The Civil War - The version they don't teach in school

Another thing that the textbooks fail to tell you is that Lincoln was a racist. Straight up bigot. He believed the white man was far more superior than black men.

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." -Abe Lincoln.

The history of the civil war as you, america, knows it today is a big fat lie.

 

Which is exactly why I support low taxation, the highest marginal rate being 25%

Because any civil war buff who spends alot of time going to battlefields, reading detailed books about the politics of the conflict itself as opposed to just the tactics and strategy of the battlefield knows bull (*)(*)(*)(*) when he sees it. All one has to do is pick up a copy of The Civil War:A Narrative which delves the deepest into the politics of the time with actual speeches of the Northern and Southern politicians, goes into the deep roots of the conflict and is basically "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire" as far as peer accepted stature goes to see that all these neoconfederate arguments are revisionist crap.

History is no different than any other science. It requires discipline and peer review to be accepted. You can't just put any crap out there and expect those in the historical community to just accept it willy nilly.

No, because History is science, just like Archaeology, physics or any other science. It is a discipline with accepted standards and its own scientific method developed since the days of Herodotus and anyone who reads enough of it knows bull (*)(*)(*)(*) when he sees it.

It isn't about "being told" by anyone, it's about being well read enough to know the difference. One may be able to question some specific theses, etc and disagree on points but the general overarching narrative is beyond dispute.

 

But you can't fathom all the economic disparity and sanctions that hindered the south's economic prosperity as a reason for them to sucede more than their willingness to keep slaves? Slaves are a part of the business expense, and having slaves could have been more costly than paying them relatively what the north paid their common workers. Providing their food, oversight, cloths etc were part of what the slave owners needed to keep their slaves as productive as they could be to provide the service they did. Keeping the plantation owners from prospering economically hurts their bottem line.

BTW, do you really think when Lincoln signed the emancipation proclomation, that the southern state slave owners just let their slaves go? Or do you think the word got to the slaves that they were free to go now that the president said so? They didn't have internet or tv or radio to spread the word that announced they were "freeded". The proclomation was just a propaganda tool that Lincoln used to have the northern population think they had a "just cause" to kill their brothers.

So you only take one side of the story and run with it? Wonder if you go to a German and say that their government telling them the reason for WWII is a farce if they will not get irrate at you for bringing up how much they were in the wrong. Those that preach the reason for the civil war as a moral war for freedom are those that don't want to accept that what Lincoln and the north did was tyranical or treasonous to the governing documents.

And how many times have the scientific peer reviews turned out to be "quid pro quo"? Climate...(warming, cooling, change), evolutions missing links, the world being flat, grain being the best source of food etc. Peer review of things your peers agree upon doesn't mean they are accurate, those that go against the grain of highly disputed theories are usually the ones that show more evidence that the "peer review" is false.

Now if you want to blindly follow the history books of those that won the war and can say whatever they want with suppressing other points of views that show the victor in a bad light, then you go ahead and be ignorant of the opposing view points, I will be indipendent and not try to gloss over the fact that the US has never been a shining beacon of hope for everyone.

Standards and discipline that is always changing is the only standard to man made devices. Whatever it takes to "prove" you are right and the other person that doesn't have the government funding is wrong.

What part was overreaching? There has been bloodless rebellions over slavery the world over, why did the US have to kill brothers and fathers over an ever growing immoral behavior? The one thing that people have always killed over, even brothers and fathers, is money.

 

We have always had dual sovereignty in the United States where in some matters the State is sovereign and in other matters the Federal government is sovereign. This has been repeatedly confirmed by the Supreme Court as it is inherent in a Federalist form of government which is what we have.

As an example we can cite South Carolina v. United States 1905.

This separation of sovereignty between the States and the Federal government was also addressed in Bond v The United States:

A couple of points must be kept in mind.

First of all as established by the Declaration of Independence sovereignty actually originates with the People as power is delegated to government through the will of the people.

