Since there seems to be a lot of discussion about this in other threads; it's probably appropriate that an event this historical, controversial, and politically charged, should probably get its own thread by now. Feel free to discuss the issues, the battles, the tactics, and the historical figures like Lee and Lincoln all in here!

---

There's not much to say, most people buy the entire premise the noble North fought to free black slaves from the evil South. It's a narrative that's pushed in education, and ignores the gross abuse of power Lincoln displayed during the Civil War, the complex social and economical issues that lead to secession, and the result of an unsolvable union. 

---

There's not much to say, most people buy the entire premise the noble North fought to free black slaves from the evil South. It's a narrative that's pushed in education, and ignores the gross abuse of power Lincoln displayed during the Civil War, the complex social and economical issues that lead to secession, and the result of an unsolvable union. 

I think that it's wrong that all of the Confederates like Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson are labeled as "racists" and "traitors", when most Civil War veterans fought out of loyalty to their States. This is apparently a very difficult concept for most Americans to understand in the 21st century. We cannot continue to view history with 21st century eyes, and judge it from a politically correct standpoint. You know, most Southerners couldn't even afford slaves to begin with. It was just the planters, along with a rich and influential social hierarchy in the South which pushed the issue. 

 

The South's stubbornness in trying not to industrialize as heavily as the North did in the 1840's-1850's really screwed everyone over in the long run. Most historians will try to defend the Native's and their attacks on colonists and settlers as simply trying to defend their way of life in the 17th-19th centuries; but were people in the South fighting to defend their way of life as well? No doubt. Slavery is a horrible institution; but can it be argued that we are not slaves ourselves in this day and age as well? we're told what to do and believe; and most of us follow it without query.

 

 

Whoa. That was deep.

---

There's not much to say, most people buy the entire premise the noble North fought to free black slaves from the evil South. It's a narrative that's pushed in education, and ignores the gross abuse of power Lincoln displayed during the Civil War, the complex social and economical issues that lead to secession, and the result of an unsolvable union. 

You mean as opposed to the narrative that the south was just a bunch of good ol' boys wanting to fight for state's rights, while ignoring things like the fugitive slave act?  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

You mean as opposed to the narrative that the south was just a bunch of good ol' boys wanting to fight for state's rights, while ignoring things like the fugitive slave act?

Who's denying slavery was horrible, immoral, and the south was ramped with racism?


I do see plenty of people ignoring union slave states, openly racist actions and support for the fugitive slave act by Lincoln.

---

There's not much to say, most people buy the entire premise the noble North fought to free black slaves from the evil South. It's a narrative that's pushed in education, and ignores the gross abuse of power Lincoln displayed during the Civil War, the complex social and economical issues that lead to secession, and the result of an unsolvable union. 

 

The problem I had with you in the other thread was your statement that the civil war had nothing to do with slavery.  No one would disagree that history is a lot more complicated than one sentence like "the noble north fought to free black slaves from the evil south."   But slavery was the entire cause of the civil war.   The rise of the abolitionist movement in the north, the growing polarization of the country over the issue of slavery, the perceived threat to the "property" of southern plantation owners, the election of Lincoln, who was seen in the south as an abolitionist, the dispute over admission of new states and whether they should be slave states or free states, the south's fear that the balance of power in congress would tilt in favor of the free states, and that would lead to the abolition of slavery, these were all issues that led to southern secession, and they all had to do with slavery.  

 

No issue has ever polarized this country like the issue of slavery.  

 

When the south seceded, the north went to war to preserve the union.  But the war was caused by the south seceding, and the south seceded over the issue of slavery.   You can read it in the articles of secession, and in the correspondence of southern politicians, which spell out quite clearly that the cause of the south seceding was northern abolitionism. 

 

Lincoln did a lot of things that were definitely unconstitutional, to be sure.   He abolished habeas corpus.   In fact, the whole constitutionality of the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862 is debatable.   That's one of the reasons for the push for a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery in January 1865.  

 

But what really gripes me is people who try to minimize the role slavery had in causing the civil war.   And your statement in the other thread that "the civil war had nothing to do with slavery" makes me believe you have an enormous gap in your knowledge of history.

