How Texas is whitewashing Civil War history

[strummingram]

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"?

I agree with your points. You have to understand, or admit, that reason the South was so important to the Union was because of the tariffs and the revenue of taxes on the South. But... why were those things so important and so high? It was because they didn't pay their work force- Slavery. It's still rooted in that, directly or indirectly.

 

[strummingram]

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.

You are so far off with that comparison that I would expect nothing less. The US Armies INVADED THE SOUTH. Then they occupied the towns, states, etc.

 

[strummingram]

you are just being ridiculous.

Ridiculous is being kind. I love how he implies that the South stole itself.

 

[naturalmwa]

Ridiculous is being kind. I love how he implies that the South stole itself.

Fort Sumter, why can't you ever get details right? I suspect it is because the details invalidate your world view so often. But that's how context works.

 

[TJ8869]

No one was even threatening to end slavery.

WTF?!

 

[tarheelbybirth]

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.

The South had no intention of fighting a war after secession but the North did? Well, no shyte since it was the North that said secession was illegal. Why would the South fight if they got exactly what they wanted? They were sure as hell willing to fight a war to enforce secession.

 

[KitingHigh]

I agree with your points. You have to understand, or admit, that reason the South was so important to the Union was because of the tariffs and the revenue of taxes on the South. But... why were those things so important and so high? It was because they didn't pay their work force- Slavery. It's still rooted in that, directly or indirectly.

Well, they were important because of the revenue. Yes slavery is a component. I never claimed it wasn't. It goes further than that. The North was very dependent upon the South for revenue as Europe needed cotton, but did not need industrial goods from the North. Some of the northern goods used cotton, the banks in NY financed some of the plantations in the South and many of the ships that transported goods back and forth were Northern. In fact NYC Mayor Wood suggested that NYC itself should secede from the Union. He also opposed, along with many NY "copperheads", the 13th amendment. Lincoln actually fired on the city if you don't recall.

The war was fought over economic reasons period. Slavery was but one component. The war would have happened anyway as cotton was still a more valuable commodity than anything the North had to offer at the time. The South still would have had a better trade partnership with England and France and the North will still use protectionist tariffs which unfairly targeted the South. The only likely difference without slavery is that NYC would have become it's own county too and possibly taken some other areas with it as well.

 

[strummingram]

Fort Sumter, why can't you ever get details right? I suspect it is because the details invalidate your world view so often. But that's how context works.

Fort Sumter was in South Carolina. Just like every other FORT, or Federal installation, prior to Secession was technically Federal, it ceased to be once Secession was enacted. It's not a detail I'm getting wrong. It's a detail you want to fit your opinion. If Southerners are willing to admit Slavery caused secession. At least have some dignity and admit that the USA invaded the South and proceeded to occupy and destroy it for the duration and after it was over.

 

[strummingram]

The South had no intention of fighting a war after secession but the North did? Well, no shyte since it was the North that said secession was illegal. Why would the South fight if they got exactly what they wanted? They were sure as hell willing to fight a war to enforce secession.

Exactly... There would have been no war without the Northern invasion and desire to bring the South back through force. The United States government had no moral issue with Slavery. The South was taxed and tariff-ed and paying huge bills for the country. Then the threat of losing the institution made them even more threatened and ready to leave. I'm in full agreement that Slavery was the issue. But, WAR was the measure chosen by the USA.

 

[naturalmwa]

Fort Sumter was in South Carolina. Just like every other FORT, or Federal installation, prior to Secession was technically Federal, it ceased to be once Secession was enacted. It's not a detail I'm getting wrong. It's a detail you want to fit your opinion. If Southerners are willing to admit Slavery caused secession. At least have some dignity and admit that the USA invaded the South and proceeded to occupy and destroy it for the duration and after it was over.

I'm not denying that. I'm pointing out that it started by a thief declaring your home belonged to them. After that, the invasion becomes a rescue effort. If you southerners want to redefine history I'll dance with you.

 

[DanL53]

I find it kind of odd how the discussion/defense of Southern actions against United States property in the South never includes mention of threats of force, or force, or the word "surrender". It wasn't just Ft. Sumter either.

