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.
The former pawns were Germans ( dutch) and yankee inclined Irish.Who had forgotten that southern potatoes were sent in great quantity duringtheir famine in 40’s....They repaid the generosity and compassion with Springfield trown lead. Luckily we mowed down plenty at Maryes Heights....
And who will it be today ? Obama pawns from every 3rd world rathole and plenty of muz....
Charleston Harbor is an inlet of the Atlantic Ocean.
“I am not decended from all the Germans and Irish that Lincoln brought in as mercenaries to defeat the real Americans .”
The “Germans and Irish” born men were only a small percentage of the U.S. Army in the American Civil War, 9.7 percent and 9.1 percent respectively. The Confederate armies also recruited German, Irish, and many other foreign born soldiers, sailors, and marines wherever possible. So, your complaint about their participation in the war has no relevance other than to reveal your own irrational racist fantasy about their role in the war.
“Sort of reminds me of what Obama is up to today .”
The immigration of the foreign born and their recruitment into the U.S. Army and U.S. Navy were well underway decades earlier and back to their participation in the American Revolutionary War. Obama’s actions with respect to immigration has little to do with the recruitment of immigrants in the 19th Century. So, once again, you are engaging in a self delusion and fantasy in an effort to confirm your delusions and fantasies about the Confederacy and its racist actions.
“Overwhelm the real Americans with more foreigners and then write the history that oppressive dictators can claim .”
The Official Records of the War of the Rebellion were in great part salvaged from the Confederate records, compiled, and authored by one of the former Confederate general officers. So, you are quite wrong, because the defeated wrote much of the official U.S. Government reports and history of the American Civil War. So, you can now cease propagating lies to the contrary.
What provocation? It was the south that stole property paid for by all the states.
Mr. Lincoln was beholding to the northern industrialists who benefited mightily from the southern state’s capital.
I think the northern industrialists would have done just fine with or without the south.
Funny! I think these threads gain such traction as folk from the bible belt are grossly weary of being lorded over by sodomites, Goldman Sachs, and another of Illinois’ favorite sons, Barach Bathouse Behngazi Obama. Just sayin’.
Obama is from Kenya or Hawaii. But if you want to go in that rabbit hole let's mention Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton. And rural folks up here are just as bible-toting as rural folks from the south.
Preservation of the union was the reason.
Owning another human to collect all the profits from his/her work is the ultimate greed.
The south controlled the tariff issue in the 1850s, so that doesn't fly.
So, in a roundabout way, yes there were tarrifs on interstate commerce.
No, there is no tariff between the states of any sort.
“Again, show me the deed or legal transfer that ceded to the federal government — in perpetuity — the land fill that became Ft. Sumter. I’m not talking about a federal takeover of any land or territory of a sovereign state, I’m talking about that sovereign state agreeing to any transfer.”
See:
Fort Sumter - Construction and Ownership
Discussion in ‘Battle of Fort Sumter’ started by amhistoryguy, Mar 13, 2007.
[....]
The Charleston coast was surveyed in 1821, however, a report of that survey was not presented until 1826. That report stated, “the shoal opposite Fort Moultre may be occupied permanently.”
[....]
Work on the Fort began in 1829 with Lt. Henry Brewerton, U. S. Corps of Engineers, in charge of the project. The 2.4 acre Island that the fort was to be built on did not exist, it was constructed from 10,000 tons of granite brought in from New England, along with about 60,000 tons of other rock.
[....]
In autumn of 1834, construction was halted when ownership of the site came into question. Mr. William Laval had secured from the state of South Carolina a vague grant to 870 acres of “land” in Charleston Harbor. Acting on this odd grant, Laval made claim to the site of Fort Sumter. This also raised a question in the South Carolina legislature as to what authority the government had acted upon to begin construction, despite the fact that
South Carolina’s representatives had been voting on appropriations for construction of the site for years.
[....]
Work on Sumter was halted for 3 years due to Laval’s
claim.
The South Carolina State Attorney General invalidated
Laval’s claim on December 20, 1837, but, other issues,
including the resumption of funding, continued to keep
construction halted. South Carolina’s Committee on Federal Relations had questioned the Federal government’s authority for a project in Charleston harbor.
The government had assumed that a deed to “land” covered by water was not necessary, and had begun
without a title to the “land.”
[....]
On November 22, 1841, all issues regarding ownership of the fort were cleared up as the Federal Government was granted title to 125 acres of harbor “land” recorded in the office of the Secretary of State of South Carolina.
