What Was the Result of the War for Southern Independence?

[JohnnyL]

(This content is actually about the results of the war--
Please save "who was right" for another thread.
I can't find this on the internet anymore, so posted in full...
I believe this is CRITICAL to understand "what happened to the USA", "where did liberty go and why?", etc.)

Who Was Right?
The North or the South?

American Vision recently hosted a debate on the topic: Who was right in the War Between the States; The Union or the Confederacy?  Rev. Peter Marshall, ordained Presbyterian minister and author of the *Light and the Glory* presented the perspective of the North.  Rev. Steve Wilkins, Presbyterian pastor, author of Call of Duty and United States Taxpayers Party National Committeeman from Louisiana, presented the perspective of the South.

Debate: Closing Statement of Reverend Steve Wilkins:

         People ask me, "Do you want the South to rise again?"  And I reply, "That might not be a bad idea." But what I really desire to see is not only the South but our entire country rise again.  I want to see the day come when this entire country cares more about the glory of God and true liberty than it does about its own well-being or what the stock market did today or who won the Super Bowl or whether or not Seinfeld is ever going to come back on the air. God's glory and true liberty were what guided the majority of Southerners in the last century and that is what I want to see again.

         But with the defeat of the South, true liberty, liberty in the historic and Biblical sense, was lost to this land.  James McPherson has remarked, "the Civil War changed the United States as thoroughly as the French Revolution changed that country. . . The United States went to war in 1861 to preserve the Union; it emerged from war in 1865 having created a nation." (Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution, p. viii)  The War for Southern Independence was indeed the American equivalent of the French Revolution.

         It is little wonder that a young man named Karl Marx who was living in London at the time working as a correspondent for the New York Tribune, followed the War with great interest and excitement.  He saw the implications of the War for the world and wrote gleefully to his friend Friedrick Engels that the War would be the beginning of a "world transforming . . . revolutionary movement."

         Slavery, so far from being the cause of the war, was merely the pretext for revolution.  As Prussian military theorist, Carl Von Clausewitz once stated, "War is the pursuit of political goals by other means."  We have seldom seen a more successful revolution. The old Constitutional Republic was destroyed and an octopus-like centralized government took its place.

         James McPherson has noted, "The war marked the transition of the United States to a singular noun.  The 'Union' became the nation, and Americans now rarely speak of their Union except in an historical sense."  This is a significant change.  We are no longer a union of confederated states, but a nation where the individual integrity and political sovereignty of the states is denied.

         Thus, the old federal republic in which the national government rarely touched the average citizen except through the post-office is now dead and has been replaced by centralized bureaucracy which seeks to control every action. What we call liberty, our forefathers called slavery.

         This was precisely what Dr. James H. Thornwell and others had feared. In a tract entitled "Our Danger and Our Duty" Dr. Thornwell stated in regard to the consequences of a Northern victory, "If they prevail, the whole character of the Government will be changed, and, instead of a federal republic, the common agent of sovereign and independent States, we shall have a central despotism, with the notion of States for ever abolished, deriving its powers from the will, and shaping its policy according to the wishes, of a numerical majority of the people; we shall have, in other words, a supreme, irresponsible democracy. . . The avowed end of the present War is, to make the Government a government of force."

         The 14th amendment was particularly notorious in this regard. It has been interpreted so as to apply the Bill of Rights to the individual States.  Section 1 says, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. . ."  This has had the effect of changing the nature of our government in two ways:

         1) It changed the intent of the Bill of Rights which were originally intended to limit the Federal government's powers, to restrictions upon the particular states.  Thus, whereas before this amendment, the states had protection against the intrusions of the Federal government, now the Federal government has become the watch-dog of the states.  The states became "subsidiaries" of the nation rather than "parties" to the Union. The central government became the master rather than the servant of the states.

