In Defense of Lee And Jackson

[ajax]

And if you're a Northerner, and you don't like the damn South, why would you want to make them stay? If they want to leave, why not just say good riddance, as abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison thought. I mean, why keep such despicable people around to continue to be slave states in the union?

Maybe because they loved their product and were protected by the government via tariffs to sell their wares at artificially higher prices.

Northern newspapers that were associated with the Republican Party openly advocated protectionist tariffs as a tool of plunder directed at the Southern states. As the Daily Chicago Times editorialized on December 10, 1860:

The South has furnished near three-fourths of the entire exports of the country. Last year she furnished seventy-two percent of the whole . . . We have a tariff [the Morrill Tariff] that protects our manufacturers from thirty to fifty percent, and enables us to consume large quantities of Southern cotton, and to compete in our whole home market with the skilled labor of Europe. This operates to compel the South to pay an indirect bounty to our skilled labor, of millions annually.

Cognizant that the Confederate Congress was about to adopt a much lower tariff rate, the Chicago paper warned that if the North were to "let the South adopt the free-trade system," the North's "commerce must be reduced to less than half what it is now . . . leading to very general bankruptcy and ruin."

On March 12, 1861, a week after Lincoln's inauguration and a month before Fort Sumter, the New York Evening Post, another Republican Party mouthpiece, advocated a preemptive strike against the Southern free traders with a naval attack that would "abolish all ports of entry" into the Southern states.

The Newark Daily Advertiser, meanwhile, expressed its disgust that Southerners had apparently "taken to their bosoms the liberal and popular doctrine of free trade," and that they "may be willing to go . . . toward free trade with the European powers." "The chief instigator of the present troubles—South Carolina—have all along for years been preparing the way for the adoption of free trade," and must therefore be stopped "by the closing of the ports" by military force.

When Lincoln was inaugurated his party had just doubled the average tariff rate and was planning on increasing it even more. Then, in his First Inaugural Address, he promised a federal invasion of any state that did not collect the higher tariffs, as South Carolina had refused to do when it nullified the "Tariff of Abominations" in 1832.

As he said: "The power confided in me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion—no using force against, or among the people anywhere" (emphasis added).

Collect the higher tariff rate, he said, and there will be no invasion. Fail to collect it, and there will be an invasion.
https://mises.org/library/gods-generals-and-tariffs

[ajax]

Southern Secession Was One Thing — and the War to Prevent It Was Another
https://mises.org/blog/southern-secessi ... as-another

There's an old saying that "he who distinguishes well teaches well." In other words, if one's going to talk about an important subject, one should be able to define his terms and tell the difference between two things that are not the same.

This wisdom, unfortunately, is rarely embraced by modern pundits arguing about the causes of the American Civil War. A typical example can be found in this article at the Huffington Post in which the author opines: "This discussion [over the causes of the war] has led some people to question if the Confederacy, and therefore the Civil War, was truly motivated by slavery."

Did you notice the huge logical mistake the author makes? It's right here: "...the Confederacy, and therefore the Civil War...."

The author acts as if the mere existence of the Confederacy inexorably caused the war that the North initiated in response to it. That is, the author merely assumes that if a state secedes from the United States, then war is an inevitable result. Moreover, she also wrongly assumes that the motivations behind secession were necessarily the same as the motivations behind the war.

But this does not follow logically at all. If California, for example, were to secede, is war therefore a certainty? Obviously not. The US government could elect to simply not invade California in response.

Moreover, were war to break out, the motivations behind a Californian secession are likely to be quite different from the motivations of the US government in launching a war. For the sake of argument, let's say the Californians secede because they couldn't stand the idea of being in the same country with a bunch of people they perceive to be intolerant rubes. But, what is a likely reason for the US to respond to secession with invasion? A US invasion of California is likely to be motivated by a desire to extract tax revenue from Californians, and to maintain control of military bases along the coast.

Thus it would be absurd to equate the motivations of the California secessionists with those of the advocates for the invasion of California.

To put it simply: an act of secession, and a war that may follow it, are not the same thing.

And yet we find that commentary on the Civil War repeatedly conflates secession with the Civil War itself as if they were the same thing.

