How Texas is whitewashing Civil War history
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
I share your fears. I'm afraid it's too far gone. And, I see Lincoln's administration as a pioneer of the system we have in place now. A huge centralized government is what he wanted and got. And, look at the lives it cost. The legacy and impact of hundreds of thousands dead in unprecedented fashion. The destruction of the South. That scale was inconceivable. It left such a deep wound. The poor whites of the South probably had no ill will toward blacks prior to the war. Then, after it, they became sworn enemies due to the loss of their entire world.
As I have also said earlier, wars are always fought for profit and wealth of a very few at the expense of the poor who do the fighting and dying. People being "freed" afterward is incidental and then emphasized to justify the wars to the masses so they'll accept the next war. It's been going on for the last 12 years now. If Americans had to endure what the Southern civilian populations endured every time the US has been at war, the frequency might slow down to a halt.
I thought I was in agreement with you that we should stop glorifying an inglorious past and move on in unity. I guess I fail to grasp either of your points, but that is mine.
You were championing Lincoln as being (or had been) on your team recently. He's not on my team.
You do realize that the major cause of the sectional strife and conflict was, ummmm......SLAVERY, right?
And what does that have to do with anything I've said here or anything AT said? I don't think either of you are making a cogent point, just some lazy trolling.
Not exactly mutually exclusive points since the South at that time viewed slavery as a states rights issue.
The fact that black people resent white people and hold slavery accountable to present day white people is not a past problem.
Perhaps you thought you answered my question, but you did not. I asked if the South would still have seceded even if they did not fear that slavery was in imminent danger of being banned. You claimed they did, which is a fundamentally flawed answer because the South most certainly feared slavery was in imminent danger of being outlawed and so we have no way of knowing whether they would have seceded otherwise.
I am familiar with the tariffs placed on the South. I am aware of the disparity between the industrialized North and the agrarian South.
Have you ever even read South Carolina's declaration of secession? There is no mention of tariffs. It is, however, bloated with references to slavery. It prattles on at some length about how northern states have repeatedly and increasingly subverted their constitutional rights by violating the Fugitive Slave Act. It rails against northern states passing laws that make it difficult for slave holders to reclaim their "property".
Here's the part that underscores my point about the South fearing the nationwide abolition of slavery:
A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, 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.
They saw that the writing was on the wall. The institution of slavery was in its death throes, but they weren't about to go gentle into that good night. They raged against the dying of the light. They fully realized the only way to continue slavery was to secede from the Union and form their own separate nation.
Yes, I'm sure they were pissed about the tariffs, too. But it is completely insane to suggest that slavery was not, by a very wide margin, the most important issue regarding secession.
Your post seems fairly accurate about Lincoln early in the conflict. But, in fairness, read further about: how his compass changed, his relationship with Frederick Douglass, his reputation among African Americans(both free and enslaved). Then read transcripts of his famous speeches during the war, and see if what you said is still justified.
I'm talking about Lincoln, the man. I have, for a long time, felt that slavery was not the main issue for the North at the beginning of the war.
You, also, mention his(the Norths) invasion of the South, as if they initiated the actual fighting. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was the other way around.
I think my favorite revisionist history claim by southerners is that secession wasn't about slavery and that it was mostly about states' rights and their aversion to a strong central government.
Because when South Carolina seceded and a bunch of other states followed suit, the very first thing they did was establish a central government with a constitution nearly identical to the United States, except that it guaranteed the right to own slaves in any existing or future state.
Because when South Carolina seceded and a bunch of other states followed suit, the very first thing they did was establish a central government with a constitution nearly identical to the United States, except that it guaranteed the right to own slaves in any existing or future state.
And they opposed the northern states' rights to ignore the Fugitive Slave Law.
Lincoln himself said it was more about secession than anything. He flat out said, that "If I could keep the union together, and not free a slave, I would."
So suck it. It's the truth, and like most of histories truths, it is an ugly one. Hitler rose partly in due to American industry and European Banking, Pearl Harbor could have been averted, Vietnam was a waste, the WMD's were either not there at all, or GREATLY exaggerated by both sides, elections are rigged(see 2000), our government is inept(see ACA, 9-11, Federal Defecit), and you're owned by the Banks.