 

I see people like you occasionally, whose political beliefs have led them to cherry-pick historical facts to support those beliefs.  I think that is what is happening with you.  Your belief in states' rights, and your belief that federal power should be minimized, has led you to minimize the parts of history that are inconvenient for your political belief.   You want to minimize the parts of history where federal power did something good, and states' rights was in support of something bad.  In the Civil War, states' rights were invoked in support of slavery.   You would like to ignore that.     

---

I see people like you occasionally, whose political beliefs have led them to cherry-pick historical facts to support those beliefs.  I think that is what is happening with you.  Your belief in states' rights, and your belief that federal power should be minimized, has led you to minimize the parts of history that are inconvenient for your political belief.   You want to minimize the parts of history where federal power did something good, and states' rights was in support of something bad.  In the Civil War, states' rights were invoked in support of slavery.   You would like to ignore that.     

 

I honestly believe that we cannot in good faith stand here today and judge the actions of the actors of the Civil War. The politics, the landscape, even the basic understanding of the Constitution itself were so different from what we experience that we have no real frame of reference. I don't believe that Lincoln, Lee, Davis, Sherman, et al were bad people doing bad things, they were simply people of their times. Yes, the federal government did things they should not have, and yes, the South was fighting for the right to continue slavery. Those issues were decades old by the time the war broke out, it's a shame that it took so much bloodshed to do the right thing.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The problem I had with you in the other thread was your statement that the civil war had nothing to do with slavery.  No one would disagree that history is a lot more complicated than one sentence like "the noble north fought to free black slaves from the evil south."   But slavery was the entire cause of the civil war.   The rise of the abolitionist movement in the north, the growing polarization of the country over the issue of slavery, the perceived threat to the "property" of southern plantation owners, the election of Lincoln, who was seen in the south as an abolitionist, the dispute over admission of new states and whether they should be slave states or free states, the south's fear that the balance of power in congress would tilt in favor of the free states, and that would lead to the abolition of slavery, these were all issues that led to southern secession, and they all had to do with slavery.  

 

No issue has ever polarized this country like the issue of slavery.  

 

When the south seceded, the north went to war to preserve the union.  But the war was caused by the south seceding, and the south seceded over the issue of slavery.   You can read it in the articles of secession, and in the correspondence of southern politicians, which spell out quite clearly that the cause of the south seceding was northern abolitionism. 

 

Lincoln did a lot of things that were definitely unconstitutional, to be sure.   He abolished habeas corpus.   In fact, the whole constitutionality of the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862 is debatable.   That's one of the reasons for the push for a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery in January 1865.  

 

But what really gripes me is people who try to minimize the role slavery had in causing the civil war.   And your statement in the other thread that "the civil war had nothing to do with slavery" makes me believe you have an enormous gap in your knowledge of history.

 

I see people like you occasionally, whose political beliefs have led them to cherry-pick historical facts to support those beliefs.  I think that is what is happening with you.  Your belief in states' rights, and your belief that federal power should be minimized, has led you to minimize the parts of history that are inconvenient for your political belief.   You want to minimize the parts of history where federal power did something good, and states' rights was in support of something bad.  In the Civil War, states' rights were invoked in support of slavery.   You would like to ignore that.     

 

I'm not ignoring it, I have no problem telling you the South was beholden to slavery and slavery is immoral and wrong. You say the federal government did something good, that's where I disagree. Lincoln and his war on the south wasn't good, or noble, if anything it represents one of the darkest points in our history. I have no desire to white wash the tyrant like behavior of Lincoln. There was no greater good achieved that justified the death and destruction of the Civil War. Ending slavery is the excuse used to justify some of the most grievous of acts against the constitution in our history, the reality is slavery would've ended here like it did everywhere else with out the Civil War. The Civil War wasn't about the North ending slavery it was about Lincoln holding the union together at all cost.

---

I honestly believe that we cannot in good faith stand here today and judge the actions of the actors of the Civil War. The politics, the landscape, even the basic understanding of the Constitution itself were so different from what we experience that we have no real frame of reference. I don't believe that Lincoln, Lee, Davis, Sherman, et al were bad people doing bad things, they were simply people of their times. Yes, the federal government did things they should not have, and yes, the South was fighting for the right to continue slavery. Those issues were decades old by the time the war broke out, it's a shame that it took so much bloodshed to do the right thing.