Yes, Southern Secession was Motivated by Slavery

But before we go any further let's get this out of the way: the secession movement itself was obviously motivated by a desire to maintain slavery. This is easy enough to show because many Southern secessionists explicitly said so in their declarations of secession. In the South Carolina declaration of independence, the entire second half of the document explains that the state is seceding because it fears the North wil force emancipation on the country as a whole. The authors of the document denounce Northerners for electing a president who is "hostile to slavery" and for a "current of anti-slavery feeling" that allegedly pervaded the North at the time. What especially annoyed the secessionists was the North's refusal to enforce the federal fugitive slave laws against abolitionists who "encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves" in escaping slavery.

The Mississippi declaration went even further, equating slavery with civilization itself, and claiming "a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization," and plainly states that "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world."

In both of these documents, taxes and free trade are barely mentioned. Slavery was clearly at the heart of the matter, which is in part why British free-trade crusader Richard Cobden rejected claims that the South had seceded primarily over tax and trade concerns.

The War, However, Was Motivated by Other Factors

None of this means the war was motivated by slavery — or opposition to it. After the fact, opponents of slavery claimed the war was about emancipation, which it clearly was not, except in the minds of a small minority of radical Republicans. It was not until military victory was apparent that the Republican leadership began to press for nationwide emancipation in negotiations with the South.

Almost until the end, the war was motivated by a concern for preserving tax revenues, and by nationalism. In a North where few people were full-on abolitionists, very few were willing to run off and stop a bullet to end the institution of slavery. Even those who disliked slavery were not exactly rushing off to shoot people over the matter. New York attorney George Templeton Strong's attitude in 1861 toward Southern secession was one of "good riddance." Referring to slavery as the "national ulcer," Strong concluded: "the self-amputated members were diseased beyond immediate cure, and their virus will infect our system no longer." Strong noted that his impression of Northerners was that they were granting "cordial consent" to Southern secession.1

Those who were ready to call for war were more often animated by ideological views tied to defending "the Union," which many regarded as sacred, while the Northern policymakers themselves were concerned with the retention of military installations and with revenue concerns. The South provided a lot of revenue for the North, and the North wanted to keep it that way.

Years into the war, many Americans were still perfectly happy to come to a negotiated settlement with the South that allowed for the continuation of slavery. Indeed, in the 1864 election, the Democratic nominee, who promised to end the war without abolishing slavery, won 45 percent of the popular vote. (Voters in Confederate states were excluded, of course.)

Should the North have invaded the South to end slavery? That's a separate question, and one that is also totally distinct from the question of secession. Northern armies could have invaded the South at any time to force emancipation on the South. No secession was ever necessary or key to the equation.

Equating Secession with Slavery

The lack of precision used in equating the war, slavery, and secession, serves an important purpose for modern anti-secessionists. Their knee-jerk opposition to any form of decentralization or locally-based democracy impels them to equate secession itself with slavery, even though secession can be motivated by any number of reasons. After all, secession was the preferred strategy of abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison who as early as 1844 began preaching the slogan "No union with slaveholders!" In Garrison's mind, the North ought to secede in order to free northerners from the burdens of the fugitive slave acts, and to offer safe haven to escaping slaves.

Had such a scheme played out, and the South had taken military action to force the North back into the union, would we be hearing today about how the only appropriate response to secession is open warfare? One would certainly hope not.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. It was Southerners themselves who eventually made it much easier for Northern politicians to call for war. In a show of totally unnecessary bravado, Southern artillery fired on Ft. Sumter in 1861, allowing Lincoln to claim that the South had started a war on the North. Obviously even this move by the Confederacy did not justify the wholesale invasion and occupation of the South. Given Sumter's location, the attack on the fort shouldn't even have counted as an act of war. Nevertheless, in terms of public perception, the South blundered badly and played into the hands of pro-war politicians.

[David13]

I'm glad that most of you are starting to admit that slavery was the main issue, while slandering me!

...


George Clay

George
What is it that causes you to have these weird fantasies? You are sold hook, line and sinker on political correctness? Cause that's what you espouse.
Lincoln cared very little about slavery. He said so. He cared about preserving the Union of all the states.
dc

George has been led to water (facts). He just doesn't want to drink it (knowledge).

[gclayjr]

David13,

George has been led to water (facts). He just doesn't want to drink it (knowledge).

I guess when you ignore facts, what you drink is Kool-Aid

Regards,

George Clay

[iWriteStuff]

David13,

George has been led to water (facts). He just doesn't want to drink it (knowledge).

I guess when you ignore facts, what you drink is Kool-Aid

Regards,

George Clay

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ylv1_FEXvLM

[David13]

David13,

George has been led to water (facts). He just doesn't want to drink it (knowledge).

