Posted on 12/15/2001 10:52:58 AM PST by shuckmaster
I do wonder at you casting asperions on the fact that the players in the great drama of Civil War are dead. It would be hard for it be otherwise; it has been 130 + years, after all.
And yet, the --only-- apreciation we can make on these events -must- be based in the record--on what the people of the day did and said.
George Washington DID say that the goal of every true American was the consolidation of the national Union. I can't help that. I don't post this particuar comment, or the others I often use, for your benefit. You are obviously glad to ignore the historical record in making your interpretation of these events.
Rather, I quote the principal players in these events for the benefit of the lurkers. No open minded person will consider the words of the people who drove these events, and then accept your interpretation.
As for the books you would suggest are germane to these discussions, I do find it odd that they are never quoted in a thread on FR. I'd be glad if they were. It would be very easy to refute them based on the readily available record. Perhaps you will now post some excerpts from these books into this very thread.
I have made similar comments before. Let's see how it goes this time.
Walt
I actually have several of the books on Shuck's link. I don't find them very compelling.
Apparently, there isn't much therein of note, or we'd see some of the content on FR. But we never do.
Some people seem to find the primary documents rather daunting. Unlike the unreconstructed, I can make my own judgements based on the primary documents.
None of this gives me any great joy; as you know, I was born and raised in Chattanooga, Tennessee. I had several relatives in the ANV, and at least one at Shiloh.
But I can't help find common cause with the many, many young men who came forward to defend the ideals of democratic government and the true meaning of the Declaration of Independence. That is true especially when we consider the position of the United States in the world today, which was made possible only through their sacrifice.
Walt
Imagine if the states that voted for Gore decided that they wanted out of the union to form their own country. Imagine that they started firing on US bases, and that there was real uncertainty and fighting in the states where the vote had been close. Would anyone expect that Bush wouldn't fight back? Wouldn't it be a dereliction of duty and a violation of his oath of office if he didn't.
One might suggest that the conflict could be resolved peacefully. Perhaps it should, but once they fire on our army, all bets are off. Maybe Lincoln should have made peace, but the consequences of doing so would have been very bad indeed. Even if one wanted to let the rebel states go, where would you draw the line? How to keep the rest of the country from fragmenting into hostile units? What would one do about the Unionists in the rebellious states? How to tell those who lost relatives in the war that their sacrifices were in vein? I wouldn't have wanted to be alive at that time and faced with the horrors of war and the terrible decisions people had to make, but in retrospect, we are fortunate not to be fragmented into hostile states.
What motivates the hatred of Lincoln today is a utopian passion. Some believe that without Lincoln we would be radically freer today than we are. It's more likely that we'd have different masters.
How someone can argue that "state sovereignty" or "Southern nationalism" equals individual freedom beggars the imagination. Sovereignty is sovereignty, and nationalism is nationalism. The same sort of temptations and dangers of power exist under "state sovereignty" as they do today. One bad consequence of power might be avoided, but another would arise in its place. Such is the nature of power at any level that, if left unchecked, it threatens liberties.
Our Confederate utopians ignore the militarism, centralization, statism, racism, and imperialism of the Confederate leadership. The Confederate leaders too were men of their times, no more immune from the ideas of the day than those they fought against.
With a better political leadership, the South could have kept Lincoln from office or refrained from passing ordinances of secession and used their political influence for peace, or won their independence peacefully. At every stage Southern leaders chose the wrong path, largely under the influence of their arrogance as masters and their desire to preserve slavery.
One could respect them and still see them as they were. Most neo-Confederates don't want to. They want to see the secessionist leaders as purely good. Therefore, they have to see Lincoln as purely and uniquely evil.
The latter-day Confederates have to have the villain Lincoln to blame for all that has happened since, so they leave out parts of the historical record that don't fit the picture they want to create.
Good for you if you want to find out more about the war. Just make sure you consider all sides, before making up your mind.
"In fact, it was actually necessary for politicians to organize campaigns in the North to stir up the idea of fighting to keep the southern states in the Union."
I agree.
"The initial response of most northerners was that they were actually glad to see them go due to the fact that they had always leached off the north economically. It was only after longer reflection that the people in the North started to realize the kinds of trouble and grief the inane idea of releasing the incompetant southern states into the world was likely to bring."
ROTFLMAO! If that's the case the North should have let the South go. Then the North would have enjoyed all those millions that had been "leached" off by the South. Your comment makes about as much sense as a doctor advising a cancer patient to forego surgery or chemo, and just live with it, even though it kills them.