Next is the fact that the United States government was a construct of the States (not the People) in 1786 as State representatives met at the Constitutional Convention and it was the States, not the People, that ratified the US Constitution. The fact that the Federal government is a construct of the States remains to this day as only the States, not the People, can ratify changes (amendments) to the US Constitution. While many don't want to believe this we mere need to read Article V of the US Constitution to see that the States have absolute authority over the Federal government as 2/3rds of the States can call for a Constitutional Conventions and 3/4ths of the States can change the US Constitution or abolish it completely and the Federal government cannot intervene in this process.

Ultimately the US Constitution is a contract between the sovereign States and the States are members of this contract by mutual consent of the State legislature and the Federal government (i.e. the other States). This is clearly evident when we see how a State can be added to the United States as it requires the consent of the State legislature as well as the Congress (Atricle IV).

If mutual consent no longer exists then there is a valid argument that the State is no longer a party to the contract. The so-called "Civil War" was, as I mentioned previously, actually a conflict between to sovereign nations (The United States of America and The Confederate States of America) where the goal of the Union was to subjugate the People of the Confederacy against their will to the government of the United States.

Once again I would point out that under contract law a breach of contract is valid legal grounds for withdrawing from the conditions of the contract. That was what the Southern States cited as the reason for withdrawal from the United States. Unfortunately there wasn't and isn't a court that could adjudicate the matter as it superseded even the authority of the Supreme Court.

My personal belief is that the ability to withdraw from the contract (US Constitution) should be specifically enumerated. If a State no longer wants to be a part of the United States then they shouldn't be stopped from leaving the Union.

 

I was putting it in a timeline of Lincoln's Era and that of previous Administrations... 1905 is pretty far out from those days. I can understand now it's a completely different situation but, it was in context of the whole Lincoln/Civil War discussion.

 

As a life long student of history, especially US history I can only point out that the OP is a continuing rant of exaggeration of points generally well known to anyone who paid attention in high school.

While both economics and slavery, which was economically based, were at issue in the launching of the war, the real issue was "States Rights." The South was adamant that the Federal power be minimal and that States carry the majority of the power.

The North, emerging more and more into manufacturing saw slavery as a economic advantage feared that if slavery were expanded into manufacturing they would be toast. They sought federal help in limiting that power.

The war, frankly, was completely unnecessary. One state, South Carolina reacted to the re-establishment of a fort that had been barely in use over the years and saw it as a threat. The "firing on Fort Sumpter" was symbolic...none of the shots even reached its walls.

Lincoln and his people launched a counter offensive and got their asses kicked at Bull Run, emboldening the South to think they could win.

I know, there's a lot open to interpretation, but it is a mere thumbnail and all to brief to deal with what has to be one of the most complex eras in US history.

 

Not to mention the South was trying to peacefully remove the occupants for months before they fired a shot.

The South thought they won the war. They succesfully defended their territory and had no asspirations to conquer the north. The south had a clear shot to DC if they marched north after their victory, but decided to hold fast cause they were not the aggressors.

 

It is simplistic to suggest that the "Tea Act" was the cause, sole or otherwise of the Revolutionary War. Much of the nation was almost completely unaffected by the act....however it was the principle of the act.

You have to remember that the slogan "no taxation without representation" was the unifying cause of north and south. Increasingly, the American Colonies were objecting to being ruled by an arrogant German Speaking king who imposed his will on the people.

Among those complex issues was the heavy handed treatment of the Colonial governors, many of whom never bothered to leave England.

There is a reason that the Bill of Rights first two items deal with freedom of speech, religion etc. and the right to bear arms....the American Colonists were progressively being denied those rights and saw themselves as becoming slaves to the mother country.

The "Tea Act" was merely a symbol and an "indirect cause" of the war.

 

You are absolutely correct. If I am not mistaken there were some who felt they should have marched on the Capitol and taken hostages, but the prevailing opinion was that it was over.

There are historians who blame Lincoln for having started the war, that his personal stubbornness blocked a peaceful withdrawal of not only forces in Sumpter but other forts, but also negotiations on the states rights issues.

Popular opinion sees Abe as a genial slave freeing hero. History reports that he was a self indulgent, petty man prone to stubbornness and totally incompetent in running even the White House. He is said to have appointed his generals based on his personal likes and dislikes rather than their abilities to bring an end to the war. It was his determination that the South be crushed, while some in his own party sought a more moderate end.