I guess when you ignore facts, what you drink is Kool-Aid

Regards,

George Clay

Yes, George, you have drank of the Kool-Aid of political correctness. Now you are most very trendy, up to date, and hip.
dc

[Finrock]

David13,

George has been led to water (facts). He just doesn't want to drink it (knowledge).

I guess when you ignore facts, what you drink is Kool-Aid

Regards,

George Clay

Your position that the "one and only" reason for the South seceding from the Union was to promote slavery, has been soundly trounced. People in this thread have provided so many references and cited multiple historical documents, quotes, and words that reasonably and without a doubt demonstrate that your particular assertion is incorrect. It just isn't true. The one and only reason for the South seceding was not due to slavery question.

-Finrock

[gclayjr]

David13,

Yes, George, you have drank of the Kool-Aid of political correctness. Now you are most very trendy, up to date, and hip.

What is trendy are alternative histories. Standing up the the USA, and President Lincoln based upon FACT (as you yourself acknowledges). Is NOT trendy. I am the voice in the wilderness. You are the loud, trendy crowd.

If you don't believe me, just review this thread.

Regards,

George Clay

[gclayjr]

Finrock,

Your position that the "one and only" reason for the South seceding from the Union was to promote slavery, has been soundly trounced. People in this thread have provided so many references and cited multiple historical documents, quotes, and words that reasonably and without a doubt demonstrate that your particular assertion is incorrect. It just isn't true. The one and only reason for the South seceding was not due to slavery question.

I guess, I should not be surprised at your lack of reading comprehension, or your repeated mis-characterizations (or misunderstandings) of what I say. You should always pause when you say something like "Your position that" or "What you are saying" or anything like that, because invariably you are wrong!

What I say is; yes there were other causes, but when you chase down all of those other causes, the ROOT cause is slavery. For instance, these Libertarian wackos are always saying that is was about states rights, and that the south was concerned about too strong of a federal government. On the surface there is much truth to that. But if you research to find out what the evil power of the Federal Government was doing that set them off, it was to restrict Slavery (Remember, they were OK with this federal power for over 80 years), and when you look at the behavior of Jefferson Davis, and the Confederate government during the years of war, they were very centralized in their laws and dictations... Particularly in regards to Slavery!


Yea, there are all kinds of "other" reason... including this tariff fantasy, but when you dive below the surface at the root was SLAVERY!

Regards,

George Clay

[Silver]

Finrock,

Your position that the "one and only" reason for the South seceding from the Union was to promote slavery, has been soundly trounced. People in this thread have provided so many references and cited multiple historical documents, quotes, and words that reasonably and without a doubt demonstrate that your particular assertion is incorrect. It just isn't true. The one and only reason for the South seceding was not due to slavery question.

I guess, I should not be surprised at your lack of reading comprehension, or your repeated mis-characterizations (or misunderstandings) of what I say. You should always pause when you say something like "Your position that" or "What you are saying" or anything like that, because invariably you are wrong!

What I say is; yes there were other causes, but when you chase down all of those other causes, the ROOT cause is slavery. For instance, these Libertarian wackos are always saying that is was about states rights, and that the south was concerned about too strong of a federal government. On the surface there is much truth to that. But if you research to find out what the evil power of the Federal Government was doing that set them off, it was to restrict Slavery (Remember, they were OK with this federal power for over 80 years), and when you look at the behavior of Jefferson Davis, and the Confederate government during the years of war, they were very centralized in their laws and dictations... Particularly in regards to Slavery!


Yea, there are all kinds of "other" reason... including this tariff fantasy, but when you dive below the surface at the root was SLAVERY!

Regards,

George Clay

It is with fear and trepidation I attempt to approach the unassailable mountain that is George, but here goes. You guys throw me a lifeline if he accuses me of poor reading comprehension or conspiracy theories or living in me mommy's basement as he always does to those who dare to have an opinion different from his own.

George, you are forgetting your own religious history. The South was NOT OK with the treatment and power exerted by the North "for over 80 years."

The South had long complained about it. Even a guy you know well commented, under the Spirit, in words you should already know. Facts, George, they're buggerbears when they conflict with your pet theories.

Section 87
Revelation and prophecy on war, given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at or near Kirtland, Ohio, December 25, 1832. At this time disputes in the United States over slavery and South Carolina’s nullification of federal tariffs were prevalent. Joseph Smith’s history states that “appearances of troubles among the nations” were becoming “more visible” to the Prophet “than they had previously been since the Church began her journey out of the wilderness.”