 

So we can't judge the actions of history? In 100 years I guess we shouldn't judge the Actions of Hitler, Churchill, and Roosevelt as good or bad just people living in their times. What a bunch of crap.

---

I'm not ignoring it, I have no problem telling you the South was beholden to slavery and slavery is immoral and wrong. You say the federal government did something good, that's where I disagree. Lincoln and his war on the south wasn't good, or noble, if anything it represents one of the darkest points in our history. I have no desire to white wash the tyrant like behavior of Lincoln. There was no greater good achieved that justified the death and destruction of the Civil War. Ending slavery is the excuse used to justify some of the most grievous of acts against the constitution in our history, the reality is slavery would've ended here like it did everywhere else with out the Civil War. The Civil War wasn't about the North ending slavery it was about Lincoln holding the union together at all cost.

 

From Lincoln's second inaugural address: 

=============================================================

 One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.

 

Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the <i>cause</i> of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him?

 

Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." <a><i>3</i></a>   

 

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

======================================================

 

Who can possibly argue with that? 

---

Who's denying slavery was horrible, immoral, and the south was ramped with racism?


I do see plenty of people ignoring union slave states, openly racist actions and support for the fugitive slave act by Lincoln.

 

My point wasn't that the south was rampant with racism, but rather that if they were so much about state's rights, they wouldn't have supported the fugitive slave act.  Because that's very much a decrease in state's rights.  (and many people do downplay the horriblness of slavery)

 

I'm not ignoring it, I have no problem telling you the South was beholden to slavery and slavery is immoral and wrong. You say the federal government did something good, that's where I disagree. Lincoln and his war on the south wasn't good, or noble, if anything it represents one of the darkest points in our history. I have no desire to white wash the tyrant like behavior of Lincoln. There was no greater good achieved that justified the death and destruction of the Civil War. Ending slavery is the excuse used to justify some of the most grievous of acts against the constitution in our history, the reality is slavery would've ended here like it did everywhere else with out the Civil War. The Civil War wasn't about the North ending slavery it was about Lincoln holding the union together at all cost.

 

If the Confederates won, how long do you think it'd have been before they ended slavery?

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

This guys sums up the argument pretty well:

 

1. Failed to call Congress into session after the South fired upon Fort Sumter, in direct violation of the Constitution.
   
2. Called up an army of 75,000 men, bypassing the Congressional authority in direct violation of the Constitution.
   
3. Unilaterally suspended the writ of habeas corpus, a function of Congress, violating the Constitution. This gave him the power, as he saw it, to arrest civilians without charge and imprison them indefinitely without trial—which he did.
   
4. Ignored a Supreme Court order to restore the right of habeas corpus, thus violating the Constitution again and ignoring the Separation of Powers which the Founders put in place exactly for the purpose of preventing one man’s using tyrannical powers in the executive.
   
5. When the Chief Justice forwarded a copy of the Supreme Court’s decision to Lincoln, he wrote out an order for the arrest of the Chief Justice and gave it to a U.S. Marshall for expedition, in violation of the Constitution.
   
6. Unilaterally ordered a naval blockade of southern ports, an act of war, and a responsibility of Congress, in violation of the Constitution.
   
7. Commandeered and closed over 300 newspapers in the <i>North</i>, because of editorials against his war policy and his illegal military invasion of the South. This clearly violated the First Amendment freedom of speech and press clauses.
   
8. Sent in Army forces to destroy the printing presses and other machinery at those newspapers, in violation of the Constitution.
   
9. Arrested the publishers, editors and owners of those newspapers, and imprisoned them without charge and without trial for the remainder of the war, all in direct violation of both the Constitution and the Supreme Court order aforementioned.
   
10. Arrested and imprisoned, without charge or trial, another 15,000-20,000 U.S. citizens who dared to speak out against the war, his policies, or were suspected of anti-war feelings. (Relative to the population at the time, this would be equivalent to President G.W. Bush arresting and imprisoning roughly 150,000-200,000 Americans without trial for “disagreeing” with the Iraq war; can you imagine?)
    
