Posted on 10/03/2015 1:28:14 PM PDT by Kaslin
Although the American Revolution resulted in independence for the United States and World War II made it an international power, the American Civil War was arguably the most important war in American history. It truly was an American watershed.
In order to appreciate that war’s significance, it must be understood what the Civil War was about. Contrary to all-too-popular opinion, the Civil War was not about states’ rights. Instead it was all about slavery and white supremacy. As shown in my just-released book, The Myth of the Lost Cause: Why the South Fought the Civil War and Why the North Won, there is compelling evidence that secession and the Confederacy were the result of Southerners’ desire to preserve slavery and white supremacy – not to promote states’ rights.
The evidence of the seceders’ motivations is clear-cut and convincing. Only slave states seceded, and the greater the percentage of slaves and the percentage of slave-owning families the more likely a slave state was to secede. Those states complained that the Federal Government was doing not too much but too little – Southerners wanted the central government to more aggressively enforce slavery, especially to return runaway slaves. They also were upset that other states were passing “liberty laws” to make it more difficult to retrieve runaways. The issue was not who had the power to do what but instead whether their powers were being used to promote slavery. Far from respecting individual states’ rights, they wanted to compel the Federal and other state governments to enforce slaveholders’ rights and preserve slavery.
The strongest evidence of seceders’ motivations is the language they used in their own secession documents. What could be more telling? Six of the seven early seceding states provided clear statements of their reasons for seceding. Their reasons included the election of Abraham Lincoln, who opposed extension of slavery into territories; the runaway slave issue; the threat to slavery’s existence with the possible loss of four to six billion dollars in slave property (the largest component of Southern wealth); the perceived end of white supremacy and the resultant political and social equality of blacks and whites, and desperate warnings of the effect all this change would have on Southern Womanhood.
South Carolina’s declaration of the reasons for secession said, “an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution [runaway slave return provision].”
As he called for a secession convention, Mississippi’s governor declared, “The existence or the abolition of African slavery in the Southern States is now up for a final settlement.” Citing only slavery-protection reasons, that state’s legislature convened a secession convention. The latter’s declaration of the causes of secession got right to the point in its opening line: “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery – the greatest material interest of the world.”
Not only did their own secession resolutions reveal slavery and white supremacy as their causation, but the seven states who seceded even before Lincoln’s inauguration immediately began an outreach campaign to other slave states. Their correspondence and speeches relied only on slavery-related issues to encourage other slave states’ secession. They only lobbied slave states.
Much other evidence demonstrates that slavery and white supremacy preservation were the causes of secession and even trumped possible Confederate victory in the war. All efforts to avoid war by compromise focused only on slavery issues. Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens said slavery was the “cornerstone” of the Confederacy and Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers had erred in stating that all men were created equal.
Even though it had a tremendous manpower shortage, the Confederacy officially rejected the use of slaves as soldiers (as inconsistent with its white supremacy views) and rejected one-on-one prisoner exchanges for captured black Union soldiers. Just as American colonists needed European intervention to win the Revolutionary War, the Confederates were desperate for British and French intervention; however, they declined to end slavery in order to achieve involvement by the slavery-hating Europeans.
Union victory ended slavery and kept America from being an international pariah. It also resulted in passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th constitutional amendments; these provided the legal basis for ending legal segregation and providing blacks with voting and other civil rights.
Despite the compelling evidence of slavery’s and white supremacy’s roles in fomenting secession, the Confederacy, and the Civil War, too many contemporary Americans cling to the myth that somehow states’ rights were at the root of the Civil War. We need to accept the reality of the racial underpinnings of that critical war in order to contemplate, confront, and overcome the continuing racial tensions in America.
Canada has pretty impotent Federal government, and a lot of power vested in the provincial governments. The country would basically be ungovernable if it were settled by anyone other than British subjects. It has no capability to project military force overseas, either ... which means it does not function like an empire the way the U.S. does.
“You do know, I hope, that Ft. Sumter is in South Carolina, don’t you?”
Fort Sumter was Federal property as provided for in the customary agreements made between the Federal government and a state government and governed by the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever,...and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—
“And that South Carolina had seceded, and was no longer a part of the United States;”
No South Carolina government seceded from the Union of the United States of America in accordance with the provisions of the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and Constitution. The Articles of secession were lacked all lawful authority and lacked the authority of lawful suffrage. The purported articles of secession were fraudulent and an illegal usurpation of the sovereignty of the citizens of South Carolina and the citizens of the United States.
“and that Lincoln not only refused to peacefully leave Ft. Sumter, but instead had ordered it be reinforced and resupplied? THAT was an act of war, and before Beauregard ordered the bombardment of Sumter.”
The United States Government under president Buchanan and President Lincoln was obligated by the Constitution to suppress the unlawful Rebellion:
Constitution
Article. IV.
Section. 3.
