needed the work and understood that slavery devalued their labor.” **
No, abolition in the North & elsewhere was first learned IN CHURCH, and accompanied great religious revivals.
Sure, many Northerners were smart enough to figure out that low cost slave labor was not in their own best economic interests — a little like today’s US workers & illegal immigrants, would not help to Make America Great Again.
But in 1860 almost 100% of Northerners understood that slavery **in the South** was a precondition for Union and so would let it be.
enumerated: ** “When slavery was abolished in the northern colonies and states, and in Europe it was often phased out in a way that did not cause loss of wealth or hardship to slave owners...
Many southern slave owners advocated and would have gladly accepted such a phase out.” **
Your first point here is true, your second utterly false.
In fact, even discussion of abolition, however slowly phased in, in most Southern states was forbidden.
Far from tolerating talk of Southern abolition, the Slave Power was constantly looking for ways to expand their Institution into new territories and occupations.
That’s what the Supreme Court’s 1857 Dred-Scott decision was all about, making it legal to take slaves ** permanently ** into any US state or territory regardless of local abolition laws.
enumerated: ** “ The point being that if we had lost the revolutionary war rather than won it, history would not depict the North on its high horse laying the blame on the south for slavery and the civil war. “ **
In fact history accurately reports that in 1776 slavery was accepted & enforced in by British law in every American colony, and most Declaration of Independence signers in 1776, North and South, owned slaves.
However, even in 1776 most Founders including Southerners like Jefferson and Washington understood slavery was morally wrong and should be abolished.
Jefferson’s famous deleted paragraph in the Declaration said as much.
In time Jefferson himself was responsible for outlawing slavery in the then Northwest Territories, and proposed abolishing slavery nationwide, to be paid for by the Federal government.
So there’s no question that most (but not all) Founders opposed British imposed slavery on moral grounds.
Yes, British Lord Balfore’s declaration offered all servants, Africans or Europeans, freedom in exchange for military service.
He did that for much the same reason as Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, but Balfore’s didn’t work.
Do you know why?
Because General George Washington was ten times smarter than Jefferson Davis in the 1860s. Washington matched Balfore’s offer and by the time of Cornwallis surrender at Yorktown in 1781, our Continental Army was reported to be one quarter African-Americans.
But where George Washington was a moral & mental giant among men, Jefferson Davis was not.
enumerated: ** “In war, to the victor goes the spoils, including the exclusive right to tell only their self serving version of the story.” **
From the beginning of Free Republic Lost Causers have posted their myths, lies & venom against “the North” unrestricted except for excessive abusive language.
So by now most all of it has been posted & refuted many times, but you folks keep coming back with more of it.
And nobody here hates “the South”, most of us have family & friends there, have lived in Southern states an often visit.
We have no problems with historical flags & monuments, many in Northern towns fly those same flags.
But we won’t let you post your myths, lies & venom without standing up for real history, and so it goes.
This is not true. Washington in the 1850s was controlled by pro slavery Democrats. They were trying to impose a slave based economy on the Midwest and the west.
The southern politicians created the false narrative of economic tyranny because the backward slave based southern economy was not as prosperous as the free north and Midwest which were rapidly industrializing and far surpassing the south.
“The North refused to accept the South’s secession and chose to wage war.”
Everyone in Washington, including Lincoln, wanted a compromise to avoid a costly war. In February 1860, before Lincoln was inaugurated, Jefferson Davis declared it was too late for compromise. The confederates were preparing an army to go to war. Shortly after Lincoln was inaugurated the Confederates fired on Fort Sumter beginning the Civil War.
The Democrat politicians in the south are entirely responsible for the Civil War. They caused the secession and the armed insurrection against the United States.
South Carolina Democrat Senator James Chestnut was one of the leaders of the secession. In the convention that voted for secession he bragged in a speech that he would “drink all the blood that would be spilled.”
This is typical of the stupid statements made by the men who started the Civil War. They were stupid and evil men. They started a war that resulted in about 600,000 men killed and caused enormous suffering throughout the south.
The people who ended up having to fight the Civil War developed hatred and contempt for these people who started the war. Among General Lee's many statements about them he said “They sit around eating peanuts while my army is starving.”
Jefferson Davis ordered his army to continue fighting a guerrilla war after Richmond fell. General Lee disobeyed a direct order from Jefferson Davis when he surrendered at Appomattox. General Joe Johnson also disobeyed a direct order when he surrendered.