1–4, War is foretold between the Northern States and the Southern States; 5–8, Great calamities will fall upon all the inhabitants of the earth.

[Finrock]

Finrock,

Your position that the "one and only" reason for the South seceding from the Union was to promote slavery, has been soundly trounced. People in this thread have provided so many references and cited multiple historical documents, quotes, and words that reasonably and without a doubt demonstrate that your particular assertion is incorrect. It just isn't true. The one and only reason for the South seceding was not due to slavery question.

I guess, I should not be surprised at your lack of reading comprehension, or your repeated mis-characterizations (or misunderstandings) of what I say. You should always pause when you say something like "Your position that" or "What you are saying" or anything like that, because invariably you are wrong!

What I say is; yes there were other causes, but when you chase down all of those other causes, the ROOT cause is slavery. For instance, these Libertarian wackos are always saying that is was about states rights, and that the south was concerned about too strong of a federal government. On the surface there is much truth to that. But if you research to find out what the evil power of the Federal Government was doing that set them off, it was to restrict Slavery (Remember, they were OK with this federal power for over 80 years), and when you look at the behavior of Jefferson Davis, and the Confederate government during the years of war, they were very centralized in their laws and dictations... Particularly in regards to Slavery!


Yea, there are all kinds of "other" reason... including this tariff fantasy, but when you dive below the surface at the root was SLAVERY!

Regards,

George Clay

Well, that must be it, then; Everyone on this thread (except for George) has reading and comprehension issues and they are a bunch of wackos. Why didn't you just say this from the get go?

:))

-Finrock

[gclayjr]

Silver,

Section 87
Revelation and prophecy on war, given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at or near Kirtland, Ohio, December 25, 1832. At this time disputes in the United States over slavery and South Carolina’s nullification of federal tariffs were prevalent. Joseph Smith’s history states that “appearances of troubles among the nations” were becoming “more visible” to the Prophet “than they had previously been since the Church began her journey out of the wilderness.”

I'm not sure who is having the reading comprehension problems here, you or me. First of all; Apparently Joseph Smith himself noted Slavery as a major cause of the Civil War. So that reinforces my position against the Historical revisionists who are trying to minimize this and pretend that this was just a fight for Libertarian "states Rights".

The South, as any region; West, North , East, whoever; always have complaints against each other and a government that they perceive as favoring the other group. I am not saying that this is not true. However, what pushed these normal regional disputes to secession and shooting, virtually all of it goes back to slavery.

The problem with Southern Apologists, conspiracy theorists, and radical Libertarians is not that they are noting other elements that might have contributed to the civil war, they are trying to minimize the fact that it was primarily over slavery to support their pet theory (isn't it interesting that THEY are the ones alway accusing ME of historical revisionism, when it is they, who root their theories on theorists of their own ilk, and I use original historical documents)

If I have miscommunicated and led people to think that I don't recognize that there were other peripheral things that might have contributed to the CIvil War, then I apologize. It is difficult to try and shed light into the darkness of revisionists who want to pretend that it was about the constitution, and Lincoln's failure to recognize that a nation is like a country club and anybody can join and anybody can quit whenever they want, without recognizing that it isn't just a country club, and that the primary reason that the South decided to quit was because they were afraid that a president of a party that was formed specifically to oppose the spread of slavery, would put restrictions on the spread of their beloved and sainted slavery, and maybe in the future limit it. Then these revisionists take Lincoln's efforts to put out an olive leaf to the south as a hammer to claim that Lincoln didn't care about slavery, and that he was just a megalomaniac dictator that wanted to expand the federal government, it is hard to show any light on any of the other minor factors that might have contributed when shedding light on this BS.

Also, you use LDS History, who were those Missourians whe persecuted the Mormons, killed us, drove us out, and created a STATE law that we should be killed or driven out of Missouri? Which states were the most hostile to Mormon missionaries?

So if that doesn't explain it, I don't understand the point you are trying to push.

REgards,

Georeg Clay

[David13]

[quote=gclayj

If I have miscommunicated and led people to think that I don't recognize that there were other peripheral things that might have contributed to the CIvil War, then I apologize.