That's life buddy, that's America. Let Freedom ring....let me know when it starts.
You're arguing an entirely different issue. I'm talking about the South's motivations for seceding. You're talking about Lincoln's motivations for going to war. Those are two different things.
Yes, Lincoln placed a higher priority on preserving the Union than he did abolishing slavery. I'm sure he would have been quite content to abolish slavery through the legislative process rather than going to war.
But the issue here is southerners revising the history of why they seceded in the first place. They desperately want to downplay the issue of slavery when in fact there is a mountain of evidence that it was by far the single biggest factor in secession.
That's not true. It is an often made claim, but the fact is that the Confederate constitution greatly restricts the power of the federal government in ways the U.S. Constitution did not (but should)
You only have to get to the second sentence for the first change explicitly stating states rights:
"We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic "
Also
No punitive or protectionist tariffs could be imposed
no subsidies can be granted to industries
No federal funds could be appropriated without a 2/3rds majority vote.
Bills must be clearly titled and must only adress one issue (no riders) this is a great one
Presidents are elected for one six year term and may not be reelected
Oh and no slaves can be imported, effectively ending the slave trade.
There are major changes that immediately effect what the government can do. Slaves were legal already so those changes would only affect future additions. The changes to the federal governments ability to tax and spend were immediate.
The souths motivations for leaving the union, was due to the growing power of the Central government, and their disdain for that. Slavery played a role, we all know and get that, but the real motivation from the North to kill it's 'own people' was to keep the Union together.
Why that is so hard for people to admit, is beyond me.
The Atlantic slave trade had already been banned. Where were they going to import them from, anyway? They weren't exactly planning to grant citizenship and freedom to the future children of existing slaves, were they?
Use money to free slaves, don't kill the people you want to be in your union. Problem solved.
It was banned, but no constitutional amendment was in place to enforce that.
Regardless, will you admit your claim was wrong? Address the other changes please.
That might be a good point if the South hadn't set the world on fire by shooting at Federal troops. I'm sure if the South would have been more reasonable, more reasonable solutions could have been devised.
That doesn't make his claim wrong. Technically having a constitutional amendment blocking the slave trade makes his claim more correct that the central government was strong in the confederacy. So does spelling out monetary and parliamentary procedure. It's all very top down, rigid thinking.
Constitutional amendment? Hell, the British Royal Navy was deployed to enforce it. They had something like 50 ships patrolling the west coast of Africa to stop international slave traders. The CSA couldn't have imported new slaves even if they wanted to.
There were some subtle differences, to be sure. The prohibition on using revenue collected in one state to fund improvements in another state smacked of resentment toward Northern tariffs, so I'll grant you that one. By and large, though, the constitution was very similar to the one they just left behind.
And you have to admit, it's quite ironic that after leaving the Union because they supposedly abhorred a strong central government, the first thing they did was install a central government.
Are you willing yet to admit the preservation of slavery was, by a very wide margin, the primary driving force behind secession?
The federal government did not hold near the power in 1860 as it does now.
After the election of Abraham Lincoln as president of the United States, many citizens of Southern states feared their property right in slaves would no longer be protected. Between 1860 and 1861, 11 slave-holding states seceded from the Union to form the Confederate States of America. Though the constitution establishing the Confederacy was modeled after the U.S. Constitution, differences reflected the many reasons these states chose to secede.
State Sovereignty
The Confederate constitution's preamble made it clear that states had more sovereign power in the Confederacy than they had in the Union. Just as the U.S. Constitution, the Confederate constitution began "We the people," but the people were represented within the central government by their states, each "acting in its sovereign and independent character." This focus on state sovereignty was reflected in the fact that, for example, Confederate state legislatures had the ability to impeach their own states' national government representatives, or national judges sitting in their states' courts. In contrast, the U.S. Constitution only allows federal government officials and judges to be impeached in the U.S. Senate.
