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

What if the United States collapsed, or are you saying that could never happen?

 

Or, we were taunting Saddam Hussein into snubbing his nose at us so we could use it as an excuse to invade Iraq for purposes that are not public.

I went to Iraq, OIF II, in a USA infantry unit, and my experience was that the politics of it was very limited. We all agreed that it sucked, and most of us questioned the motives.

The only justification for killing anyone that I ever heard was that we were all still pissed about 9/11 and figured that the ones we were fighting in Iraq were affiliated with those responsible. (*)(*)(*)(*) Al Qaeda

Of course you know we were only fighting for our lives and the life of our buddy, who is more like a brother than a buddy. With the exception of rare instances, my unit never once opened fire until after being directly or indirectly engaged. In other words, we were fighting for our lives, not to "cling to an ideology to justify why they are killing those that wouldn't attack them if not for being in their country."

est: There were times when we didn't return fire.

 

“I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way 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.”

......Abraham Lincoln

Incorrect in your above assessment about cotton.

Almost unanimously, Southerners believed they could use cotton to lure England and France into recognizing the Confederacy. Since the administration of Jefferson Davis wanted to avoid any appearance of international "blackmail," the Confederate Congress never formally approved an embargo, but state governments and private citizens voluntarily withheld the crop from the market in hopes of causing a "cotton famine" overseas. Theoretically, widespread shortages would shut down European mills, forcing governments to recognize and perhaps come to the military aid of the Confederacy, or to declare the Union blockade ineffective and disregard or break it in order to reopen Southern ports.

The "King Cotton" mentality was seriously flawed, not the least in overestimating the value of "white gold." First, a bumper crop in 1860 had glutted the marketplace, lowering prices and allowing mill owners to stockpile. Cotton prices did rise sharply late in 1861, but workers, not owners, suffered from the effects of unemployment. Producers, drawing from their reserves, did not feel the pinch until late in 1862, and within a year imports from India, Egypt, and Brazil sufficiently replaced Southern cotton. Second, Davis, never an astute diplomat, failed to recognize how much Europe feared the possibility of war with the U.S. Private European citizens and industrialists invested in speculative ventures tenuously backed by Southern cotton securities, but their governments would not antagonize the North by recognizing the Confederacy for the sake of guaranteeing those investments or increasing supplies of the staple.

Source: "Historical Times Encyclopedia of the Civil War" edited by Patricia L. Faust

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

The Emancipation Proclamation was an attempt to tie slavery to the war, but it was not for domestic purposes. Rather it was to keep England from recognizing the South. Note that the EP only addressed slavery in Confederate territory and did not address slaves in the border states that remained in the Union.

England's support of the South was one of principle rather than their own self interest. This can be illustrated in the following from English publications.

"Democracy broke down, not when the Union ceased to be agreeable to all its constituent States, but when it was upheld, like any other Empire, by force of arms." ~ The London Times.

"With what pretence of fairness, it is said, can you Americans object to the secession of the Southern States when your nation was founded on secession from the British Empire?" ~ Cornhill Magazine (London) 1861.

"The struggle of today is on the one side for empire and on the other for independence." ~ Wigan Examiner (UK) May, 1861.

"The Southerners are admired for everything but their slavery and that their independence may be speedily acknowledged by France and England is, we are convinced, the strong desire of the vast majority, not only in England but throughout Europe." ~ Liverpool Daily Post, 11 March 1862.

 

Amazing how true history confounds pop history. Abraham Lincoln has monuments sculpted in his honor. His likeness is on our currency. He is taught in schools as the Great Emancipator, a kind soul that hated slavery and bigotry and was forced to go to war to end it. I've taken heat for saying it, but I will keep saying that the only difference between Abraham Lincoln and Adolf Hitler is that Abraham Lincoln had Adolf Hitler had better, more truthful historians tell his story.

 

Robert E. Lee opposed the war, but had greater loyalty to his home state of Virginia than to the United States. When he resigned his commission in the U.S. Army, he made it clear that he hoped he would never go to war again.

I believe most of the Southern Army felt the same way- they had loyalty to their home states.