11. Sent the Army to arrest the <i>entire legislature</i> of Maryland to keep them from meeting legally, because they were debating a bill of secession; they were all imprisoned without charge or trial, in direct violation of the Constitution.
    
12. Unilaterally created the state of West Virginia in direct violation of the Constitution.
    
13. Sent 350,000 Northern men to their deaths to kill 350,000 Southern men in order to force the free and sovereign states of the South to remain in the Union they, the people, legally voted to peacefully withdraw from, all in order to continue the South’s revenue flow into the North
    

https://snapoutofitamerica.wordpress.com...erate-war/

---

My point wasn't that the south was rampant with racism, but rather that if they were so much about state's rights, they wouldn't have supported the fugitive slave act.  Because that's very much a decrease in state's rights.  (and many people do downplay the horriblness of slavery)

 

 

If the Confederates won, how long do you think it'd have been before they ended slavery?

 

worse case the industrial revolution, but there was even moves away form slavery in the confederate south as early as 1864.

---

This guys sums up the argument pretty well:

 

1. Failed to call Congress into session after the South fired upon Fort Sumter, in direct violation of the Constitution.
   
2. Called up an army of 75,000 men, bypassing the Congressional authority in direct violation of the Constitution.
   
3. Unilaterally suspended the writ of habeas corpus, a function of Congress, violating the Constitution. This gave him the power, as he saw it, to arrest civilians without charge and imprison them indefinitely without trial—which he did.
   
4. Ignored a Supreme Court order to restore the right of habeas corpus, thus violating the Constitution again and ignoring the Separation of Powers which the Founders put in place exactly for the purpose of preventing one man’s using tyrannical powers in the executive.
   
5. When the Chief Justice forwarded a copy of the Supreme Court’s decision to Lincoln, he wrote out an order for the arrest of the Chief Justice and gave it to a U.S. Marshall for expedition, in violation of the Constitution.
   
6. Unilaterally ordered a naval blockade of southern ports, an act of war, and a responsibility of Congress, in violation of the Constitution.
   
7. Commandeered and closed over 300 newspapers in the <i>North</i>, because of editorials against his war policy and his illegal military invasion of the South. This clearly violated the First Amendment freedom of speech and press clauses.
   
8. Sent in Army forces to destroy the printing presses and other machinery at those newspapers, in violation of the Constitution.
   
9. Arrested the publishers, editors and owners of those newspapers, and imprisoned them without charge and without trial for the remainder of the war, all in direct violation of both the Constitution and the Supreme Court order aforementioned.
   
10. Arrested and imprisoned, without charge or trial, another 15,000-20,000 U.S. citizens who dared to speak out against the war, his policies, or were suspected of anti-war feelings. (Relative to the population at the time, this would be equivalent to President G.W. Bush arresting and imprisoning roughly 150,000-200,000 Americans without trial for “disagreeing” with the Iraq war; can you imagine?)
    
11. Sent the Army to arrest the <i>entire legislature</i> of Maryland to keep them from meeting legally, because they were debating a bill of secession; they were all imprisoned without charge or trial, in direct violation of the Constitution.
    
12. Unilaterally created the state of West Virginia in direct violation of the Constitution.
    
13. Sent 350,000 Northern men to their deaths to kill 350,000 Southern men in order to force the free and sovereign states of the South to remain in the Union they, the people, legally voted to peacefully withdraw from, all in order to continue the South’s revenue flow into the North
    

https://snapoutofitamerica.wordpress.com...erate-war/

 

The same article says, "In retrospect, it is a tragedy that John Wilkes Booth did not act four years earlier." 

 

Holy God of Mercy, is this where you get your political views? 

---

worse case the industrial revolution, but there was even moves away form slavery in the confederate south as early as 1864.

 

No way is that the worst case.  Worst case is that Slavery would still be around today.  Racism is still rampant in the south.  And giving more generations of the south slavery to grow up on, it would only get much worse.