         2) This shift has transferred immense power to the Federal government to restrict the internal actions of states. Senator Lot Morrill of Maine stated quite bluntly the purpose of the 14th amendment: "We must see to it, that hereafter, personal liberty and personal rights are placed in the keeping of the nation...against State authority and State interpretations...The great object of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guaranties." (Abraham Lincoln and The Second American Revolution, p. 143)

         Within five years after it ratification, the Supreme Court in the Slaughter-House cases began to redefine "privileges and immunities." The Court rejected the historic view of these things as biblically or religiously based and declared that privileges and immunities owed their existence to the grace of the Federal Government.  Liberty in short, did not come from God, but was a gift of the Federal Government.

         By this definition, the Federal Government has taken the place of God. It has arrogated to itself the privilege of defining what is right and wrong, good and evil.  When God is not acknowledged, man becomes the sovereign.  When man becomes the definer of liberty, liberty is lost.
         Thus we find that we have lost what our forefathers called liberty. We have grown up in a world where no one truly "owns" property (you may think you own it, but try not paying your property taxes one year and you will see who really owns your land).

         Further, we do not have liberty to use our property in lawful ways. "Environmental" laws limit the freedom of use as well. We can kill our unborn children, but are forbidden to cut down a tree on our own property without a permit. The Federal Government as if it was God, asserts a pre-eminent claim the earth and the fullness thereof. One peculiarly blatant expression of this is "eminent domain." Whatever and whenever the Government desires the use of your land, it claims the prerogative to it.  God destroyed Ahab for doing what the modern Government does every year.

         We are no longer free to exercise our gifts and talents. More and more the Federal Government limits how and when and where we may labor. Licensing laws, labor regulations, minimum wage legislation, unemployment taxes, social security taxes, union standards, federal health and safety regulations, racial quotas, anti-discrimination legislation, environmental regulations, and a well-nigh endless host of others laws, fees, prohibitions, limitations, regulations, and specifications, severely restrict the exercise of God-given gifts and abilities.

         Need I mention that by means of the income tax, the Federal Government has claimed the right to the fruit of our labors. By it, the Federal government exalts itself over God (by claiming more than God does in the tithe).

         In recent years we have seen how this is in fact a claim on all the livelihood of an individual.  Tax exemptions are now viewed as "subsidies." The argument is, to be granted a tax exemption is the same as being given a subsidy.  The implication is that all your income belongs to the National Government and the Government could take it all should it so desire, but by means of tax exemptions, it graciously allows you to keep some of your earnings.

         In education: certification, accreditation, and educational standards set by Federal bureaucrats continue to limit educational freedom.  The Government continues to view the children as belonging to itself by asserting a "compelling interest" in this or that aspect of our children's upbringing.

         Freedom of religion has come to mean "freedom to believe whatever you want, so long as you do not act in a way contrary to public policy." Practically this means, our freedom of religion has been confined to the space between our ears.

         We have now lived to see what our Founding Fathers thought impossible in this land. The Congress regularly legislates immorality, lines its own pockets, makes decisions based upon self-interest rather than upon what is right and best and then brags about its public-spirited generosity and compassion.

         We live in a country where the Constitution has no more real authority than the Royal Family in England. We like to be able to refer to it and trot it out on patriotic occasions, but we have no desire to take it seriously and find those who would suggest that we should, fearfully flatheaded.
         We live in a land in which the people expect the government to protect them and provide for them and secure their futures.  We have not freed the slaves, we have simply extended the plantation. Now, we are all slaves, captives to our liberators.

         We think we are free only because we have never known true freedom.  Like it or not, all this is the legacy of the South's defeat. Thus, the question of who was right in the old struggle is not so hard to answer after all.  Look around you. Do you like what you see? If not, you have answered the question in my favor.

         A. H. Stephens, in speaking about the future for this nation and the consequences of the Reconstruction policies, once said that the only hope for our country was that the people would one day realize what had happened to them as a result of this war and that a cry would go up akin to that which filled the land prior to the first War for Independence (the cry then was "The cause of Boston is the cause of us all"). Now, said Stephens, the only hope left for the preservation and maintenance [of Constitutional liberty] on this continent is, that another like cry shall hereafter be raised, and go forth from hill-top to valley, from the Coast to the Lakes, from the Atlantic to the Pacific: 'The Cause of the South is the Cause of us all!'"

         I appeal to you to consider afresh the consequences of the War for Southern Independence. The defeat of the South spelled the defeat of constitutional liberty in our land.