But the reason for Secession was slavery- not the abolition of slavery but whether slavery would be extended into the new Western territories. This issue had been brewing for 40 years or so, and the Southern States had threatened secession before. The South saw the Republican victory in the North as the final straw threatening their institution of Slavery- which is why the South Carolina Declaration of the Causes of Secession says in part:

"We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of Slavery; they have permitted the open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

....and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the Common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that Slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

.....On the 4th March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced, that the South shall be excluded from the common Territory; that the Judicial Tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States."

Most of the whole declaration of the reasons of Secession was South Carolina explaining that it was seceding because it's institution of Slavery was threatened.

Governor Pickets inaugeral address identified Slavery as the root of the conflict between North and South:

In the Southern States there are two entirely distinct and separate races, and one has been held in subjection to the other by peaceful inheritance from worthy and patriotic ancestors, and all who know the races, well know that it is the only form of government that can preserve both and administer the blessings of civilization with order and in harmony. Any thing tending to change or weaken this government and the subordination between the races not only endangers the peace, but the very existence of our society itself


South Carolina was the first state to secede. Slavery was not the only issue- but it was the primary reason that the South attempted to secede from the United States.

The primary reason for the North was preserving the Union- not eliminating slavery. Emancipation was a result of the expansion of the conflict.

In the end though, there were two important results of the Civil War:

a) The 13th Amendment was passed, and slavery in the United States was abolished.
b) The United States remained whole, and people started to identify themselves as Americans, not Wisconsins or Alabamians. This set the stage for the great age of America, with the expansion Westward, and the emergence of the United States as a world leader.

 

You have taken heat for comparing Lincoln and Hitler?

What a shock.

You probably also get heat for extolling the virtues of Hitler.

People are funny that way.

 

Oops! Actually Robert E. Lee supported resistance to any invasion of Virginia by force of arms.

Oops! The reason for secession (lower case, you capital happy nut!) was the crippling tariffs that stifled trade between the agricultural South and Great Britain and other countries. The Northern states were indifferent to the economic impact these tariffs would have on the South. The eleven seceding states had no vested interest in whether or not candidate territories would have slaves or not.

Oops! The first states to threaten secession were the New England states during the Hartford Convention. Deliberations over secession were hardly native to the South.

Oops! Slavery was never the driving issue. South Carolina threatened to secede when the "tariffs of abomination" were enacted in 1828. This remained the dominant issue not only for South Carolina, but for many other states as well.

The two important results of the War for Southern Independence were 600,000 dead Americans including an entire generation of Southern men which impoverished the Southern states for the next 100 years and then the exansion of federal power well beyond its constitutional limits. The wholesale slaughter of the Native Americans (my people) are easily attributed to a large federal army that was not dismantled after the war, but was instead retasked to deal with "America's Indian problem." Even the famed 40 acres and a mule promised to each freed slave denotes a move toward communism whereby property can be seized from one person and given to another. The unchecked expansion of federal power over the states in earnest can be traced back the the War for Southern Independence.

 

Glossing over the crimes of an evil man is itself evil. Like a true Leftist, you accuse me of the very wrongdoing you're guilty of. You people are so predictable.

 

There were 11 states in the Confederacy. Only 7 at the outbreak of hostilities. The other 4 joined because they refused to send troops for Lincoln to wage war against Southerners, their own countrymen.

I have read all the Secession Documents and only 4 mention slavery, if I'm remembering right. It doesn't matter, though. All could have left for that reason, or any other, and they would have been within their rights. The US was a voluntary union of States.

You list slavery as S. Carolina's primary reason....for secession.

You list preserving the Union as Lincoln's primary reason....for making war.

Care to justify how that leap is accomplished?

Brazil was the last country in this hemisphere to abolish slavery and, like all other countries, did so peacefully. There is no reason to think the same thing wouldn't have been accomplished here.

Taking into account the 600,000+ dead, the loss of the government our Founders intended, and the legacy of strained race relations til this day, one can hardly say it was worth it.

After the war, the 'great age of America' as you call it, was ushered in with the genocide of the native peoples with the biggest war criminal of the North, William T. Sherman, in charge of the army.

Some legacy. We could have done SO much better.

 

Of course he did. As I said, he saw himself as a citizen of Virginia first. What oops is there? He hoped he would never go to war, but defended Virginia when Virginia was attacked.