Pearl Harbor is an inlet of the Pacific Ocean, so I guess by your logic it is not in Hawaii. Ditto with Boston Harbor, because by your logic it can't by part of Massachusetts. Bar Harbor must be outside the recognized boundaries of Maine. You're delusional, to put it mildly.
“Pearl Harbor is an inlet of the Pacific Ocean, so I guess by your logic it is not in Hawaii. Ditto with Boston Harbor, because by your logic it can’t by part of Massachusetts. Bar Harbor must be outside the recognized boundaries of Maine. You’re delusional, to put it mildly.”
You’re flaunting your ridiculous ignorance. The U.S. Government had the Constitutional power to regulate international and interstate commerce under the Commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, which also encompassed the territorial marine and navigable waterways such as Charleston Harbor, South Carolina. That is why the fact that Charleston Harbor was a navigable inlet from the Atlantic Ocean for international and interstate marine commerce placed the waters of Charleston Harbor under certain types of Federal jurisdiction. This Constitutional power was affirmed on multiple occasions by the U.S. Congress, the Government of South Carolina, and the Supreme Court of the United States in Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824). The Secretary of State of the State of South Carolina also granted to the U.S. Government a title deed for the actual underwater site of Fort Sumter after the construction raised the level of the site above the waterline using granite blocks transported from New England.
If Hawaii were to suddenly claim Pearl Harbor's facilities as state property, you're nuts to think that would fly.
The US government built Fort Sumter from the seafloor, spent 30 years building it, moving tons of earth. Not only are you nuts, but you're also delusional to think South Carolina had any right to seize it.
Thanks WX, you have more patience with the delusionals than I do.
You're saying that were were not 3000+ troops surrounding Fort Sumter? I've read between 3000 and 6000.
While you're exaggerating, that's what war is. Did they not know that when Fort Sumter was fired upon? The stupid celebrated at The Battery what they thought was the death of hundreds of US soldiers inside the Fort Sumter, while the smarter of Charleston's residents shook and prayed that night because they knew what was eventually coming in the form of Sherman and his men. Those who celebrated at the Battery deserved everything they got from Sherman.
Rural voters everywhere are pretty reliably conservative. You have the FDR lovers who will forever vote Dem because they mistakenly think he ended the depression, and that belief is passed from generation to generation as I witnessed in a park recently at a large family gathering. Farm subsidies crack into that conservative bloc some too. Farmers like their socialism when it comes to that, and of course we can thank FDR for starting that monstrosity also. But in my county and in most rural counties, no matter where in the country, the more conservative presidential candidate gets between 60 to 80 percent of the vote.
Would you have just freed them and given them the majority votes to be exploited by Yankees just like today but with a different party?
Lyndon Johnson, the president who said, he'd have the blacks voting Democrat for 50 years with his Great Society BS, and Bill Clinton, who claimed to be the first black president, are from southern states. Now that's exploitation. You can't blame it on the north.
Would you have just freed them and given them the majority votes to be exploited by Yankees just like today but with a different party? And hoped for the best? Knowing what you did about how some behaved towards one another and when on a Nate Turner or Haitian rampage? Would you risk that for your family? The south has been stuck with a huge mostly dysfunctional black population since Mr Whitney.....many migrated north for work two generations post Civil War...where today anyone can judge how that turned out in any city in America with a large black population Now we’ve been living a reverse migration for 30 years blacks returning South to the so called white racist fold With rare exception they control political power in every major southern city and anyone with a brain can figure it out This junk like this guy writes is simple poppycock meant to lay blame over an issue no one and I mean no one has the balls to tackle honestly I travel the country extensively.....a huge white trash sub class is the real issue frankly everywhere in the US But most folks have zero inkling of living in a large black population enviro and what that means today
An interesting argument I've never seen before regarding the south pre-Civil War. So that makes slavery acceptable? (and I'm not playing "gotcha")
I assume you think slavery would have died out eventually had there not been a Civil War. What is the answer to this problem you have laid out?
I ask this because in my twenties I believed foolishly that all people were alike given the same environment (I was a fiscally conservative semi-atheist), and therefore believed in open immigration. Now I know there is an American Exceptionalism, and it comes from God, and God spent thousands of years molding His people to be a blessing to the world, and we are them. All the rest of the world outside the American-British-Israel realms are corruptocracies, and when immigrants come here from these corruptocracies they try to change our country into what they had to flee.