         If you long for constitutional order, legislative integrity, limited government, and true freedom under law then you, my friend, agree with me that the South was right.

         The time is passed due for us to think for ourselves and quit allowing the media and the educational establishment and the current orthodoxy to do our thinking for us. It is time to repent of our sins and beg for God's mercy. It is time, in short, to take up afresh the cause of the South.

[gclayjr]

JohnnyL,

You start out by saying

This content is actually about the results of the war--
Please save "who was right" for another thread.

Then you go against yourself by saying

If you long for constitutional order, legislative integrity, limited government, and true freedom under law then you, my friend, agree with me that the South was right.

Despite all the fantasies and wishful thinking , and hatred for Abraham Lincoln, that you guys have to the contrary, the American Civil war was about SLAVERY. you can pretend that it was about states rights (of course you would have to ignore the Missouri Compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and why the south really seceded), but in in your fantasized recreation of history you can't deny actually what was actually written in the Confederate Constitution.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 prohibited the Confederate government from restricting slavery in any way:

"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."

The War of the Rebellion was the bloody price we paid for embracing that most horrible of institutions, human slavery, and the Result of the war was the freeing of those slaves, and the acknowledgement of the evil of this institution.

Regards,

George Clay

[gclayjr]

In fact the biggest motivation for the Missouri Mobs, to harass, kill Mormons, drive us out and have Governor Boggs issue the Mormon extermination order was the fear that the Mormons would vote as a block AGAINST SLAVERY!

Early on, however, the local Missourians became wary of the newcomers. Most Missourians were southerners and pro-slavery; most Mormons were northerners and anti-slavery. The influx of Mormons threatened to unbalance the political situation and local non-Mormon government leaders feared the Mormons would become politically too powerful.

http://www.mormonwiki.com/Missouri_Period

Regards,

George Clay

[ajax]

The North invaded to keep the South from seceding...not matter what the South's cause. Simple as that. The South simply wanted to peacefully leave. They set up their own government. Lincoln invaded to keep them from doing so, to keep them from self determination.

As Mencken bluntly stated about the Gettysburg address:

But let us not forget that it is oratory, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it! Put it into the cold words of everyday! The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination — “that government of the people, by the people, for the people,” should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i. e., of the people of the States? The Confederates went into battle an absolutely free people; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and vote of the rest of the country—and for nearly twenty years that vote was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely any freedom at all. Am I the first American to note the fundamental nonsensicality of the Gettysburg address? If so, I plead my aesthetic joy in it in amelioration of the sacrilege.

Walter Williams had this to say in his foreword to DiLorenzo's book The Real Lincoln:

In 1831, long before the War between the States, South Carolina Senator John C. Calhoun said, "Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is, whether ours is a federal or consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one; a government resting solidly on the basis of the sovereignty of the States, or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, violence, and force must ultimately prevail." The War between the States answered that question and produced the foundation for the kind of government we have today: consolidated and absolute, based on the unrestrained will of the majority, with force, threats, and intimidation being the order of the day.

Today’s federal government is considerably at odds with that envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. Thomas J. DiLorenzo gives an account of how this came about in The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War.

As DiLorenzo documents – contrary to conventional wisdom, books about Lincoln, and the lessons taught in schools and colleges – the War between the States was not fought to end slavery; Even if it were, a natural question arises: Why was a costly war fought to end it? African slavery existed in many parts of the Western world, but it did not take warfare to end it. Dozens of countries, including the territorial possessions of the British, French, Portuguese, and Spanish, ended slavery peacefully during the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Countries such as Venezuela and Colombia experienced conflict because slave emancipation was simply a ruse for revolutionaries who were seeking state power and were not motivated by emancipation per se.

Abraham Lincoln’s direct statements indicated his support for slavery; He defended slave owners’ right to own their property, saying that "when they remind us of their constitutional rights [to own slaves], I acknowledge them, not grudgingly but fully and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the claiming of their fugitives" (in indicating support for the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850).

Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation was little more than a political gimmick, and he admitted so in a letter to Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase: "The original proclamation has no...legal justification, except as a military measure." Secretary of State William Seward said, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free. " Seward was acknowledging the fact that the Emancipation Proclamation applied only to slaves in states in rebellion against the United States and not to slaves in states not in rebellion.

The true costs of the War between the States were not the 620,000 battlefield-related deaths, out of a national population of 30 million (were we to control for population growth, that would be equivalent to roughly 5 million battlefield deaths today). The true costs were a change in the character of our government into one feared by the likes of Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, and Calhoun – one where states lost most of their sovereignty to the central government. Thomas Jefferson saw as the most important safeguard of the liberties of the people "the support of the state governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies."

If the federal government makes encroachments on the constitutional rights of the people and the states, what are their options? In a word, their right to secede. Most of today’s Americans believe, as did Abraham Lincoln, that states do not have a right to secession, but that is false. DiLorenzo marshals numerous proofs that from the very founding of our nation the right of secession was seen as a natural right of the people and a last check on abuse by the central government. For example, at Virginia’s ratification convention, the delegates affirmed "that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to injury or oppression." In Thomas Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address (1801), he declared, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." Jefferson was defending the rights of free speech and of secession. Alexis de Tocqueville observed in Democracy in America, "The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the states chooses to withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disapprove its right of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or right." The right to secession was popularly held as well. DiLorenzo lists newspaper after newspaper editorial arguing the right of secession. Most significantly, these were Northern newspapers. In fact, the first secession movement started in the North, long before shots were fired at Fort Sumter. The New England states debated the idea of secession during the Hartford Convention of 1814–1815.

Lincoln’s intentions, as well as those of many Northern politicians, were summarized by Stephen Douglas during the senatorial debates. Douglas accused Lincoln of wanting to "impose on the nation a uniformity of local laws and institutions and a moral homogeneity dictated by the central government" that would "place at defiance the intentions of the republic’s founders." Douglas was right, and Lincoln’s vision for our nation has now been accomplished beyond anything he could have possibly dreamed.

The War between the States settled by force whether states could secede. Once it was established that states cannot secede, the federal government, abetted by a Supreme Court unwilling to hold it to its constitutional restraints, was able to run amok over states’ rights, so much so that the protections of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments mean little or nothing today. Not only did the war lay the foundation for eventual nullification or weakening of basic constitutional protections against central government abuses, but it also laid to rest the great principle enunciated in the Declaration of Independence that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The Real Lincoln contains irrefutable evidence that a more appropriate title for Abraham Lincoln is not the Great Emancipator, but the Great Centralizer.

Don Livingston on the issue:

[gclayjr]

Ajax,

The North invaded to keep the South from seceding...not matter what the South's cause.

While I find your delusion interesting, you kind of lost the purpose of this thread. When you get to the purpose of this thread

What was the result of the war for.... of the rebellion?

Then your wishful thinking about just a nice bunch of gentlemen deciding to quit a country club doesn't go to the point.

The fact that it was all about SLAVERY was important, because the primary result, was the END of this evil practice.

Regards,

George Clay

[ajax]

Think outside what your 7th grade teacher told you George. I posted a brief synopsis from Walter Williams as to some of the consequences.

[I'LLMAKEYAFAMOUS]

"The true costs were a change in the character of our government into one feared by the likes of Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, and Calhoun – one where states lost most of their sovereignty to the central government."

"If the federal government makes encroachments on the constitutional rights of the people and the states, what are their options?"

What a disgusting misrepresentation of the subject of States' rights. It wasn't just about the right to secede, it was about the right to secede so as to retain their economic model to which they'd become accustomed. At first glance this would seem a noble endeavor of a people to fight against a tyrannical government who would take away their livelihood. But when we see their livelihood was based on the enslavement and abuse of other humans, that endeavor loses all nobility.

Who in their right mind would argue that it is a constitutional right to enslave another human being? George is right, the war was America's scourge for slavery, and to this day we're still feeling to the repercussions.

[davedan]

In addition to the issues of slavery and states rights another major issue of the civil was over tariffs. The South relied on slaves while the North industrialized. The South finally realized that machines bested man (Paul Bunyan and John Henry)and were forced to industrialize as well but resented having to pay the North for machines and to pay high tariffs for cheaper slave-produced goods from overseas.