 

I imagine, barring any wars, that slavery in the south would last until at least the 1960's.  If not much later.  Moves away from slavery were made because of the Emancipation Proclamation.  If the North just let the south secede 'peacefully' we'd probably have slavery around still today.  Assuming of course a foreign nation didn't take over the confederacy or the union in some time after that.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

The same article says, "In retrospect, it is a tragedy that John Wilkes Booth did not act four years earlier." 

 

Holy God of Mercy, is this where you get your political views? 

 

So you can't dispute any of the facts or information, only attack his commentary at the end? I guess the discussion is over.

---

No way is that the worst case.  Worst case is that Slavery would still be around today.  Racism is still rampant in the south.  And giving more generations of the south slavery to grow up on, it would only get much worse.

 

I imagine, barring any wars, that slavery in the south would last until at least the 1960's.  If not much later.  Moves away from slavery were made because of the Emancipation Proclamation.  If the North just let the south secede 'peacefully' we'd probably have slavery around still today.  Assuming of course a foreign nation didn't take over the confederacy or the union in some time after that.

 

That's funny, only stupid Southerners would need the emancipation proclamation to end slavery. The rest of the world (outside of the Arabs) figured it out, but damn those stupid white southerners, good thing we had a war over it.

---

No way is that the worst case.  Worst case is that Slavery would still be around today.  Racism is still rampant in the south.  And giving more generations of the south slavery to grow up on, it would only get much worse.

 

I imagine, barring any wars, that slavery in the south would last until at least the 1960's.  If not much later.  Moves away from slavery were made because of the Emancipation Proclamation.  If the North just let the south secede 'peacefully' we'd probably have slavery around still today.  Assuming of course a foreign nation didn't take over the confederacy or the union in some time after that.

 

I think that even if the North had allowed the South to secede, there was no way to avoid a whole lot of bloodshed, with hundreds of thousands of people killed and lots of property destroyed.  

 

Of course we are totally speculating, but, I think slavery might well have ended in a bloody slave rebellion around the 1870s or 1880s.   I think the abolitionist movement would have evolved into a movement to arm and educate the slaves.    A slave rebellion had already happened in Haiti, and Nat Turner had led a slave rebellion in Virginia in 1831 that had killed 60 white people.  God knows how many slaves were killed during and after that rebellion. 

 

Even if the South had managed to secede, the abolitionist movement in the North would not have given up. 

 

600,000 soldiers were killed in the Civil War.   I think more people than that would have been killed in a massive slave rebellion.  

 

And no, there was no way the South was going to give up slavery.   On an average plantation, where the rich people lived and from which the political class was drawn, the value of the slaves exceeded the value of the land and all the farm implements.   Give up their slaves?   You might as well ask a cattleman to give up his cattle.  

---

So you can't dispute any of the facts or information, only attack his commentary at the end? I guess the discussion is over.

 

Eric,war is hell.   That was a nice list of all the bad things Lincoln did to win the war.  Don't be naive.  Worse things have happened in every war in history. 

 

Put all that stuff that Lincoln did to win the war up against Plantation owners owning human slaves for 250 years.   Four million human slaves by 1860.   What a comparison. 

 

And that website.  Wow.   They wish Lincoln had been assassinated 4 years earlier?   You agree with that?  

---

Eric,war is hell.   That was a nice list of all the bad things Lincoln did to win the war.  Don't be naive.  Worse things have happened in every war in history. 

 

Put all that stuff that Lincoln did to win the war up against Plantation owners owning human slaves for 250 years.   Four million human slaves by 1860.   What a comparison. 

 

And that website.  Wow.   They wish Lincoln had been assassinated 4 years earlier?   You agree with that?  

 

You keep trying to validate what Lincoln did by comparing it to the evil of the plantation owners. The one does not justify the other, the slave holders are not justified by the atrocities the Union army committed against the south. Your victim of the Whig Theory of History. The Whig Theory of History has been equally adopted by the Left and Neo-Conservatives, where the ends justifies the means and all the atrocities that have been committed against Americans by our own government where justifiable as a progressive march towards more liberty and freedom.

 

Lincoln by his own admission didn't care about slavery, that should end the debate right there.

---