The Saint Louis Arsenal:

In March 1861, Lyon arrived in St. Louis in command of Company B of the 2nd U.S. Infantry. At the time the population and state of Missouri were relatively neutral in the dispute between North and South, but Governor Claiborne F. Jackson was a strong Southern sympathizer, as were many of the state legislators. Lyon was accurately concerned that Jackson meant to seize the federal arsenal in St. Louis if the state seceded and that the Union had insufficient defensive forces to prevent the seizure. He attempted to strengthen the defenses, but came into opposition from his superiors, including Brig. Gen. William S. Harney of the Department of the West. Lyon employed his friendship with Francis P. Blair, Jr., to have himself named commander of the arsenal. When the Civil War broke out and President Abraham Lincoln called for troops to put down the Confederacy, Missouri was asked to supply four regiments. Governor Jackson refused the request and ordered the Missouri State Guard to muster outside St. Louis under the stated purpose of training for home defense.[1]

Lyon himself had been extensively involved in the St. Louis Wide Awakes, a pro-union paramilitary organization that he intended to arm from the arsenal and muster into the ranks of the federal army. Upon obtaining command of the arsenal, Lyon armed the Wide Awake units under guise of night. Lyon had most of the excess weapons in the arsenal secretly moved to Illinois. Lyon was aware of a clandestine operation whereby the Confederacy had shipped captured artillery from the U.S. arsenal in Baton Rouge to the Missouri State Militia camp in St. Louis. Lyon allegedly disguised himself as a farm woman to spy on the State Guard's camp and then claimed that he had uncovered a plan by Jackson to seize the arsenal for Missouri troops. On May 10 he directed the Missouri volunteer regiments and the 2nd U.S. Infantry to the camp, forcing its surrender. Riots broke out in St. Louis as Lyon marched his prisoners through the city to the St. Louis Arsenal. The event provoked the Camp Jackson Affair of May 10, 1861, in which Lyons' troops opened fire on a crowd of civilians injuring at least 75 and killing 28.[1] Two federals and three militia were also killed and others were wounded. The source of the first shot is disputed, some witnesses claiming it was a drunken rioter, others claiming it was unprovoked. Lyon was nonetheless promoted to brigadier general May 17.[5] and given command over the Union troops in Missouri May 31, 1861 as commander of the Department of the West.

Being lazy I just nabbed that off Wiki. The next is from this link: http://historyengine.richmond.edu/episodes/view/1286

After the Texas Convention met in January of 1861, the Committee on Public Safety sanctioned three men from this committee to confiscate property in Texas which belonged to the national government. General David E. Twiggs was in San Antonio when the commissioners paid a visit to take over the property. Twiggs stated that he would turn over the property and remove his troops from the state, although he would not formally agree to a contract in writing. The tensions between General Twiggs and the state paved the way for Ben McCulloch and his army of four hundred men, plus six hundred volunteers, to seize San Antonio on February 16th, 1861. General Twiggs was forced to surrender all federal property (about 3 million) and then left Texas; some of the federal property included: mules, wagons, horses, clothing, food, harnesses, iron, nails, and stores. He also handed over nineteen federal army posts. This event became the catalyst for the removal of 2,000 U.S. soldiers from Texas.

So we see a pattern of confiscation, threats of force, and in the second example, surrender.

Ft. Sumter? A United States installation first placed under siege and then bombarded by a South already in the act of Rebellion against the United States.

 

[strummingram]

Well, they were important because of the revenue. Yes slavery is a component. I never claimed it wasn't. It goes further than that. The North was very dependent upon the South for revenue as Europe needed cotton, but did not need industrial goods from the North. Some of the northern goods used cotton, the banks in NY financed some of the plantations in the South and many of the ships that transported goods back and forth were Northern. In fact NYC Mayor Wood suggested that NYC itself should secede from the Union. He also opposed, along with many NY "copperheads", the 13th amendment. Lincoln actually fired on the city if you don't recall.

The war was fought over economic reasons period. Slavery was but one component. The war would have happened anyway as cotton was still a more valuable commodity than anything the North had to offer at the time. The South still would have had a better trade partnership with England and France and the North will still use protectionist tariffs which unfairly targeted the South. The only likely difference without slavery is that NYC would have become it's own county too and possibly taken some other areas with it as well.

Wars are always fought over economic reasons. I agree. And, all of your points above are true as to the tariffs and paying-of-bills for the country. It was all fought because of the high stakes involved. But, the stakes had gotten so high because the South had the financial advantage of not paying it's labor force. Basically, it's all of these factors working equally with each other to put the mechanisms of war into place. It's not JUST Slavery, but Slavery is such a key component that, without it, those revenues, tariffs, taxes and so forth, are not nearly as important because the profits would not be so high if you have to pay your workers. The South didn't. In fact, it had another industry of buying and selling the workers that was also making people rich.

It's like the NCAA now. They pay the actual workers basically nothing (clothing, food, board, etc.) and they make gigantic profits!

 

[tarheelbybirth]

The war was fought over economic reasons period. Slavery was but one component.

It's the only component that mattered.

 

[KitingHigh]

WTF?!