Georeg Clay
[/quote]


George, go back in time to prior to about 1940. What was in the history books at that time? What was taught in the schools? It was that slavery was THE PERIPHERAL ISSUE, and not vice versa.
Revisionism began after that. Revisionist history rewrote history starting at a later date (I don't know the exact date) to follow an agenda and to bring slavery into focus as the first and foremost cause of the civil war.
You have been caught up in that revisionist history. Not the others on this thread.
And you thus fall into the trap of political correctness, that now says we have to go out and destroy civil war monuments, to protest Trump under the guise that they were slavers. They may have been slavers, but that doesn't change history. They were also soldiers fighting for a cause (not slavery) and were rather good warriors and fought gallantly.
Rewriting history, which is being done all across the board, not just with the civil war is part of an agenda. You have fallen into their trap.
We are talking about the traditional view of the civil war which was the predominate view up to perhaps 1940 or so.
You don't realize who's side you are on.
dc

[gclayjr]

David13,

You have been caught up in that revisionist history. Not the others on this thread.
And you thus fall into the trap of political correctness, that now says we have to go out and destroy civil war monuments, to protest Trump under the g

You always so accuse, but I am the only one citing original sources. You also blow away my continued references to admiring Lee, Jackson, and those who fought for the south. I surely don't endorse destroying war monuments or statues. So I am the one historically accurate, and not politically correct.

The most radical political correctness of today is splt between the alt right, and the intifa. and YOU guys are closer to the alt right political correctness than I am. I am the lone voice in the wilderness trying to remind people to return to sanity and the truth as it was recognized at the time of the war.

Regards,

George Clay

[JohnnyL]

I'm glad that most of you are starting to admit that slavery was the main issue, while slandering me! It is funny that nobody recognizes my multiple statements of Admiration of both Lee and Jackson as individuals, and the many good southerners who fought for what they perceived as defense against a Northern invasion of their states.

Regards,

George Clay

Where are so many "starting to admit that slavery was the main issue"? References, please.

Slavery was the main issue--but not the type you're thinking of. It was slavery of the South to the North. Slavery of Black slaves was a minor part of that.

[JohnnyL]

You might note that the shape of the Commonwealth of Virginia looks different on the map than its current boundaries. Let's see if any of the Yankees can tell us why. LOL. See, this is how it goes, boys and girls. Yankees are all for secession if it seems to benefit them. What a crack up our mighty public school education graduates are.

West Virginia "seceded" from Virginia.

Lincoln created two states unconstitutionally.

[Silver]

You might note that the shape of the Commonwealth of Virginia looks different on the map than its current boundaries. Let's see if any of the Yankees can tell us why. LOL. See, this is how it goes, boys and girls. Yankees are all for secession if it seems to benefit them. What a crack up our mighty public school education graduates are.

West Virginia "seceded" from Virginia.

Lincoln created two states unconstitutionally.

That's right, but you're not a Yankee, are you? If so, hats off.

[gclayjr]

JohnnyL,

Where are so many "starting to admit that slavery was the main issue"? References, please.

Slavery was the main issue--but not the type you're thinking of. It was slavery of the South to the North.

You forgot to put in the laughing emotocon to show that this is a joke :))


Regards,

George Clay

PS: thanks for proving my point better than I could above.

[JohnnyL]

Black Confederates and the casualty of truth

© 1999 WorldNetDaily.com

Millions of Americans believe the Civil War was fought to abolish the institution of slavery. Because of that mischaracterization we honor President Abraham Lincoln as one of our greatest leaders, a man who had the "vision," "clarity of purpose" and "morality" to "oppose such an oppressive institution."
Indeed slavery was "oppressive," morally wrong and fiendishly conceived. Anyone -- black, white, Christian, Muslim, whatever -- that has ever been "enslaved" would agree, I'm sure. So would most Americans. But to this day there is a disconnect between the reality of American slavery and the war which was ostensibly fought to eliminate it.
Many of you are not going to want to hear this -- and the words following this paragraph likely won't change your mind -- but I'm going to say it anyway: Lincoln, and not the secession of southern states or the institution of slavery -- was responsible for killing over 600,000 Americans from 1861-1865. And here's another bombshell for diehard Yankees who have been lied to like the rest of us for the past 134 years: There were also a great number of willing, voluntary black Confederates who fought and died for their "country," the Confederate States of America.
A newly published interview in the Southern Partisan speaks volumes on these issues and, in the words of a black Confederate descendent, dispels most of the myths, rumors and outright lies about blacks, whites, and their roles during and after the conflict.