One day we might like to examine his appointing of U.S. Grant....genius or a huge error that caused enormous casualties through what would today be considered war crimes.



BTW, more Americans dies in that ancient conflict then any war before or since, the casualties were more than double both the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812.

 

Almost all white men of the time, in America and out of it, felt that the white man was superior to the semite and the asian and the african. Many even felt quite prejudiced against recent immigrants like the Irish Catholics (look up the Know Nothing Party). It would have been pretty amazing if Lincoln had NOT been a bigot in the times he lived in. What was important was that he rejected the idea of chattel slavery for the negroes: they might be inferior men to him, but they were men rather than property.

 

Secession is a right that should be seen as a state's last recourse against tyranny. Also, it makes no sense at all to assign supremacy to the Federal Govt. It was, after all a creation of the states. How can the creation (Fed. Govt) have supremacy over the creator (States)?

Lincoln's own words belie his actions taken against the South. The following is taken from a speech he gave before Congress in 1848 concerning Texas' SECESSION from Mexico.

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is the right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit."


Why is it so hard for some people to see this? Our country was founded on secession from England.

From the Declaration Of Independence:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

— That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Lincoln's words in 1848 mirror the DOI. So, what happened to change that in 1861? Here's your answer....NOTHING AT ALL!!

 

Actually many of the issues addressed here are addressed in our high school American history classes. While some of the finer details are not covered overall American children do get a relatively good overview of the Civil War. We're well aware of the fact that State's Rights were addressed but the fact is that the State's Rights issues were all related to the institution of slavery in the South.

What appears to be the problem is that those that aren't Americans don't really know what we're taught in school and that every history teacher I had encouraged students to do additional research on the subject.

 

The difference being that the Southern States failed to meet the very ideal established by the Declaration of Independence.

It was the government of the Confederacy that was involved in absolutely despotism.

 

Dont project your own ignorance of the war onto the rest of us.

 

That seems to be where everyone goes when discussing this. The South had slaves, yada, yada, yada...as if that confers some moral high ground on which to crush and subjugate the South. News flash...slavery was legal and secession had been considered by other states earlier in our history with no threat of reprisal.

The fact is that the Slave traders were all Northerners and many prominent Northern families made their fortunes in the slave trade. No slave was ever brought here under the Confederate flag. The hypocrisy of those of you that wish to lay the blame for slavery solely on the South is laughable.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The effects of the New England slave trade were momentous. It was one of the foundations of New England's economic structure; it created a wealthy class of slave-trading merchants, while the profits derived from this commerce stimulated cultural development and philanthropy. --Lorenzo Johnston Greene, “The Negro in Colonial New England, 1620-1776,” p.319.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Even after slavery was outlawed in the North, ships out of New England continued to carry thousands of Africans to the American South. Some 156,000 slaves were brought to the United States in the period 1801-08, almost all of them on ships that sailed from New England ports that had recently outlawed slavery. Rhode Island slavers alone imported an average of 6,400 Africans annually into the U.S. in the years 1805 and 1806. The financial base of New England's antebellum manufacturing boom was money it had made in shipping. And that shipping money was largely acquired directly or indirectly from slavery, whether by importing Africans to the Americas, transporting slave-grown cotton to England, or hauling Pennsylvania wheat and Rhode Island rum to the slave-labor colonies of the Caribbean.

Northerners profited from slavery in many ways, right up to the eve of the Civil War. The decline of slavery in the upper South is well documented, as is the sale of slaves from Virginia and Maryland to the cotton plantations of the Deep South. But someone had to get them there, and the U.S. coastal trade was firmly in Northern hands. William Lloyd Garrison made his first mark as an anti-slavery man by printing attacks on New England merchants who shipped slaves from Baltimore to New Orleans.