The Institution of Slavery
The U.S. Constitution didn't guarantee the right of property in slaves. However, the Confederate constitution recognized the institution of slavery explicitly and forbade the Confederate Congress from passing any law denying or impairing a slave owner's right to property in slaves. Although the Confederate government prohibited further importation of slaves from Africa, it allowed such importation from slave-holding U.S. states that had not joined the Confederacy. The Confederate Constitution also guaranteed the institution of slavery would be protected in any new territories the country acquired.
Executive Power
Confederate presidents served six-year terms. However, the Confederate constitution forbade presidents from running for re-election. Despite the Confederate government's insistence on states' rights, the Confederate constitution gave the executive branch powers not included in the U.S. Constitution. For example, the president was given the ability to approve some appropriations while vetoing others in the same bill -- a line-item veto provision not available to the U.S. president. At the same time, the power of the Confederate president came with limitations, such as the requirement to report removal of non-cabinet officials to Congress along with the reason that employee was removed from office.
Legislative Authority
In keeping with the states' rights focus of the Confederacy, the Confederate congress had more limited power than that of the Union. For example, the Constitution prohibited the legislature's ability to levy duties or taxes on foreign imports for the purpose of promoting or protecting the products of Confederate industries. The Confederate Constitution also dictated any law passed by the Congress could only have one subject, which had to be clearly identified in the law's title. Congress couldn't make appropriations for internal improvements to the Confederacy -- the need for infrastructure was left up to the individual states.
The South didn't give a tinker's damn about DC. They would have been perfectly content to remain in the Union as long as new territories could come in as slave states. They knew that without that the balance of power in Washington would tip away from them and the days of slavery were numbered. The only power they cared about was the power to own other human beings...otherwise they would have recognized the STATE'S RIGHTS of northern states to allow escaped slaves to remain there. The states rights argument is complete, unadulterated, total bullshyte.
Other than that, it's spot on.
Other than that, it's spot on.
Well, the Federal troops had been asked/told/ordered/pleaded-with to leave 3 times. Instead of leaving peacefully, Lincoln sent provisions to reinforce them. Then he invaded the South properly in numerous places and proceeded to allow his armies to rape, plunder and destroy civilian property and persons. The two times the Confederacy went into the North, no such activity ever took place. Lincoln wanted war and got it. The South had no intention of invading the North or occupying it. It just wanted to be left alone.
I'm certainly willing to admit that the preservation of slavery was, by a very wide margin, the primary driving force behind secession?I would venture to say that had the Founders outlawed it, there would never have been a Confederacy. However, if it had been outlawed, there would never have been a "united" States... just 13 countries. I would have preferred that, too.
Regardless, the institution of Slavery has been outlawed for almost 160 years now. Unfortunately, the government-mandated and enforced segregation took much longer. It still amazes me when I see "colored regiments" in WWII documentaries.
Regardless, the institution of Slavery has been outlawed for almost 160 years now. Unfortunately, the government-mandated and enforced segregation took much longer. It still amazes me when I see "colored regiments" in WWII documentaries.
Subtle difference?
Outlawing punitive tariffs isn't a subtle difference. It was the governments main source of revenue at the time.
Yes, they installed a central government and made it less strong than the one they left giving much more power to the individual states. The changes they made having nothing to do with slavery create a government drastically different than what we have now. The very things that big government people love and small government people hate are gutted. The "General Welfare" clause that is so often used by big government people as a catch all for any federal action is gone.
No, I disagree with your sentiment. Slavery was one issue, Taxes were as big or bigger. In no way shape or form was slavery "by a wide margin" the primary force. No one was even threatening to end slavery. Tariffs were an immediate and existing threat.
Will you admit that the Confederate Constitution was not "nearly identical to the United States, except that it guaranteed the right to own slaves"?
Also, the South had no intentions to fight a war after secession either. The North, on the other hand, most definitely did. The Lincoln Administration wanted it desperately and was determined to get it.
So if a thief orders you to leave your home, you are obliged to do so? Odd reasoning. The South wanted war and they made sure they got it.
