Posted on 11/04/2010 3:13:46 AM PDT by markomalley
Sorry, but I see absolutely nothing in the article that suggests an argument on William’s part that “blacks served widely and willingly”; Mr Williams simply cites historical records and the writings of Charles Wesley, black historian, that certain numbers of negroes/blacks served willingly in the Confederate army.
Excellent article! Thanks for posting it.
ping. hope you are well.
1. Economic and social differences between the North and the South.
With Eli Whitney’s invention of the cotton gin in 1793, cotton became very profitable. This machine was able to reduce the time it took to separate seeds from the cotton. However, at the same time the increase in the number of plantations willing to move from other crops to cotton meant the greater need for a large amount of cheap labor, i.e. slaves. Thus, the southern economy became a one crop economy, depending on cotton and therefore on slavery. On the other hand, the northern economy was based more on industry than agriculture. In fact, the northern industries were purchasing the raw cotton and turning it into finished goods. This disparity between the two set up a major difference in economic attitudes. The South was based on the plantation system while the North was focused on city life. This change in the North meant that society evolved as people of different cultures and classes had to work together. On the other hand, the South continued to hold onto an antiquated social order.
2. States versus federal rights.
Since the time of the Revolution, two camps emerged: those arguing for greater states rights and those arguing that the federal government needed to have more control. The first organized government in the US after the American Revolution was under the Articles of Confederation. The thirteen states formed a loose confederation with a very weak federal government. However, when problems arose, the weakness of this form of government caused the leaders of the time to come together at the Constitutional Convention and create, in secret, the US Constitution. Strong proponents of states rights like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry were not present at this meeting. Many felt that the new constitution ignored the rights of states to continue to act independently. They felt that the states should still have the right to decide if they were willing to accept certain federal acts. This resulted in the idea of nullification, whereby the states would have the right to rule federal acts unconstitutional. The federal government denied states this right. However, proponents such as John C. Calhoun fought vehemently for nullification. When nullification would not work and states felt that they were no longer respected, they moved towards secession.
3. The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents.
As America began to expand, first with the lands gained from the Louisiana Purchase and later with the Mexican War, the question of whether new states admitted to the union would be slave or free. The Missouri Compromise passed in 1820 made a rule that prohibited slavery in states from the former Louisiana Purchase the latitude 36 degrees 30 minutes north except in Missouri. During the Mexican War, conflict started about what would happen with the new territories that the US expected to gain upon victory. David Wilmot proposed the Wilmot Proviso in 1846 which would ban slavery in the new lands. However, this was shot down to much debate. The Compromise of 1850 was created by Henry Clay and others to deal with the balance between slave and free states, northern and southern interests. One of the provisions was the fugitive slave act that was discussed in number one above. Another issue that further increased tensions was the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. It created two new territories that would allow the states to use popular sovereignty to determine whether they would be free or slave. The real issue occurred in Kansas where proslavery Missourians began to pour into the state to help force it to be slave. They were called “Border Ruffians.” Problems came to a head in violence at Lawrence Kansas. The fighting that occurred caused it to be called “Bleeding Kansas.” The fight even erupted on the floor of the senate when antislavery proponent Charles Sumner was beat over the head by South Carolina’s Senator Preston Brooks.
4. Growth of the Abolition Movement.
Increasingly, the northerners became more polarized against slavery. Sympathies began to grow for abolitionists and against slavery and slaveholders. This occurred especially after some major events including: the publishing of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin, the Dred Scott Case, John Brown’s Raid, and the passage of the fugitive slave act that held individuals responsible for harboring fugitive slaves even if they were located in non-slave states.
5. The election of Abraham Lincoln.
Even though things were already coming to a head, when Lincoln was elected in 1860, South Carolina issued its “Declaration of the Causes of Secession.” They believed that Lincoln was anti-slavery and in favor of Northern interests. Before Lincoln was even president, seven states had seceded from the Union: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. - http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/cause_civil_war.htm
*******
During his inauguration, Lincoln gave a speech saying that he would use military power to keep control of the Federal Government’s possessions in the states that seceded. One of the most key forts in the South was Fort Sumter, because controlling it was necessary to controlling Charleston harbour, one of the busiest ports in the South.
The Man with a Plan
The day after his inauguration, Lincoln was reminded of Fort Sumter when he received a message from the commander of Federal forces in the fort, Major Robert Anderson. The message told him that there were supplies were running out at the fort, and would last only six more weeks.
