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

I was taught this in school Dr. Righteous. Your claim that public education doesn't teach this version is false. However, when it was taught to us, the connotation of Lincoln's actions is niether good nor bad. Furthermore, you're referring to the tariff of abominations, right? I was taught about this as well. The nullification crisis that resulted from it did create more sparks that led to secession, but it was not the main reason. Tariffs and protectionism can be considered one cause. Another can be the issue of state's rights versus the elastic clause.

 

Agreed. I cannot show all electoral maps, but prior to 1860, none were close to the clear divide, North vs. South, as with 1860. As things became politically untenable with the fallout of the Panic of '57, and the electoral map for 1860 shows shows the clear geographic polarization of our political parties. It is very true, as you state, that the South saw the North's attempts to limit slavery as essentially grabbing a political plurality in the Senate, and to then reimpose tariffs and vote slavery out.

Here is the map:



Side note. The lowering of tariffs, which helped induce the Panic of '57, which was felt enormously in the North, was done in part because the Government had been running a surplus

Edit in: Here's a block of the prior four electoral maps, with '56 being Buchanan's win. The Panic of '57, and his failure to deal with it adequately to satisfy NJ, PA, and IL, caused the final breech. It also supports the OP's assertions visually, as it was economics that shaped the shift from 1856 to 1860.

 

Now the bolded statement is revisionist history. You are justifying events such as Bleeding Kansas and the Pottawatomie Massacre as the beginning of the Civil War?

 

Mostly true, poorly written, and some time tables are off. Don't rush it next time ADHD.

 

Minor tariff? South Carolina threatened the seceded years before the Civil War during the Tarrif of Abominations. Not to mention that the South Paid 80% of the tarrifs so that the north with larger representation in congress could vote the money away from the south for internal improvements and corporate welfare up north. (by the way, the confederate states constitution forbids corporate welfare for this reason). Moreover, and this is the BIG one, what was Fort Sumpter used for? It was used to enforce the tarrif laws on ships entering and leaving Charleston Harbor, the largest port in the south. Furthermore, Lincoln had removed troops from all forts in the South except two, though the first shots were not fired on Ft Sumpter, where I might add, no one died as a result of enemie fire. I also find it ironic that the new England states that were the first to threaten secession were also the first to condemn it when the south did it. As far as the legitimacy goes the south seceded through the republican process, a much more legitamet means than when we fought the American Revolution. Furthermore, America before had recognized many seceeding countries who did so by less than legit means. Read your declaration of independence if you want to know when separation is warranted. Then you will find that the southwas well within its means. Remember we had a "federal" government then, we have a "national" government now.

There are many of these videos out there. Hours and hours by economic historian Thomas Delorinzo. May I suggest you watch them?
http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=/&gl=US#/watch?v=He2R6_2hysk
http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=/&gl=US#/watch?v=IJkhBwIf75A



.

 

Yes. Thank you. We're talking about crippling tariffs. Many people know that the South fired on Ft. Sumpter over the issue of tariffs. What few people know is the peaceful, constitutional efforts that were made to persuade Congress to reverse the tariffs. But those overtures fell on deaf ears as the population dense north was fully immersed in the "electoral might makes right". Firing on Ft. Sumpter was an act of desperation. The tariffs would destroy the agriculturally based economy of the South and the North just didn't give a (*)(*)(*)(*).

That's why real historians blame the intransigence of the North for steering the country in the direction of war.

 

Yes, the Southern Peace Commission was rejected an audience with Lincoln before the firing on the fort. Furthermore, the south was against corporate welfare and pointed to Article one section eight to make their case against it (for the general, not specific, welfare).The Southern Democrats before the pregressive era were the Constituional Conservatives of their day. If you look at the differences between the confederate states constitutiona and the u.s. constitution you will find the true reason they seceded. Slavery was just rhetoric for the southern rich folk so they would donate money to democratic political campaigns. Most southerners did not own slaves and they no more fought to keep slavery than the north fought to abolish it. Not to mention the Corwin amendment proposed by Lincoln, passed by congress, and still awaiting adoption by the states today guaranteed that the constitution would never be amendmended to abolish slavery. If the south seceded over slavery they would have taken the deal. They did not.

 

The issue was slavery.

 

"Because I say so" is one sure way to make oneself look stupid here.

Mission accomplished.

 

Yeah. The overwhelming majority of southerners who didn't own slaves were going to fight a war to maintain slavery and the north was going to sacrifice their lives to free slaves in far off places after they voted for a constitutional amendment forbidding the abolishment of slavery. You don't see the flaw of that reasoning? Are you an Ostrich?

Slavery was a red herring used by southern politicians to get campaign support from wealthy slave owning doners. And the debates on secession discussed far more than slavery.