Such truth should be required reading for every liberal race-baiting opportunist, every congressional delegate, and every current and future presidential candidate in this country. Because I'll tell you something: If we don't get a handle on the truth surrounding the Civil War, our country's history before, during, and after the war, the constitutional issues stemming from it, and especially the manufactured racial tensions of the latter 20th century, there's going to be hell to pay in the next millennium.

The interviewee, Nelson Winbush, provided the magazine with irrefutable insight into the life of his grandfather, Louis Napoleon Nelson, who -- at the age of 14 -- volunteered to accompany his master and son, E.R. and Sydney Oldham, into battle in the service of the CSA. The trio were members of the Tennessee 7th Cavalry, Company M, and Nelson himself actually saw combat in the battles of Lookout Mountain, Bryson's Crossroads, and Vicksburg. Winbush said his grandfather told him many other blacks did the same thing.

"... My grandfather has been quoted in newspapers, The Commercial Appeal out of Memphis and the Lauderdale County Enterprise, the county paper there at home," Winbush said, "as saying that if he had wanted, he could have left any time during the War, but he didn't. So I read him to be typical" of most blacks who served the Confederacy.

Winbush also denounced today's pop culture rendition of racism and deep-rooted, "historical" racial tensions between blacks and whites, which, the mainstream tells us, dates back to the Civil War. Not so, he said, according to his grandfather. Winbush said that while growing up and living in the Deep South, "I've had no problem. I've done any and everything I wanted to do at any age. Of course, I wasn't trying to do things out of reason. So, I don't ... the South is not a problem. The problem is with people who are looking for problems or who make problems, I guess. Regardless of color."
He added: "Now if racism had existed (in the 1860s) like the Yankees would like to lead people to believe when the master and his older sons went off to war -- and we're talking about the boys 12 years old and older -- who is left to take care of the missus and the children? Did anything happen to them? No. They were respected, guarded and taken care of. If racism had existed like the Yankees want you to believe it existed, explain to me how in the world all of those white babies lived sucking a black mammy's (breast)."

Of those who see racism everywhere, Winbush added, "The people who are saying that, most of them, where do they live? Where do they come from? And what do they represent? The majority of them?"

"I guess they're newspaper reporters," said the interviewer.

"That's right. And you see, this country is controlled by that old dirty Yankee money that controls the media. That's the electronic media and the printed media. See, all your major networks, major newspapers, are controlled by who? Yankees!" said Winbush. "They're selling papers and air time. They don't give a damn what happened or what will happen. The more controversy that can be stirred up, the more papers they sell."

And what about the causes of the war and the cause of the Confederacy?

"Well, secession was perfectly legal the way the Constitution was written," Winbush said. "Lincoln decided he wanted to declare war on the South. So, when the South was invaded the Southerners saw fit to defend their homes."

His account is corroborated in an 1899 world history text, "Lee's World History." At the turn of the 19th century, U.S. historians were still reporting that shortly after southern states seceded, the new southern Congress sent a delegation to Washington, D.C., in an attempt to negotiate a peaceful settlement with the north. Lincoln gave his assurances that during these negotiations, Fort Sumter -- which was besieged by Confederate troops -- would not be reinforced. He broke that promise, and when Confederate officials discovered that an armada of northern ships, stocked with supplies and men, was enroute to Sumter, they attacked on April 12, 1861.

So much for Lincoln, the man of "principle."

"The Yankee historians want to make people believe that the war was about slavery," Winbush continued. "The war wasn't about slavery. The war was about states' rights and tariffs: they call 'em taxes now. The system was skewed toward the North. See, I grew up less than eighteen miles from the Mississippi River. We used to go down and watch the barges go up and down the river and I never saw a barge break away going upstream. Every barge I ever saw break away was going downstream. But it cost more money to send cotton and other goods and produce up the river than the refined goods and textiles back down the same river. And the money always stayed up North."

Would Winbush have fought for the Confederacy?

"I probably would have been right along there with my granddaddy," he said. "You see, what people don't realize, when the Yankees came south, they were hoodlums. The first thing they did was rape the black women, then they raped the black missy girls, you know, those that are approaching young womanhood. Then the jokers went and got drunk before they could rape the white women. Well, now if that was enough to make the white Southerners mad enough to go fight them, then why in the hell couldn't the black Southerners be just as angry? He's had a double dose before the white Southerner had a first dose.

"Then they proceeded to burn the houses to the ground. Now if the house I was living in was burned to the ground, would it make a whole lot of difference whether it was my house or my master's house?" he said.