Are you going to deny that Lincoln made it quite clear he had no intention of ending slavery?

I'm not denying that. I'm pointing out that it started by a thief declaring your home belonged to them. After that, the invasion becomes a rescue effort. If you southerners want to redefine history I'll dance with you.

Why don't you show us some examples of a region seceding from a belligerent parent country and voluntarily allowing them to retain military installations. It seems to me that we have a great lack of British, French, Spanish and Mexican bases here in the US, Canada and Mexico.

You do realize that the union troops were holding the fort with the express intention of reinforcing it and using it to prevent the Confederacy from lawful trade with other countries right?

 

[strummingram]

I'm not denying that. I'm pointing out that it started by a thief declaring your home belonged to them. After that, the invasion becomes a rescue effort. If you southerners want to redefine history I'll dance with you.

Your simile is not accurate AT ALL. A person's home and a thief is not remotely comparable. An individual's home is a bit overly-simplified to the State of SC. But, it allows you to dance without any legs, or at least without any music.

 

[naturalmwa]

Your simile is not accurate AT ALL. A person's home and a thief is not remotely comparable. An individual's home is a bit overly-simplified to the State of SC. But, it allows you to dance without any legs, or at least without any music.

The Federal Government owned a bit of land. The SC thieves showed up and told them it was theirs. It's very simple. In that one act the South forfeited any moral or legal high ground confederates might have ever claimed.

 

[KitingHigh]

Wars are always fought over economic reasons. I agree. And, all of your points above are true as to the tariffs and paying-of-bills for the country. It was all fought because of the high stakes involved. But, the stakes had gotten so high because the South had the financial advantage of not paying it's labor force. Basically, it's all of these factors working equally with each other to put the mechanisms of war into place. It's not JUST Slavery, but Slavery is such a key component that, without it, those revenues, tariffs, taxes and so forth, are not nearly as important because the profits would not be so high if you have to pay your workers. The South didn't. In fact, it had another industry of buying and selling the workers that was also making people rich.

It's like the NCAA now. They pay the actual workers basically nothing (clothing, food, board, etc.) and they make gigantic profits!

Please tell me you didn't just compare the NCAA to slavery. I'm not always a fan of the NCAA, but that's a bit over the top. They (the universities and boosters) pay them with 6 figures worth of education, and invaluable training should they continue to an athletic career, and it is a voluntary agreement.

 

[strummingram]

Kiting,

It's also true that Lincoln and the "United States" had no issue with Slavery. They wanted to keep profiting from it (vicariously) and wanted it so much that they resorted to sending armies into the South to force them to let them share in their profits. Lincoln also wanted to maintain a VERY strong, centralized government. That was most important to him. The intricacies of race and death toll and destruction weren't that troubling because he knew the power he had in the industrialized North and it's official recognition by foreign nations. Once the South showed it could not only fight with them, but win major battle after battle (on it's home soil and in spite of unprecedented carnage), THEN it became apparent that, in order to keep that Central Government rule, he would have to make the war into a "crusade" to free people. He couldn't get the revenues the South had before the war, but his main goal- a strong central government- was still attainable.

 

[KitingHigh]

I'm not denying that. I'm pointing out that it started by a thief declaring your home belonged to them. After that, the invasion becomes a rescue effort. If you southerners want to redefine history I'll dance with you.

Rescue effort? Nobody died in the battle and the union soldiers were allowed to leave peacefully once they surrendered. They didn't even take their weapons, though maybe they should have as the union soldiers accidentally killed two of their own during a surrender ceremony they were allowed to have.

 

[DanL53]

The Federal Government owned a bit of land. The SC thieves showed up and told them it was theirs. It's very simple. In that one act the South forfeited any moral or legal high ground confederates might have ever claimed.

Those using words like "belligerent" for the United States Government CAN'T accept that simple fact because it would be accepting that the South started the military actions of the Civil War. Just like they can't ever say that the South was not 100% behind Secession to begin with, there were those in the South, entire regions as a matter of fact (West Virginia) that didn't want to leave the United States!

It was without question an armed and aggressive rebellion and as such the North did the only right thing it could do, put it down. This was no legal action, it was a Civil War.

 

[KitingHigh]

Kiting,

It's also true that Lincoln and the "United States" had no issue with Slavery. They wanted to keep profiting from it (vicariously) and wanted it so much that they resorted to sending armies into the South to force them to let them share in their profits. Lincoln also wanted to maintain a VERY strong, centralized government. That was most important to him. The intricacies of race and death toll and destruction weren't that troubling because he knew the power he had in the industrialized North and it's official recognition by foreign nations. Once the South showed it could not only fight with them, but win major battle after battle (on it's home soil and in spite of unprecedented carnage), THEN it became apparent that, in order to keep that Central Government rule, he would have to make the war into a "crusade" to free people. He couldn't get the revenues the South had before the war, but his main goal- a strong central government- was still attainable.