Meanwhile, the southern government wanted to get Union forces and forts out of their new nation, starting with the weakened Fort Sumter. Lincoln knew this, and decided that a battle at Fort Sumter was inevitable. He had supplies sent to the fort. He also notified the governor of South Carolina, Francis Pickens of his intention to do so. Of course, the South wouldn’t let the fort be resupplied. They would have to use force to make the fort surrender, before the supplies arrived.
This was part of Lincoln’s plan. The South would have to fire the first shots of the war, which was good politics for the Republicans. It would portray the Confederacy as the aggressive force.
The Firing
Pierre Beauregard, a Confederate General at Charleston, was told to order Major Anderson to evacuate the fort. Anderson resisted evacuation, but said he would leave the fort at noon, 15 April... unless of course he received instructions or supplies from the US government. The supplies were to come before 15 April, so Beauregard rejected this time. As the Confederate messenger left, Anderson said-
If we do not meet again in this world, I hope we may meet in the better one.
On 4:30am, 12 April, 1861 the Confederates began firing 43 guns onto Fort Sumter. This woke citizens in Charleston, who came into the street to pray, cheer, watch and cry. The Federals at Fort Sumter didn’t return fire until about 7am. Captain Abner Doubleday fired the first shot, and the six usable guns in the fort were fired slowly, because ammunition was low in supply. The tired and malnourished US troops had to continually put out fires. - http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A3245140
If it was all about slavery then why were 5 of the states that fought on the Union side slave states?
The Confederates didn’t want to take over the US government, they wanted to succeed from the Union and form their own country and government where a state’s rights were not interfered with by an over-reaching central government.
You get to learn a new phrase today: HATE TRUTH.
A Hate Truth is any fact that, while true, is unflattering to a certain demographic and thus must be suppressed, even if it is factually correct. The utterance of a Hate Truth is considered the same as shouting racial epithets while kicking a downed man in the head with boots, or killing folks solely because of their skin color: It's a bad thing.
ping
So, in the panteon of evil, you equate Southerners with Nazis? Wow, classy.
Lemme guess: You: Northerner.
After seeing that this Yankee is moving to Bama.
Just remember the slave ships didn’t fly the CSA flag it was the Stars and Strips.
Not true. There are many instances in the diaries of Southern soldiers and officers of Confederates giving "huzzahs' and 3 cheers for their fellow black soldiers, as they were either on their way to, or returning from, a battle.
Your anti-southern bias and hatred is showing, and it is not attractive.
On another thread about the original article, I posted no fewer than THREE scholarly sources by academics who have proven that there were significant numbers of blacks in the CSA-—probably 100,000-—and while most did not fire weapons, some did. It’s not an issue up for historical debate, really, despite the lib-tards’ reaction to it.
Bama is too red neck for me... I'm an ACC type of guy!
Sorry but the lib-tards are those defending the Confederate democrats. The lib-tard-atarians like Williams. The illusion that you and others here have about the Confederate democrats is that they were conservatives. They were not. They are much more akin to libertarians today. The same libertarian types who march hand in hand with progressives and Marxists against the National Security of the United States today and join with Marxists on social issues.
It was the Confederate democrats who went on to form the socialist ‘People’s party’ that then merged with the democrat party and brought us to the rise of the Progressive democrats. All shared the common link of being hostile to the United States and the Constitution, support for the KKK, and a persistence at twisting the Founders vision of liberty equally for ALL.
Then why didn't rebel soldiers accord their black opponents the same respect? Why is the history of the confederate army filled with instance after instance where black Union troops were shot down rather than allowed to surrender? Why were black Union troops considered runaway slaves and ordered returned to bondage if captured?
Your anti-southern bias and hatred is showing, and it is not attractive.
If bias means not accepting a claim at face value when there is considerable evidence against it then OK, I'm biased.
Disgraceful article. Shame on Williams.
Extreme hyperbole.
1). if the North had not burdened the south with excessive taxation (tarriffs) and obscene spending they would not have wanted to get out of the union. The Urban centers of California and the North-East are doing the same today to the "fly over" territories.
2. if states could get out of the union with 90 or 95% vote of their citizens and a cooling off period of a year or two, then the Federal Government would be more careful about burdening us and over stepping, plus, many other countries would want to join our Union.
Republicans need to stop defending Lincoln because he was a Republican. He was a tyrant.
Slavery was just a crux to his narcissism. It needed and had to be done away with, but it would have happened before 1900 without a bloody failed second war of Independence.
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.