But now days with NAFTA, GAD and TPP, we have capitulated over a major issue for which the Civil War was fought. We allowed the opposition to blame the Reed Smooth Tariff Act for worsening the Depression, however smart economists like Milton Friedman and Ben Bernanke disagree. Yet, our economy has been destroyed by Free (slave) Trade = exploitation of 3rd-world labor markets.

[davedan]

Abraham Lincoln’s direct statements indicated his support for slavery; He defended slave owners’ right to own their property, saying that "when they remind us of their constitutional rights [to own slaves], I acknowledge them, not grudgingly but fully and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the claiming of their fugitives" (in indicating support for the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850).

This is a regrettable spin on the truth about Lincoln. Anyone who goes to the Lincoln Memorial and reads Lincoln's second inaugural address should come away with the clear knowledge that this the spin of this statement is false.

the truth is that during Lincoln's first term, he was pro-slavery or at least neutral on slavery and was bending over backwards to try and convince the South to come back. However, after the death of Lincoln's son and his "Period of Crystallization", Lincoln checked out a copy of the Book of Mormon from the Library of Congress (probably read it), and then had a major change of heart about slavery and issued the Emancipation Proclamation. He probably questioned the legality of the Proclamation, but not the rightness of it.

If you read Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, He says that not only in the South wrong for slavery but the North was also wrong for allowing it and that to return American to prosperity, required paying to the last penny to rid our country of the evil of slavery.

[dauser]

Bankers make money financing wars: they finance the build up of armaments on both sides, they finance both sides of wars, and the rebuilding both sides after wars.

Bankers were financing the South and Lincoln up north did not want to pay the 28% interest they offered him, so he printed Greenbacks.

Banks promote conflict between nations (customers).

The Civil War is not over.

The Civil War ended the United States.

The Civil War gave birth to The United States Inc. and OUR slavery.

CORPORATION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - The Act of 1871 by the US CONGRESS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4PlDfO8sro" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6x7KvxlWkDg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[JohnnyL]

JohnnyL,

You start out by saying

This content is actually about the results of the war--
Please save "who was right" for another thread.

Then you go against yourself by saying

If you long for constitutional order, legislative integrity, limited government, and true freedom under law then you, my friend, agree with me that the South was right.

Regards,

George Clay

However, George, please retain and use what your 7th grade teacher taught you regarding reading skills.
I.e., I didn't say that.

But yes, those are the results of the war.

[JohnnyL]

All,
Since no one is talking about the results, I assume everyone agrees with the results in the OP?
Please talk about the results of the war on the constitution and liberty of the USA, thanks.

[davedan]

Lincoln took out loans with Banks in Great Britain to fund the war. The South took out loans with Banks in France. Lincoln found out the that the controlling investors of both British and French banks were the same people, he stopped paying interest on his debts and started paying troops in Greenbacks.

The bankers likely arranged for Lincoln to be assassinated.

[gclayjr]

Davedan,

But now days with NAFTA, GAD and TPP, we have capitulated over a major issue for which the Civil War was fought. We allowed the opposition to blame the Reed Smooth Tariff Act for worsening the Depression, however smart economists like Milton Friedman and Ben Bernanke disagree. Yet, our economy has been destroyed by Free (slave) Trade = exploitation of 3rd-world labor markets.

This is something that I have been wondering about for quite awhile. It is true that the Smoot-Hawley act led to raising trade barriers which had the immediate effect of hurting farmers and depressing farm process. However, this is a short term effect, and the rightness or wrongness would be based upon whether the original state of the market was correct or not. That is to say that farmers would have had to adjust their production for more domestic consumption and less foreign trade. For free market purists, this is heresy. However, the government needed money for it's expanding role (you don't need to convince me that most, if not all, of this expansion was not good), and traditionally it got the bulk of the money for its operations from tariffs. If we don't get it from tariffs, then where do we get it... Income taxes?, Debt?, which is worse?

I have not read any serious contrarian writings about Smoot-Hawley, it seems to be an unquestioned axiom that it was bad.... but I have often wondered....