Can Winbush be believed? That's up to you, but he personally has reams of letters, pictures, and old newspaper clippings to substantiate his grandfather's accounts. You won't find any of them in today's pop culture school history books, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

You will, however, find plenty of references to the lie that the War Between the States was fought solely on the premise of southern slavery, buttressed by healthy references to Lincoln's 1863 Emancipation Proclamation. Never mind that Lincoln himself never believed the war was primarily about slavery, or that his proclamation was made in typical political fashion: To reinvigorate a northern population that was already tiring of the war, its costs and hardships. The ploy worked, though, and tens of thousands of northern blacks volunteered for military service; Lincoln got the infusion of manpower he needed by using a favorite liberal tactic of this century -- exploiting a minority population for political expediency.

The thing to remember here is that unlike most of today's race-baiters and politicians, Winbush has no political agenda. He mostly travels now, is retired and doing very well financially. When he does speak, he addresses Confederate historical groups and, he says, he gets favorable ratings from -- among others -- fellow blacks.

If indeed there is a "racial crisis" in this country today, it is a manufactured "crisis" for the most part, and its purpose is to prevent unity, not restore it. There can be no other explanation for omitting the truth about the most tumultuous time in our history, nor can there be any denying that the "divide and conquer" tactic is a well-worn and time-honored practice. It is used mostly by liberal demagogues but is increasingly being adopted by politicos of all stripes. Unfortunately, however, all of us suffer the consequences of such selfish motivation.

As for Lincoln's culpability in starting the Civil War, ultimately you'll have to judge that for yourself. Personally I think the evidence against him is overwhelming and concrete, and not entirely based on Winbush's accounts. History in its most raw form is devoid of bias and agendas -- only those who record it (or rewrite it) are burdened with such humanistic fallacies.

For my money, however, starting a war that ultimately killed over a half million of my countrymen is a burden I would not want to carry. The attempt of latter-day historians to sanitize Lincoln's actions by couching them under the premise of "ending slavery" is cruel, exploitative and a lie. All Americans have suffered for it -- though blacks, again, have suffered most because while they did endure slavery, they have since had to endure endless attempts by political opportunists to use their troubled past for the most selfish reasons.

In my indictment of Lincoln I wish to make one final point: The right of secession was reserved by the original 13 states when ratifying our Constitution, and as of 1861 had never been questioned, repealed, or otherwise nullified. Lincoln's war settled the issue once and for all; for good measure, the Constitution was amended to solidify the victory. Before the War, neither he nor any U.S. president had the right to attack a state for "opting out" of their original agreement any more than the U.S. government had a right to cheat them out of what was rightfully theirs to begin with.
The irony today is that the true causes of the Civil War had more to do with trade, commerce, and tariffs between the states -- something to think about as we rush headlong into "agreements" with such entities like the WTO.

I applaud men like Nathan Winbush for having the courage to stand up and refute the myth that the Civil War was fought largely on behalf of members of his ethnic community. As a black, that must take more courage than most of us can even imagine. But unless or until more Americans do that, we'll continue to hyphenate ourselves from each other, which will only cause more division. It's a shame that, in the year 2000, Americans are still "fighting" this war -- for all the wrong reasons.

Jon E. Dougherty is a staff writer for WorldNetDaily


///

Genesis of the Civil War

The historical event that looms largest in American public consciousness is the Civil War. One-hundred thirty-nine years after the first shot was fired, its genesis is still fiercely debated and its symbols heralded and protested. And no wonder: the event transformed the American regime from a federalist system based on freedom to a centralized state that circumscribed liberty in the name of public order. The cataclysmic event massacred a generation of young men, burned and looted the Southern states, set a precedent for executive dictatorship, and transformed the American military from a citizen-based defense corps into a global military power that can't resist intervention.

And yet, if you listen to the media on the subject, you might think that the entire issue of the Civil War comes down to race and slavery. If you favor Confederate symbols, it means you are a white person unsympathetic to the plight of blacks in America. If you favor abolishing Confederate History Month and taking down the flag, you are an enlightened thinker willing to bury the past so we can look forward to a bright future under progressive leadership. The debate rarely goes beyond these simplistic slogans.

And yet this take on the event is wildly ahistorical. It takes Northern war propaganda at face value without considering that the South had solid legal, moral, and economic reasons for secession which had nothing to do with slavery. Even the name "Civil War" is misleading, since the war wasn't about two sides fighting to run the central government as in the English or Roman civil wars. The South attempted a peaceful secession from federal control, an ambition no different from the original American plea for independence from Britain.