I guess they knew how honest Lincoln was.
Or how determined.
Lincoln pretty much said what he was going to do, and he did it.
Walt
Amazing Walt - I agree with you. Lincoln's attitude was "Damn the Constitution, and full speed ahead."
You may be right, but absent any documentation of what Davis et al were thinking I would be inclined to disagree. Considering that the majority of newspapers (northern and southern) were promoting the idea of a peaceful separation, I can only speculate as to the reason for the buildup. For now, I would think that Davis overestimated the speed of a military response.
You can't support that line of reasoning in the record.
'X' made a great response to this line of argument earlier in this thread. I refer you to it.
Walt
This is pretty well supported in the record. Davis wanted the border states to join the rebellion. He wanted a shooting incident to incite them, and that is pretty much what happened. Davis and the other traitors wanted to act while the secession fever was still red hot. That is why they fired on Fort Sumter when they knew full well that they could starve out the fort within the -week-.
Too, Davis had Kentucky invaded when that state wanted to remain neutral-- making a clear mockery of any pretence of 'states rights'.
Walt
Here is the income tax passed by Mr. Davis' government:
The bill that was finally passed on 24 April 1863, called for a milder graduated income tax exempting wages to $1,000, and levying a 1% tax on the first $15,000 over the exemption and 2% on all additional income. (my post)
That was the Confederate tax.
The Lincoln tax was:
In 1862, Abraham Lincoln signed a bill that imposed a 3% tax on incomes between $600 and $10,000 and a 5% tax on higher incomes. The bill was amended in 1864 to levy a tax of 5% on incomes between $600 and $5,000, a 7.5% tax on incomes in the $5,000-$10,000 range and a 10% tax on everything higher. (your post)
So, that makes your comments:
"Since Jefferson Davis...proposed income taxes at levels far above those up north" and "I realize that southern school systems are constantly ranked at the bottom of national averages but even they should realize that figures like 14% and 24% are greater than 5% and 10%" invalid. Be glad that WhiskeyPapa isn't around, or else he would call them lies.
Looks like you are the one who is wrong.
Double dog Shocking!
Between the day Davis was elected and the action at Charleston, he made several key speeches & writings constantly demonstrating a desire for peace. "All we want is to be left alone". He even sent peace envoys to Washington only to have the warmongering tyrant Lincoln reject them.
You lie about Ft Sumter being starved out in a few days. The Confederates fired on the fort only after the warmongering tyrant sent supplies & reenforcements to hold the fort blockading the port at Charleston in a deliberate act of war against the soverinty of South Carolina.
You lie about Kentucky. The legislature there narrowly voted against secession only after the saber rattling tyrant Lincoln made numerous varied threats against the lives & property of the elected officials who dared stand up to his crimes against the constitution. The elected governor immediately resigned & led Kentucky's volunteer troops into battle against America's Stalin. The flag of the Orphan Brigade is one of America's most precious shrines in the everlasting war against tyranny.
I'd be glad for you to show I have quoted anyone (dead or alive)out of context or that I have ignored any pertinent quotes, or that I have told any lies. Go for it.
Walt
I got this off the 'net by searching on "Anderson", "Beauregard" and "Sumter". It took about ten seconds.
"In 1861, Charleston Harbor held several batteries such as Fort Johnson, Castle Pinckney and Fort Moultrie. Also in the harbor was Fort Sumter which as under the command of Maj. Anderson. On November 9, 1860 the United States Flag was taken down at all the batteries and the South Carolina state flag was raised. After seeing this, Maj. Anderson sent word to Washington asking for additional troops and started his men erecting defenses. His hopes of additional men were dashed as the Star Of The West, carrying two hundred men, was fired upon by both the battery on Morris Island and Fort Moultrie, striking it twice. The Star of the West turned and left Charleston Harbor. On April 11, Gen. Beauregard sent his aides, Col. James Chestnut and Capt. Stephen Lee to deliver an ultimatum to Maj. Anderson. In it Beauregard specified that he would facilitate the removal of weapons and supplies from the fort, send personal items to any location desired but Anderson was to evacuate Sumter immediately. Anderson replied that his honor prevented him from doing so. He also informed Beauregard that the matter may be taken out of his hands anyway if they (the Confederates) didn’t batter down the walls, the Union soldiers would starved out anyway in a few days."
I think you are a little confused. And you shouldn't call people liars unless you can back it up.
Walt
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.