Long after the U.S. slave trade officially ended, the more extensive movement of Africans to Brazil and Cuba continued. The U.S. Navy never was assiduous in hunting down slave traders. The much larger British Navy was more aggressive, and it attempted a blockade of the slave coast of Africa, but the U.S. was one of the few nations that did not permit British patrols to search its vessels, so slave traders continuing to bring human cargo to Brazil and Cuba generally did so under the U.S. flag. They also did so in ships built for the purpose by Northern shipyards, in ventures financed by Northern manufacturers. "

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Theophilus Fisk, a Connecticut publisher and Jackson Democrat is ranked as one of the major leaders of the early U.S. labor movement. Fisk denounced wealthy White campaigners for negro rights and in 1836 gave what has been described as a “fierce anti-abolitionist speech” in South Carolina. Fisk’s anger derived from his observation that White slavery had been ignored. Fisk “found that
America’s slaves had ‘pale faces’ and as abolitionism grew in Boston, called for an end to indulging sympathies for Blacks in the South and for ‘immediate emancipation of the White (factory) slaves of the North.”.

Charles Douglass, president of the New England Association of Farmers, Mechanics and Other Working Men, described the four thousand White children and women at work in the factories of Lowell, Massachusetts in the 1860s as “dragging out a life of slavery and wretchedness... These establishments (New England’s factories) are the present abode of wretchedness, disease and misery...”

Ruth Holland, commenting on the participation of New England factory owners in the cause of abolitionism and rights for negroes in the south, observed, “It’s a little difficult to believe that northern mill owners, who were mercilessly abusing (White) children for profit, felt such pure moral indignation at (negro) slavery.”

http://www.whattheproblemis.com/documents/ra/they-were-slaves.pdf

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm perfectly willing to go point-counterpoint with you on this. I have already shown that even Northerners were against Lincoln's war and am ready to debate any aspect of this issue.

 

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything." Lincoln

Even he himself proclaimed them to be lesser beings compared to White People and this is from the "Savior". What do you think the South thought of Blacks? Obviously Cattle and so did the North in some of the Highest Political Offices. I agree it was absolutely disgusting but, that is like trying to tell Genghis Khan that raping and butchering people is bad...

 

The origin of the Civil War begins with the two visions of Hamilton vs Jefferson. The Hamiltonian Federalists wanted a strong central government, while Jeffersonian Democratic Republicans wanted a union of states with most of the power in individual state government. The irony is, that Jefferson, Hamilton, AND Lincoln, as were most of the founding fathers,were White separatists, with Jefferson actually a White Supremacist (see his Virginia notes on his conclusions about African slaves).

The Hamiltonian Tariffs are the root cause which gradually were increased until the individual small southern farm WITHOUT slaves was required to pay a 40% tax on domestic product traded to England or any produce imported from England.

Abraham Lincoln was a white separatist, who became a puppet for Northern Industrialists, as Lincoln himself stated he was more worried about those behind him, than the Southern army in front of him.,about a month before he was assassinated. Lincolns call to arms was because he considered that his oath of office required that he "preserve the union". After several defeats to the Army of Northern Virginia, there was serious consideration by the Union Congress that the war should be ended. It was not until after the Battle of Antiedam, the first minor victory vs Robert E. Lee, that Lincoln devised the new moral cause for the continuation of the war as the necessity to set other men free, ie. slavery must be ended by burning down the south and raping southern women., destroying ALL the farms, regardless the fact that 80% of them were small family farms with NO slaves.

 

Not sure what you are trying to push here.

The North couldn't have pushed Burdensome tariffs without Southern approval, since the South had half the Senate. Meanwhile, Britain was buying huge amounts of Southern cotton- so much so that when the North blockaded Southern ports, it hurt Britains economy so much that Britain almost went to war.

Slavery was the biggest political issue of the age, and had been festering for years. The issue was not primarily about abolishment of slavery in the South- that was not politically possible- but on whether or not slavery would be allowed to be extended into new territories. The Missouri compromise attempted to smooth over this issue, but by the 1860 election it had reached a boiling point again.

The Republican platform in 1860 was about preventing slavery extending into new territories. After Lincoln won the election, the Southern states- as they had threatened- started to secede from the Union.

Lincoln indeed was more concerned with preserving the Union than anything else- though he was personally opposed to slavery. After the South started the war by firing the first shots and Fort Sumter, he still left the door open for reconciliation. Public opinion at this time was very much in favor of doing whatever was necessary to preserve the Union.