Also, in regards to Lincoln, I generally agree with your post with the following minor exception

the truth is that during Lincoln's first term, he was pro-slavery or at least neutral on slavery and was bending over backwards to try and convince the South to come back

Lincoln was never pro-slavery, or even neutral about slavery. All you have to do is follow the Lincoln-Douglas debates, or even the reason for the formation of the Republican party to see this. He knew that the south was, at this time, such a one issue block of people, already driven to do self destructive acts, in order to preserve this hallowed institution, he tried to reassure them, that HE was not going to start any conflict by taking away this so prized an institution from them, but that he would work with them, because he wanted to preserve the Union and work through this peacefully. The South did not believe him, and seceded and fired on Fort Sumter, thus starting the bloodiest war in American history.

Regards,

George Clay

[Sandinista]

It looks like the war is not over!

[ajax]

Result? Executive abuse which reverberates today.

Facts:

-Lincoln illegally suspended the writ of habeas corpus
-launched a military invasion without consent of Congress
-blockaded Southern ports without declaring war
-imprisoned without warrant or trial some 13,000 Northern citizens who opposed his policies
-arrested dozens of newspaper editors and owners and, in some cases, had federal soldiers destroy their printing presses
-censored all telegraph communication
-nationalized the railroads
-created three new states (Kansas, Nevada, and West Virginia) without the formal consent of the citizens of those states, an act that Lincoln’s own attorney general thought was unconstitutional
-ordered Federal troops to interfere with Northern elections
-deported a member of Congress from Ohio after he criticized Lincoln’s unconstitutional behavior
-confiscated private property; confiscated firearms in violation of the Second Amendment
-and eviscerated the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

"This amazing disregard for the Constitution," wrote historian Clinton Rossiter," was "considered by nobody as legal." "One man was the government of the United States," says Rossiter, who nevertheless believed that Lincoln was a "great dictator."
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2002/04/tho ... r-lincoln/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also, death or local self governance and state sovereignty. By force, Lincoln settled the issue. States cannot secede. This is anti-historical. It why those who love a strong president, an imperial president, love Lincoln.

...but that he would work with them, because he wanted to preserve the Union and work through this peacefully. The South did not believe him, and seceded and fired on Fort Sumter, thus starting the bloodiest war in American history.

Regards,

George Clay

Sorry George, but he didn't work with them
http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/revie ... ggression/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://mises.org/files/century-wardensonpdf/download" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;? (Chapter 2)

Let us not forget the simple fact that Fort Sumter was a federal fort in Southern territory. Lincoln refused to acknowledge secession and stubbornly held onto the fort hoping to provoke the first shot from the South. He got what he wanted and the South fired first (on a fort remember in Southern territory). Result, no human died. Lincoln's "measured" response? Call up 75,000 troops and invade the South which led to the death of 670,000 humans (including 50,000 Southern civilians).

Contrast Jefferson:
“If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it.” Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, “If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation … to a continuance in the union …. I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.'”

[gclayjr]

Ajax,

March 4, 1861, Lincoln is inaugurated, April 11, 1861, the South attacks Ft. Sumter

Doesn't look like the South was much in for negotiation with Lincoln

The South would only accept capitulation in regards to secession!

Regards,
George Clay

[ajax]

Read the essays George. Why would the South allow a federal tariff collecting fort to remain in a Southern port? And why was Lincoln so stubborn as to retain it against the advise of his close associates?

He was an arch nationalist who viewed the union as creating the states, not the other way around, against all history and logic. He was going to resolve the issue by force if need be. The obvious response would be to let them go in peace. His response to Fort Sumter, in which nobody died, was Total War and destruction of the South. That's sick George.