I pointed out that South Carolina specifically pointed to Slavery in its reasons for secession. Are you saying that the first state to secede was lying?

The Southern states fought tooth and nail to ensure that the new territories would not be Free states. If they had no vested interest, it is odd that they worked so hard on the issue.

If those are what you take to consider the most important results of the Civil War, and not the end of slavery, then that just is an indication of what your priorities are. If you regret the successes of the United States in the 20th Century, then I would say that also shows what your priorities are.

 

I don't have time to argue your other points. So tell me, starting from the point of South Carolina's succession, how you believe 'we could have done so much better"- I am honestly curious.

 

Going back to the original topic of the thread which is identified in the title: The Civil War - The version they don't teach in school

We actually are taught about these things in school and none of it is being hidden. From the atrocities of the war to the political reasons behind it all of this is addressed by our education system. Some would argue that all of these issues are not addressed in the single history book used in the classroom which is true. Not all of it can be contained in a single book that merely provides an overview but our schooling has never been limited to a single book in the classroom.

Every student has an obligation to go beyond that single text book and to explore and learn more about the subject of the class and many of these issues are accurately addressed in classroom discussions. Basically the title of the thread is false as all of the issues that have been discussed in this thread are open to discussion in our classrooms today.

 

Once again: IF the Union Army headed by Ulyssus S.Grant was fighting to "free the slaves" then they should have shot Grant first, since he did NOT free his own slaves (his wife owned them) until 1865. Other Union Generals owned slaves, some not freed until 1868.

And Once again: IF the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia, composed of young men from farms WITHOUT slaves, was fighting to "keep the slaves enslaved"(which is illogical in itself) then they would NOT have followed Robert E.Lee, who worked to FREE slaves,never actually owned slaves, and DID free the slaves from a plantation he INHERITED by marriage, by 1862.


http://rulen.com/myths/

 

Uh... folks, none of us or our parents, or our grandparents, were even alive when the Civil War occurred.

The ONLY take home lesson from this war is that we should never put one citizen's race over another... or one states preferences over another when it comes to a national policy.

Most of us have incorporated that lesson into our character and actions. Others, have not, just as there will always be people who discriminate against fat people, short people, ugly people, bald people, etc...

 

.The War for Southern Independence was the turning point for America from it's constitutionally supported republic of a voluntary union of states to a federal controlled national government where the states became agents of the federal government instead of the different states serving as agents of the people within them.

The extermination of an enormous sector of the southern people and the total destruction of their entire culture gave the majority northern (eastern) states total power over the minority states of the south.

America then became "one nation indivisible" instead of a union of voluntary states with a federal government but rather instead, a union with a national government.

 

While to some extent this is pragmatically correct based upon US Supreme Court decisions and Article V of the US Constitution it is inaccurate as the States still have ultimate power over the Federal government. The ability of the States to call for a Constitutional Convention and to change or abolish the US Constitution remains intact and there isn't anything the Federal government can do to prevent that. The Supreme Court has also maintained that there is dual sovereignty in the United States with the States maintaining sovereignty over some matters while the Federal government maintains sovereignty over other matters. We are a "federalist republic" unlike any other nation and this dual sovereignty does exist here.

There is also a pragmatic consideration related to a State leaving the Union. If for example, California which has the 7th largest GDP in the world, were to decide to leave the United States would we have a president and US military that would be willing to actually attack and invade California? It's hard to say. If not opposed by military force then California, or any State, could logically withdraw from the United States. It might be very hard to convince a bomber pilot to bomb Los Angeles or for an Air Force general to order such an attack.

While some may say that the States won't call for a Constitutional Convention and desolve the Union I can cite a pragmatic reason for doing so. If the US government continues to pile up more and more debt a time may come when the American People and the States may decide to desolve the Union simply to eliminate the overwhelming debt. This debt is owed by the Federal government and not the American People or the States if the Union is desolved. In such a case the United States government would be like a Chapter 7 bankruptcy where it has no assets to pay for the debt it has created. The States could simply divide all of the assets, such as gold held by the US government, based upon apportionment and be done with the national debt.