Even at that point, the South could have probably prevented the war, and not lost its slaves if it had agreed to rejoin the Union.

As the war progressed, the move for emancipation built up momentum in the North. Lincoln's Emancipation proclamation was a brilliant political move- and one intended to motivate border Confederate States to rejoin the Union- and if they had prior to January, their slaves would not have been freed.

As it was, it was entirely the South's fault, and entirely because of the North that slavery was ended in the Confederacy, and ended without any compensation. Indeed, the 13th Amendment would never have passed, if the South had not attempted to secede.

The Civil War was a horrible, horrible war. And did not need to happen. But if the Civil War had not happened, slavery would have existed within the United States for a much longer period of time- and perhaps would still exist.

 

Please do not tell me that you believe that over 80% of the Southern population fought against overwhelming odds for 4 years, in order to preserve the institution of slavery for the elite few wealthy planation owners. If that were the case, they would have never followed Robert E.Lee who helped to free slaves, and did not own any himself!

Please explain why there were African Americans and Native Americans who volunteered to fight for the Confederacy.

Please explain why it was necessary for Sherman to burn and rape his way thru Georgia and the Carolinas, when the War was already over, and Grant had Lee completely contained., and the Union Navy had already strangled any potential supply from abroad, or intevention by any foreign power.

The Army of N.Virginia was STARVING for crying out loud. All Sherman had to do after defeating Hoods paltry starving 40000 stragglers near Atlanta, was just to march straight up and join Grant, completely isolating Lee, and the War is OVER.

 

Lincoln's attempt to 'resupply' Ft Sumter was nothing more than a ruse to provoke the South into a war.

"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. "

Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Gustavus Fox, May 1, 1861

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This ploy was seen by some for what it was....

"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." ~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861.

"We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it." ~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.

 

In order of questions presented.

Most Southerns fought because the Union invaded the Southern States and nor for slavery per se although slavery was unquestionably the underlying reason for the secession of the Southern States.

The African Americans fought because they were promised freedom for doing so and even then there weren't a lot of them. There were some Native-Americans that also fought for the South and in some cases they were also slave owners.

There was no logical reason for Sherman's march of destruction. As noted this was a stategic decision that made no real sense even at the time.

 

Sherman explained it quite clearlyropaganda.

If his army was marching through the heart of the south tearing it up with nothing but scattered Confederate Cavalry to slow them down, then this would be in every Southern Newspaper and break the will.

It made perfect sense, the same way a World War II carpet bombing campaign makes sense. Cause random death and destruction until such time as the will of the enemy is broken.

Strategically, Sherman should have turned back and followed Hood into Tennessee to protect his supply lines. Instead he just shrugged, cut those supply lines and went about tearing up the South while sending a token force to hold up Hood.

It was brilliance personfied.

 

You left out the Battle of Schrute Farms in your OP. It is not a complete history without it.

 

Perhaps mentioned by some, but usually lost in the discussion, is that neither side, North or South, expected their initial actions in contempt of the other to become the War that it did. As noted by others, it snowballed, to where the reasons to fight were no longer anything having to do with Secession, but rather more "You invaded", "You tried to kill me". "You killed my brother". etc.

The Panic of '57, caused both by a huge reduction in tariffs, end of the Crimeon War, and some other things, caused a backlash response to then re-raise tariffs. The South was staunchly against such, while Northern states hurt hard by the lower tariff, notably Pennsylvania and New Jersey, were staunchly for it. Democrat Buchanan did not want to re-raise tariffs, and that decision swung Pennsylvania (his home state) mightily to the upstart Republicans in the ''58 midterms, as well as Republican gains in other Northern States. This in turn paved the way for a Republican President in '60, the surprise dark-horse Lincoln, who was not even the initial favorite to be the Republican nominee (Seward was). Republican capture of the WH in '60, and the economic tightening it foretold for the South, then became the straw that broke the camel's back. Slavery had been a political agitater for decades at that point. But it was not the tripwire.

 

All excellent points.

I will only point out that slavery in the new territories was the main campaign platform for the Republicans in 1860.