[gclayjr]

Ajax, JohnnyL,

A couple of things Joseph Smith said about the American Constitution:

The Constitution, when it says, "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America," meant just what it said without reference to color or condition, ad infinitum.
Read more at: http://www.azquotes.com/quote/833152" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am the greatest advocate of the Constitution of the United States there is on the earth. In my feelings I am always ready to die for the protection of the weak and oppressed in their just rights. The only fault I find with the Constitution is, it is not broad enough to cover the whole ground.
Read more at: http://www.azquotes.com/quote/833154" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some things said by various prophets of the Church in support of Confederate Constitution

[Sound of Crickets.}

God Actively protected the Americans in the American Revolution who were fighting the best military in the world

Divine intervention was also significant in the American victory in the Revolutionary War. Just as the Lord protected and sustained Israel anciently, he also provided for those appointed to accomplish his purposes in the American struggle for independence. It had come time to establish a nation where the gospel could be restored, where the Church of Jesus Christ could flourish in a climate of religious freedom, and from where the gospel could be carried to all nations. Inspired and sacrificing leaders, 1 sustained by a power beyond themselves, would establish a remarkable new form of government. The time had come for the American colonists to gain their independence from England in order for Nephi’s prophecy of a people “delivered by the power of God out of the hands of all other nations” (1 Ne. 13:19) to be fulfilled and for the gospel to be restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/10/deli ... y?lang=eng

Divine intervention in the Civil war to protect that great slave holding states rights nation

[sound of crickets... oh wait a minute, the Confederacy fell]

If it was the Confederates who had right on their side, and the Americans under Lincoln, had stifling oppression on theirs, why did none of God's Prophets praise the Confederate constitution, and why did God let the Confederacy fall, never to rise again, even after over 150 years?


Regards,

Georeg Clay

[JohnnyL]

Result? Executive abuse which reverberates today.

Also, death or local self governance and state sovereignty. By force, Lincoln settled the issue. States cannot secede. This is anti-historical. It why those who love a strong president, an imperial president, love Lincoln.

Thank you! Someone finally discussing the effects/ results.

///
George,

I asked you to stick to the topic, etc.; you didn't.

Take your posts and start your own thread, thanks!

[davedan]

Lincoln was never pro-slavery,

I agree with what your saying. What I ment was that Lincoln was pro-slavery in the way Romney was pro-abortion when running for Gov in Mass. Lincoln wasn't personally for slavery but after the South left the Union he was bending over backwards to appease the South to get them to come back. Romney was bending over to appease the liberals in Mass.

Yes. Lincoln was anti-slavery, but was an appeaser/enabler until his "period of crystallization". But it is the complexity here that allows the guy in the video to make the spin that he spins.

[gclayjr]

JohnnyL,

JohnnyL,

gclayjr wrote:JohnnyL,

You start out by saying

This content is actually about the results of the war--
Please save "who was right" for another thread.

Then you go against yourself by saying

f you long for constitutional order, legislative integrity, limited government, and true freedom under law then you, my friend, agree with me that the South was right.

Regards,

George Clay

However, George, please retain and use what your 7th grade teacher taught you regarding reading skills.
I.e., I didn't say that.

But yes, those are the results of the war.

So I explain the only important result of the Civil War, Ajax snarkily says that it is childish , and you respond by agreeing with him, and making another snarky comment, and implying that I am stupid, as if somehow quoting someone absolves you of breaking your own rules, when in fact you did ...immediately


Later

Ajax goes into a typical rant about how evil Lincoln and the North was, and how nobler the south was, and from you [sound of crickets]


I respond by pointing out that there is no evidence that either the Lord’s anointed supported the Confederacy, or that God did anything to help it


And SUDDENLY you are outraged… I have strayed from the point of your post..


You are so narrow, that you cannot even see that you are completely inconsistent and amazingly selective in your outrage

Regards,

George Clay

[passionflower]

.

[jbalm]

If it was the Confederates who had right on their side, and the Americans under Lincoln, had stifling oppression on theirs, why did none of God's Prophets praise the Confederate constitution, and why did God let the Confederacy fall, never to rise again, even after over 150 years?

Maybe cuz at the time, God's prophets were waging their own war against the U.S. government. Dang secessionists.

[gclayjr]

passionFlower,

huge outcome/effect/result of the American Civil War was WW1

Many military historians call the American Civil War the first "Modern" war.

The Gatling gun was invented (pre cursor to machine gun)

The repeating rifle was invented

Ironclad ships were invented

And the siege of Petersburg, was classic trench warfare

Regards,

George Clay