 

"Freeing the slaves" was a propaganda recruitment tool of the Union but that does not imply that the primary reason for the secession of the Southern States wasn't based upon the issue of slavery.

 

I have no idea...

...but a sovereign/unilateral right to secede (as distinguished from a right to secede based on violation of a state's rights under the Constitution) cannot be properly inferred from 9A,10A, or anything else in the Constitution - which, I suspect, is why I haven't come across any claim to the contrary in any of the Declarations of Secession.

 

A footnote. In the original draft of the "Kentucky Resolution" in 1798, Thomas Jefferson vehemently argued that states can exercise "scission", which was his word for succession. The Kentucky State Legislature removed his most vitriolic passages to such before passing it. In the concurrent Virginia Resolution of 1799, Madison argued essentially the same thing, although he was far more subdued in how he phrased it.

Point being, both Madison and Jefferson recognized the right of the State to do such. Not everyone agreed with them, but Madison in particular knew a thing or two about that document.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_and_Virginia_Resolutions

 

Gee, not one shred of evidence to back up your claims. Not suprising.

 

This is actually interesting in today's political world as Downsize.org has submitted a Writ of Certiorari related to "Obamacare" to the US Supreme Court which addresses the denial of standing by the 4th District Court of Appeals to the Virginia law that exempts citizens of Virginia from the mandatory requirement to purchase health care insurance. It cites this Right of the States to challenge the unconsitutionality of federal laws that was denied to Virginia when the Appeals Court decision denied Virginia standing in their lawsuit against "Obamacare" although that is only one part of the Writ of Certiorari.

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog-content/virginia-v-sebelius-marshall-amicus-brief-final.pdf

 

I readily admit it can be a fascinating read if one has the time. In the original 1798-99 Resolutions, the "onerous law" for which Jefferson and Madison argued "scission" was the Sedition Act, stating essentially that it was a viable option for a state if it was the only one remaining in order to nullify the law. Madison pulled his punches significantly, and was always a more calming voice to the firebrand Jefferson.

I am not sure exactly how different Southern States couched their arguments in 1861 (or the lead-up), but while I believe their motivation was economic, and brought to a head in how tariffs (and the '57 Panic) had shaped actual geo-political boundaries in 1858, and again in 1860, the written argument seemed more a "right to Slavery", or the "States Rights" basis.

I am hoping for at least the live audio of the 5 1/2 hours of argument on Obamacare. I am otherwise behind on all the machinations of the current Obamacare challenges.

 

The southern states succession from the northern industrial, centralized union was constitutional and perfectly legal and it WAS NOT done to preserve slavery but was instead done in the name of self determination and freedom.

The Yankee invasion of the south was a deliberate effort to concentrate a federal power and a federal union of states being that government's agents and that had absolutely nothing to do with the constitutional form of Republican government supported by men like Thomas Jefferson and all anti federalists.

The Yankees formed their sectional party, the Republican party which WAS NOT an American political party but rather a sectional party to insure that federal power be implicated both from and within the northern majority states. They then in turn launched a war of aggression against the south mainly because they did not want to lose the revenue the southerners were providing them once the lower south states left.

Thomas Jefferson republicanism and the constitutional right of self determination and the idea of government by consent of the governed was replaced by union nationalism by force with the power of a bayonet.

 

That word cannot be found here.

I think you mean 1798. In any case, let's see the verbatim quotes to that effect from each, in context.

Sure he did, but I defy anyone, as I have for years, to make any sense out of his interpretation of A1S8C1 in Federalist #41 - the point being, there aren't any "go to guys" as far as constitutional interpretation is concerned, wherefore we must ultimately be guided by the plain meaning of the provision at the time it was written, in the light of common sense.

 

Ace. You need to read my earlier post on this, as I explained both Jefferson's bastardization of the word, and also that the final Resolution was watered down by the Kentucky Legislature. Otherwise, you can do your own homework. Try the book "Founding Brothers", by Joseph Ellis. Chapter 5 "The Collaborators", for starters.

You have The Federalist Papers, written pre-Constitutional ratification. But as I noted, we also have the actions of the Madison-Jefferson collaboration more than a decade later. As I noted, folks disagreed with the Resolutions, such as Geo Washington, John Jay, and others.