I agree with that. The South made a huge mistake by trying to force recognition early on by denying it's trade partners cotton. When they realized it wasn't going to work, the North was ready with blockades and Europe was finding new sources for cotton. Jefferson Davis also sent to emissaries to Europe offering abolition in exchange for recognition and support. The Union captured the first one before he made it, and the second one was simply to late.

I think we agree on most points. You just see slavery as a primary driver, and I see it as one of multiple factors.

 

[DanL53]

Rescue effort? Nobody died in the battle and the union soldiers were allowed to leave peacefully once they surrendered. They didn't even take their weapons, though maybe they should have as the union soldiers accidentally killed two of their own during a surrender ceremony they were allowed to have.

Whistle blows, double technical!!! It was a freagin' miracle nobody died!!! You write as if all those cannon shots weren't meant to kill.

 

[strummingram]

The Federal Government owned a bit of land. The SC thieves showed up and told them it was theirs. It's very simple. In that one act the South forfeited any moral or legal high ground confederates might have ever claimed.

The "Federals" were squatting on the state's land to begin with! You're right, it's too simple. "We've officially seceded, now you had better get out!" You've got the roles backwards, if you want to use your homeowner/thief scenario. The government had installed a force that were no longer viable, needed, or wanted. LEAVE!

 

[KitingHigh]

Those using words like "belligerent" for the United States Government CAN'T accept that simple fact because it would be accepting that the South started the military actions of the Civil War. Just like they can't ever say that the South was not 100% behind Secession to begin with, there were those in the South, entire regions as a matter of fact (West Virginia) that didn't want to leave the United States!

It was without question an armed and aggressive rebellion and as such the North did the only right thing it could do, put it down. This was no legal action, it was a Civil War.

So was the American Revolution.

There were many Northerners that didn't want to go to war as well. Many were OK with simply letting the South go. Lincoln arrested those who printed that opinion or tried to enact legislation to that effect though.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Kiting,

It's also true that Lincoln and the "United States" had no issue with Slavery.

That's just a lie. Lincoln and the "United States" were deeply troubled by slavery. The northern states had banned it, in case you don't remember. This wasn't because they couldn't USE slaves to work in their factories and farms.

 

[TJ8869]

Are you going to deny that Lincoln made it quite clear he had no intention of ending slavery?

Read South Carolina's declaration of secession. Tell me if you think they felt like the future of slavery was in doubt.

 

[DanL53]

So was the American Revolution.

There were many Northerners that didn't want to go to war as well. Many were OK with simply letting the South go. Lincoln arrested those who printed that opinion or tried to enact legislation to that effect though.

So what? One made sense, the other didn't. Not every rebellion is justified.

 

[naturalmwa]

Rescue effort? Nobody died in the battle and the union soldiers were allowed to leave peacefully once they surrendered. They didn't even take their weapons, though maybe they should have as the union soldiers accidentally killed two of their own during a surrender ceremony they were allowed to have.

They had to rescue their property from thieves. It was clear the South wasn't going to respect property rights. That act of terrorism had to be answered.

 

[strummingram]

Please tell me you didn't just compare the NCAA to slavery. I'm not always a fan of the NCAA, but that's a bit over the top. They (the universities and boosters) pay them with 6 figures worth of education, and invaluable training should they continue to an athletic career, and it is a voluntary agreement.

Yes, I see the NCAA as a much more subtle, watered-down, version of slavery. And, the slaves willingly go to the plantations- yes, they voluntarily do it. But, what alternative do they have? The two forms are not equal in operations or implementation, not at all. But, my point is, the profit margin is ENORMOUS because you don't have to pay your labor force more than the bare essentials. And, that price tag on the "education" is pretty subjective. Football, Basketball athletes are not given scholarships for their academic prowess. But, let's not get sidetracked.

Enormous profits from not having to pay your labor force is what was at stake. That, and the importance of maintaining a very powerful centralized government. In my opinion, that is the worst casualty of the war. It, in effect, turned the entire nation onto one big plantation with the outcome.

 

[naturalmwa]

The "Federals" were squatting on the state's land to begin with! You're right, it's too simple. "We've officially seceded, now you had better get out!" You've got the roles backwards, if you want to use your homeowner/thief scenario. The government had installed a force that were no longer viable, needed, or wanted. LEAVE!