The easy answer to is cut off immigration, but what is the answer when a state is already overwhelmed by a people who prefer corruption over freedom, wisdom, and honesty?
God damned Yankees ; rotten to the core then , still rotten to core now . DV
“Too funny! Thousands of troops? Such hyperbole! You do know, I assume, that there were more federal troops — which includes federal naval assets — in the vicinity of Ft. Sumter than CSA troops, don’t you? And I’m talking about formal military troops, not civilians with their dander up.”
Your above comments are such extreme lies added to your previous stream of lies, they give you the appearance of a delusional and perhaps pathological liar indistinguishable from many Democrats. For example, you lied horrendously by denying there were thousands of South Carolina troops engaged in the military operations around Charleston Harbor during the Confederate attack against the U.S. Army forces garrisoning Fort Sumter. You falsely described the description of thousands of such Confederate troops as being, “Such hyperbole!” In fact, far from being hyperbole, they were grossly lower than the more than 7,000 Confederate troops in and around Charleston Harbor, Charleston, and Fort Sumter.
So, where did these “thousands” of Confederate troops come from? Answer, the South Carolina legislature appropriated funds on 17 December 1860 for the organization and recruitment of ten regiments to fight in the upcoming civil war. On 6 March 1861 the state adjutant general reported to Major General M. L. Bonham that his division command now had 104 companies organized into ten regiments in four brigades, with 8,836 officers and enlisted men. Much of Maj. Gen. Bonham’s division was located around Charleston Harbor, and they were variously reported to have numbered not less than 7,000 out of the 8,836 serving during the Confederate bombardment of Fort Sumter.
“You do know, I assume, that there were more federal troops — which includes federal naval assets — in the vicinity of Ft. Sumter than CSA troops, don’t you?”
No, on the contrary, I know you have lied outlandishly; because the “federal troops” were very few and were vastly outnumbered by the 7,000 or more Confederate troops and 120 cannon. Major Anderson had only 85 troops under his command at Fort Sumter. The relief expedition only carried 200 recruits when it departed. The relief expedition subsequently failed to arrive intact outside the Charleston bar at the harbor entrance, because many of the ships and the tug boats became separated during the a strong storm. On of the ships was re-directed by Presidential order as it departed New York Harbor with its recruits to man another fortress being threatened by Confederate troops. Even if the expedition had brought all of the 200 recruits, the storm at sea delayed their arrival until it was too late, and they had no ability to get past the hulks the Confederates sunk at the harbor entrance to stop just such a reinforcement of Fort Sumter. So, the reality is that Maj. Anderson’s command of only 85 men were vastly outnumbered by more than 7,000 Confederate troops and 120 cannon with no substantial reinforcements in the vicinity.
Not only were there NOT more “federal troops” in “the vicinity” of Fort Sumter and Charleston, South Carolina, the Confederate troops in South Carolina vastly numbered all of the U.S. Army troops in the Eastern United States east of the Mississippi River! The U.S. Army at the time was organized into 21 regiments composed from 197 companies. Some 179 companies of the total of 197 companies were stationed at 79 forts, garrisons, and outposts scattered across the wide expanses of the Western United States. This left only 18 companies to man 18 garrisons across the entire Eastern United States, with many of them in garrisons along the border with British Canada. It normally required 20 companies to compose 2 regiments of troops, so the entire U.S Army forces in the Eastern United States amounted to slightly less than two regiments. South Carolina had more companies and regiments than that just on a couple of the islands bombarding Maj. Anderson and his 85 men in Fort Sumter. So, not only were there not any significant U.S. Army troops available in the vicinity to reinforce Fort Sumter, the Confederate troops in South Carolina had five times the number of U.S. Army regiments east of the Mississippi River, making the Union states extremely vulnerable to Confederate attacks.
Most of the world doesn’t distinguish between northerners, westerners, easterners, and Southerners. To them you’re a damn yankee too!
“God damned Yankees ; rotten to the core then , still rotten to core now . DV”
Comments like that are to be expected from people who behave like pathological liars like yourself. FYI, my ancestors were mostly Southerners, and most of those born as Southerners served in the U.S. Army Volunteers against the Confederate insurrectionists who were destroying their Southern homes and families with their racist treason. That included their brothers and fathers who fought against them in the Confederate armies.
Beauregard had 50 cannon and mortars. According to your reasoning (you said he had between 3,000 and 6,000 troops), each gun had between a 60-man crew and a 120-man crew.
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.