Posted on 05/03/2019 7:54:25 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
Conventional wisdom of the moment tells us that the great war of 1861—1865 was “about” slavery or was “caused by” slavery. I submit that this is not a historical judgment but a political slogan. What a war is about has many answers according to the varied perspectives of different participants and of those who come after. To limit so vast an event as that war to one cause is to show contempt for the complexities of history as a quest for the understanding of human action.
Two generations ago, most perceptive historians, much more learned than the current crop, said that the war was “about” economics and was “caused by” economic rivalry. The war has not changed one bit since then. The perspective has changed. It can change again as long as people have the freedom to think about the past. History is not a mathematical calculation or scientific experiment but a vast drama of which there is always more to be learned.
I was much struck by Barbara Marthal’s insistence in her Stone Mountain talk on the importance of stories in understanding history. I entirely concur. History is the experience of human beings. History is a story and a story is somebody’s story. It tells us about who people are. History is not a political ideological slogan like “about slavery.” Ideological slogans are accusations and instruments of conflict and domination. Stories are instruments of understanding and peace.
Let’s consider the war and slavery. Again and again I encounter people who say that the South Carolina secession ordinance mentions the defense of slavery and that one fact proves beyond argument that the war was caused by slavery. The first States to secede did mention a threat to slavery as a motive for secession. They also mentioned decades of economic exploitation.
(Excerpt) Read more at abbevilleinstitute.org ...
Not this (redacted) again ?!?
You realize, of course, that stating facts is somewhat dirty pool. We’re supposed to sit at our 100+ year remove and try to ascertain what we think the motives of those people were. Actually reading their words is cheating, somehow.
“It was about money. That is all it was about. Money that would have moved from the control of New York and Washington DC, to the control of New Orleans, Mobile, Charleston and other southern port cities.”
The south would have been prosperous without slavery?
The north would not have invaded if there had not been slavery
I’ve never heard a logical argument against this.
Well, independence for those who weren’t slaves, of course.
Indeed so. They all said so.
Here is what the Georgia delegate said to the Virginia secession convention.
The cause of the Civil War between Republicans and Democrats does not get any clearer than this.
and further, to invite Virginia, thorough this Convention, to join Georgie and the other seceded States in the formation of a Southern Confederacy.
This, sir, is the whole extent of my mission….”
Second paragraph:
”What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession?
This reason may be summed up in one single proposition.
It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia,
that a separation from the North was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery.
This conviction, sir, was the main cause.
It is true, sir, that the effect of this conviction was strengthened by a further conviction that such a separation would be the best remedy for the fugitive slave evil,
.... {Note: This ‘fugitive slave evil’
.... being the the refusal of some Republicans
.... in Northern States
.... to refuse to return escaped slaves}
and also the best, if not the only remedy, for the territorial evil.
.... {Note: This ‘territorial evil’
.... would be the Missouri compromise
.... from thirty or forty years prior
.... where the territories were declared free
.... and slaves were not allowed.
.... The democrats wished to take their slaves
.... with them.}
But, doubtless, if it had not been for the first conviction this step would never have been taken.
It therefore becomes important to inquire whether this conviction was well founded.”
………..Honorable Henry L. Benning, of Georgia
……………addressing the Virginia State Convention
……………on Monday, February 18, 1861
……………the Fifth day of the Convention
....
They only favored northern interests because southerners couldn't be bothered to build and operate ships and warehouses for themselves. There's nothing in those laws that says "only northern ships can carry goods" or "only northern warehouses can store items without paying tariffs until they are sold."
According to Diogenes and others, Davis was completely mistaken about his own motivations when he said that.
We've been moving along with false history since the 1860s, no doubt due to the fact that most of the publishing companies were in the North, and also because it was in the best interest of the majority to justify what they had done to the minority.
* * *
Bkmk
This clarifies the motives for why people launched a war.
Of course it does. There never should have been any slavery. Slavery is an example of more powerful people suppressing the natural human right to be free.
Of course using superior strength to subjugate other people is exactly the same foundation as that of slavery.
It’s interesting that you comment that they had a right to independence. I find it ironic that your definition of independence includes enslaving a sizable portion of the population. According to the 1860 census, 39% of the population of the seceding states were slaves. This ranged from a low % of 25% in Tennessee, to a high % of 57%(!) of the population of South Carolina. I have always considered the word independence to be somewhat synonymous with freedom. Obviously, your definition differs from mine.
You talked to all of them? I find that hard to believe.
Why did Virginia leave? What did they have to say about it?
But Thomas Jefferson would say it would be prudent to do so.
However, it was not a war of ‘North versus South’.
This was actually a war of Republican versus Democrat.
The Republican party was formed in explosive opposition to the ‘Kansas-Nebraska’ act by top democrat and Lincoln’s main rival - Douglas (D).
The Democrats were led by the Democrats Al. Gore of that era - the treasonous John C. Breckenridge.
- Breckenridge WAS the sitting Vice President !
- Breckenridge failed to win the Democrat nomination (from Douglas), so he split the Democrat party into two and ran as the leader of the rump Democrat party.
- The split democrat party lost the Presidency to President Lincoln (first Republican elected President)
- The split democrat party lost the House to the Republicans (the second Republican house majority following 1858. Amazing for a brand new party !!!)
1852. D 158. Whig 86 Free Soil 4. or 234 seats
1854. D 83 R 37 Whig 54. Know Nothing 51 People 9. of 234 seats
1856. D 133. R 90 KN 14
1858. R 116. D 98. Opp 19. KN 5
1860. R 108. D 45 U 30
- Now that is interesting. According to the Wiki, Breckenridge remained the Senate President until March 4, 1861 !
-— Well I guess that is correct, Lincoln would not be sworn in until March 4, 1861. So the treasonous sitting Vice President would remain the Senate President !!!
No, all you have to do is read their own words. Its hard for us to put ourselves into their mindset, because that mindset doesn’t exist anymore here, but they actually believed their system to be a righteous one worthy of defending and worthy of propagating. They say so quite clearly and quite proudly.
This does not mean every southerner was evil or every northerner was righteous. The truth is actually more interesting, as good men fought on both sides. When you see that many of the generals in the south along with their soldiers were devout Christians, that only makes the whole thing that much more interesting.
It was unconstitutional for Lincoln to free them in any state that was part of the Union, rebellion or not. It is in fact a denial of due process to simply declare every citizen of a state to be in "rebellion". If you actually look at the votes for secession, it was just a majority, and that leaves millions of people against it.
There was no "except for rebellion clause" in article IV, section 2. So long as a state was part of the United States, Article IV, section 2 should have been enforced.
Lincoln's position was that no state had left the Union, therefore they were all entitled to the same constitutional protections as the other states.
Lincoln had the constitutional authority to declare slaves “contraband of war” in states that were in rebellion.
No he didn't. It wasn't a "war." According to Lincoln it was a "rebellion". A "war" is fought against a foreign power which is not entitled to Constitutional rights. Anything seized from a foreign power is fair game, but there are actually constitutional laws that protect people who are under constitutional law.
Lincoln simply ignored these, and decreed what he wanted. He even locked up a congressman who said he was acting like a King.
Good point.
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.