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
Constitution
Article I
Section 10
Section. 10.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Not necessarily true. Bad choice of word choice on my point, and the point never came up at issue in New Mexican statehood, of course. But Lincoln was supportive of the issue, which I find odd, just as odd as the existence of slave states in the North after the Civil War, or Lincoln’s handling of the Dakota uprising in Minnesota. These things do not paint a clear picture of a man who fought a war to end slavery.
To my eye now, it’s Lincoln’s cabinet that held sway then, and now. Federal power began then and has been hellbent for leather since. There was even a Rothchild descendant in his cabinet, and the graft and corruption among the various rail, steel, and land schemes were making for the rise of the monopolists even then.
As you are no doubt aware, Lincoln imposed the 1st federal income tax and suspension of habeus corpus: both situations being less than flattering. I am simply less convinced of his greatness, although I have always thought he foresaw his own death.
I don’t value Lincoln as I used to. I’ve become more of a GW fan and stand in awe of Jefferson’s intellect.
Your comment about Mobile and New Orleans raises an interesting point. I’ve always assumed that the growth of commerce on the Mississippi River system played a much bigger role in the Civil War than most people realize. The U.S. could not have expanded the way it did if the Union states in the Midwest and (later) the Great Plains could not transport freight freely up and down the Mississippi River.
You young’uns just HESH!
Quit fightin’ the War of Northern Aggression over again.
Since then, there’s been HITLER! Not to mention a load of
other stuff. - Ya’ll are just avoiding the problems we’re
facing TODAY! - It is TODAY! In another century. - Git with
the program!!
Rivers were still the easiest way to move goods in bulk at the time. New Orleans was the logical point of export for cotton and other agricultural goods grown in Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas and Louisiana. Mobile handled Alabama.
“Acts of men do not trump Rights given by God.”
The Confederate conspirators who fraudulently usurped those rights set forth in the Declaration of Independence had no right or authority by law, by popular will, or by God to do so. The Confederate conspirators acted in direct contravention and contempt for the rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
I was not discussing the reason for succession - I was discussing the reason for the war. THAT falls on the greed of the North.
Sorry!
More importantly, the Union couldn’t trade freely through the Mississippi River system without passing through Confederate states.
I'm not commenting on the right or the wrong of either side in the war as a whole, but it is laughable and absurd when Southerners twist themselves into pretzels claiming that the attack on Fort Sumter was some how, some way, an act of defense. A major moving his 80-odd outfit around between several forts under his command is not an act of war, or aggression, especially in the face of thousands of Southern troops encircling the area. The South fired the first shot, the South seized supplies and fortifications. Just own it and stop pretending up is down.
A fair point. Those laws overrode our Constitution as well.
I mean that regardless of what the Constitution said, those Americans who continued to hold human beings in hereditary slavery forfeited their rights to self-government.
Unless they could have fought and won, which they did not.
“So, what you’re saying is that Ft. Sumter is outside the boundaries of the state of South Carolina? Who knew?”
Fort Sumter was the property of the United States government by prior formal written agreement with the State of South Carolina. The rebel government of South Carolina had no diplomatic recognition and no lawful authority to prejudice the lawful property rights of the U.S. Government. See:
Constitution
Article. IV.
Section. 3.
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Constitution
Article I
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power...To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, ...and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
The illegal and usurping rebel government in South Carolina had no property rights and no rights under the rule of law with respect to Fort Sumter. On the contrary, the rebels in South Carolina forfeited their rights by engaging in an unlawful rebellion and making war upon the citizens of South Carolina and the United States.
If the southern states couldn’t sell their cotton to Europe they had to sell to the North at whatever price the northern factories wanted to pay.
So, in a roundabout way, yes there were tarrifs on interstate commerce.
LOL
“I was not discussing the reason for succession - I was discussing the reason for the war. THAT falls on the greed of the North.”
That is yet another romantic Confederate myth and an atrocious lie. The Confederacy was founded by conspirators who schemed to make themselves powerful and wealthy through the usurpation of governments with a view towards founding a slave empire encompassing the Southern U.S. states, Mexico, Cuba, and other regions in Latin America. They used the states rights issue as a phony excuse to rally the citizens of the Southern states to support their covert seizure of political and economic power.
See what a good job they did of making southern cotton worthless!
This is why we can’t have nice stuff.....
“The US Constitution required states to give back fugitive slaves. They could have objected to this requirement prior to agreeing to it, but once they agreed to it, they can no longer refuse to follow it. They voluntarily gave up that “state right.”
Your are wrong. The clause in the Constitution is in regard to fugitive labor and not fugitive slave. The fugitive labor law is still in effect today insofar as it does not involve slavery prohibited by the Constitutional Amendments. The delegates from the Southern states had an opportunity to word this Constitutional law to expressly concern slaves, but they chose not to do so because they did not want to obligate their state governments for the costs associated with apprehending and due process in law for the recovery of fugitive slaves held in perpetuity as mere property. instead, these Southern delegates said they wanted to treat fugitive slaves the same as in other civil law complaints involving the recovery of horses and other property. By doing so, the fugitive slaves were subject to the interstate civil procedures in law, under which their were other remedies.
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.