 

I'll go slower this time.

Read * the * debates * on * secession.

 

The issue was not primarily slavery. The culture of Slavery in the US was in the process of dying regardless.

Lex and SaintMichael are spot on in their historical narrative.

 

Doesn't matter how slowly you type. You're not correct.

 

There is no connection between individual liberty and state sovereignty!! In fact, they are often directly at odds with each other!! The duality of thought expressed by many libertarians on this issue is shocking!! I personally don't care one bit about state sovereignty, but I do care a lot about individual liberty. I support state sovereignty when they are on the side of reason and liberty, and I oppose it when they are not. That is the only reasonable position for anyone who supports liberty to take!! It is states who ban gay marriage, states who make sodomy illegal, states who imprison women for having miscarriages, states and other local governments that ban gun ownership, states that execute their citizens, etc, etc, etc!! While the federal government is certainly more than capable of imposing on liberty as well, the solution is NOT more state government. As state government is JUST AS ABLE to impose on individual liberty!!


The Civil War WAS about slavery, and the southern "state's rights" to own other human beings as property!!! Irrational libertarians support that right, even though it is antithetical to liberty!! One either needs to support liberty or states rights, they often can't support both. I fall on the side of liberty, you fall on the side of state's rights!! I think that is absurd.


Last of all, the civil war was unquestionably about slavery. That is not up for debate among informed individuals. However, there is a real problem with the narrative sold in many schools. It goes like this "the north was fighting to free slaves, the south was fighting to keep slaves enslaved, therefore the south were racists and the north were fighting for racial justice." Now that narrative is IDIOTIC!! Many anti-slavery activists were just as racist as any slave owner, and their objection to slavery was about having all free white men in the territories. They didn't want to have to compete with black slave labor for land and jobs. That was a huge current in the anti-slavery movement. So we can all agree this was not a war about black freedom, BUT IT WAS about slavery!!


PS. It was also unquestionably about economics, and tariffs mattered to an extent, but even more importantly slavery was an economic issue!!

 

Slavery was a political red herring used by politicians to gain support from wealthy slave owning doners. Kind of like the Mediscare tactics of today. Reading the debates on secession will only reveal that there were many issues other than slavery which is why you have yet to reference any. Been there, done that.

 

Did you honestly jump into the conversation by replying to my reply to someone else and taking it completely out of context?

 

Frodly. That is not a compelling argument.

 

So according to you, it makes more sense to you to say "northerners fought to impose tariffs on southerners?" Don't you see the flaw in that reasoning!! Northerners absolutely were willing to fight for a multitude of reasons, some truly opposed slavery as a moral evil, and wanted to see blacks given equal rights. Others opposed slavery on economic grounds, as they wanted all new territories and states to be free soil, so white people didn't have to compete with slave labor in the territories and new states. Some fought for racist reasons, as they didn't want black people in the territories and new states at all, including free blacks. Others fought out of patriotism. Others to preserve the union. Others for state pride. Others out of duty. Others out of comradery. The list goes on and on. What I can say with a good deal of certainty, is almost none fought to impose tariffs on southerners who did not want those tariffs!!

 

Some people don' need no stinkin' facts.

 

Jumping into conversations is what happens at debate forums. How does that have you confused?

 

Ok. However, the above certainly is!! How can I even hope to respond to such an airtight argument?

 

I take it your an economic novice who doesent know the implications of 80% of your tax revenue (80% of tarrifs were paid by the south) going down the tube and your tarrif loving country (tarrifs were your only source of tax revenue) neighboring another with a free trade agreement with foreigners? (free trade for an independent southern nation means that no one will trade with the north and they would be forced to buy raw materials needed for industry 1st and 2nd hand from the south at a high rate. Please tell me I dont need to go in to more detail. I don't feel like searching for northern news papers screaming about the economic destruction of the industrialized north at the hands of southern secession.

Northerners invaded the south for reasons that Lincoln himself admitted weren't to abolish slavery. And he should know. He gave the order.

 

Not speaking for Lex, but the North did not fire the first shot. The flaw is in the assumption you made about what others here have been saying (see what I bolded). The South fired the first shot, and the North then responded, expecting a cake-walk. After that, no one gave two craps about slavery or tariffs when they picked up their guns.

 

Exactly - but wait: are you certain that you're not the one missing the facts?

Read up on what the facts actually are wrt the Civil War. Slavery was a red herring: it was used to create a moral highground for the oppressive "Big Government" types of the North, while simultaneously galvanizing Southern Plantation owners to action, mostly with their wallets.

Slavery as an American institution was dying. This was about State's Rights, and funding Central Government via tariff placed unfairly on certain state populations.

 

In reference to my last post I beg the differ.