Look it up, the federals owned the land. I've shown you the proof on that in the past. Its a simple matter of property rights. SC tried to steal federal property.

 

[strummingram]

So what? One made sense, the other didn't. Not every rebellion is justified.

No, that's actually not true. To the ones rebelling, EVERY rebellion is justified. 2 sides...

 

[strummingram]

Look it up, the federals owned the land. I've shown you the proof on that in the past. Its a simple matter of property rights. SC tried to steal federal property.

In your mind, the entire state of SC was "federal property." In your world, the Feds are the keepers and arbiters of everything sacred.

 

[naturalmwa]

In your mind, the entire state of SC was "federal property." In your world, the Feds are the keepers and arbiters of everything sacred.

There you go lying about details again to avoid the truth.

 

[KitingHigh]

They had to rescue their property from thieves. It was clear the South wasn't going to respect property rights. That act of terrorism had to be answered.

You're smarter than this Natural

 

[DanL53]

The "Federals" were squatting on the state's land to begin with! You're right, it's too simple. "We've officially seceded, now you had better get out!" You've got the roles backwards, if you want to use your homeowner/thief scenario. The government had installed a force that were no longer viable, needed, or wanted. LEAVE!

Time out. I showed earlier that in Texas the Commander of the United States Arsenal in San Antonio OFFERED to leave, but that wasn't good enough. He was forced to SURRENDER as if to a foreign power. That was not so much the South saying, hey, um, we're seceding so you shouldn't be here (even though it was United States Property). No, that wasn't good enough. The South TOOK that arsenal in an act of war.

As to Ft. Sumter, same thing, the South had already forced the retreat to Sumter from two other United States properties, and were demanding surrender.

That's war! And as to KitingHigh's claim that no lives were lost...that was just luck! The South fired upon Sumter quite a bit...I mean, A LOT!

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Yes, I see the NCAA as a much more subtle, watered-down, version of slavery. And, the slaves willingly go to the plantations- yes, they voluntarily do it. But, what alternative do they have? The two forms are not equal in operations or implementation, not at all. But, my point is, the profit margin is ENORMOUS because you don't have to pay your labor force more than the bare essentials. And, that price tag on the "education" is pretty subjective. Football, Basketball athletes are not given scholarships for their academic prowess. But, let's not get sidetracked.

Enormous profits from not having to pay your labor force is what was at stake. That, and the importance of maintaining a very powerful centralized government. In my opinion, that is the worst casualty of the war. It, in effect, turned the entire nation onto one big plantation with the outcome.

LOL...so you're a HUGE supporter of unions.

 

[KitingHigh]

Yes, I see the NCAA as a much more subtle, watered-down, version of slavery. And, the slaves willingly go to the plantations- yes, they voluntarily do it. But, what alternative do they have? The two forms are not equal in operations or implementation, not at all. But, my point is, the profit margin is ENORMOUS because you don't have to pay your labor force more than the bare essentials. And, that price tag on the "education" is pretty subjective. Football, Basketball athletes are not given scholarships for their academic prowess. But, let's not get sidetracked.

Enormous profits from not having to pay your labor force is what was at stake. That, and the importance of maintaining a very powerful centralized government. In my opinion, that is the worst casualty of the war. It, in effect, turned the entire nation onto one big plantation with the outcome.

This might deserve it's own thread. You do realize that the NCAA isn't making a mint. Nor are the schools. The people actually profiting are the media. The coaches tend to do pretty well too, but not nearly as well as the big three sports athletes that go onto successful careers.

 

[DanL53]

No, that's actually not true. To the ones rebelling, EVERY rebellion is justified. 2 sides...

Yeah, and what was said about South Carolina? Too small to be a country and too big to be an Insane Asylum. If anything, history shows that secession was about the dumbest idea anyone in this country ever had! Especially the way the South tried to pull it off.

 

[strummingram]

Yeah, and what was said about South Carolina? Too small to be a country and too big to be an Insane Asylum. If anything, history shows that secession was about the dumbest idea anyone in this country ever had! Especially the way the South tried to pull it off.

I agree with that, too! Even Robert E. Lee said "I can think of no greater calamity to befall us as a nation." The greed gets the best of people in power. It's a shame that every other nation was able to remove slavery without a war... but, not America. Sorta sets the pace for American policy with everything it encounters- Declare WAR on it!

 

[strummingram]

This might deserve it's own thread. You do realize that the NCAA isn't making a mint. Nor are the schools. The people actually profiting are the media. The coaches tend to do pretty well too, but not nearly as well as the big three sports athletes that go onto successful careers.

Yes, a separate thread for sure. I didn't mean to get off-track.