But why would the South want to secede? If the original American ideal of federalism and constitutionalism had survived to 1860, the South would not have needed to. But one issue loomed larger than any other in that year as in the previous three decades: the Northern tariff. It was imposed to benefit Northern industrial interests by subsidizing their production through high prices and public works. But it had the effect of forcing the South to pay more for manufactured goods and disproportionately taxing it to support the central government. It also injured the South's trading relations with other parts of the world.

In effect, the South was being looted to pay for the North's early version of industrial policy. The battle over the tariff began in 1828, with the "tariff of abomination." Thirty year later, with the South paying 87 percent of federal tariff revenue while having their livelihoods threatened by protectionist legislation, it become impossible for the two regions to be governed under the same regime. The South as a region was being reduced to a slave status, with the federal government as its master.

But why 1860? Lincoln promised not to interfere with slavery, but he did pledge to "collect the duties and imposts": he was the leading advocate of the tariff and public works policy, which is why his election prompted the South to secede. In pro-Lincoln newspapers, the phrase "free trade" was invoked as the equivalent of industrial suicide. Why fire on Ft. Sumter? It was a customs house, and when the North attempted to strengthen it, the South knew that its purpose was to collect taxes, as newspapers and politicians said at the time.

To gain an understanding of the Southern mission, look no further than the Confederate Constitution. It is a duplicate of the original Constitution, with several improvements. It guarantees free trade, restricts legislative power in crucial ways, abolishes public works, and attempts to rein in the executive. No, it didn't abolish slavery but neither did the original Constitution (in fact, the original protected property rights in slaves).

Before the war, Lincoln himself had pledged to leave slavery intact, to enforce the fugitive slave laws, and to support an amendment that would forever guarantee slavery where it then existed. Neither did he lift a finger to repeal the anti-Negro laws that besotted all Northern states, Illinois in particular. Recall that the underground railroad ended, not in New York or Boston -- since dropping off blacks in those states would have been restricted -- but in Canada! The Confederate Constitution did, however, make possible the gradual elimination of slavery, a process that would have been made easier had the North not so severely restricted the movements of former slaves.

Now, you won't read this version of events in any conventional history text, particularly not those approved for use in public high schools. You are not likely to hear about it in the college classroom either, where the single issue of slavery overwhelms any critical thinking. Again and again we are told what Polybius called "an idle, unprofitable tale" instead of the truth, and we are expected to swallow it uncritically. So where can you go to discover that the conventional story is sheer nonsense?

The last ten years have brought us a flurry of great books that look beneath the surface. There is John Denson's "The Costs of War" (1998), Jeffrey Rodgers Hummel's "Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men" (1996), David Gordon's "Secession, State, and Liberty" (1998), Marshall de Rosa's "The Confederate Constitution" (1991), or, from a more popular standpoint, James and Walter Kennedy's "Was Jefferson Davis Right?" (1998).

But if we were to recommend one work -- based on originality, brevity, depth, and sheer rhetorical power -- it would be Charles Adams' time bomb of a book, "When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2000). In a mere 242 pages, he shows that almost everything we thought we knew about the war between the states is wrong.

Adams believes that both Northern and Southern leaders were lying when they invoked slavery as a reason for secession and for the war. Northerners were seeking a moral pretext for an aggressive war, while Southern leaders were seeking a threat more concrete than the Northern tariff to justify a drive to political independence. This was rhetoric designed for mass consumption . Adams amasses an amazing amount of evidence -- including remarkable editorial cartoons and political speeches -- to support his thesis that the war was really about government revenue.

Consider this little tidbit from the pro-Lincoln New York Evening Post, March 2, 1861 edition:
"That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the port must be closed to importations from abroad, is generally admitted. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe. There will be nothing to furnish means of subsistence to the army; nothing to keep our navy afloat; nothing to pay the salaries of public officers; the present order of things must come to a dead stop.
"What, then, is left for our government? Shall we let the seceding states repeal the revenue laws for the whole Union in this manner? Or will the government choose to consider all foreign commerce destined for those ports where we have no custom-houses and no collectors as contraband, and stop it, when offering to enter the collection districts from which our authorities have been expelled?"

This is not an isolated case. British newspapers, whether favoring the North or South, said the same thing: the feds invaded the South to collect revenue. Indeed, when Karl Marx said the following, he was merely stating what everyone who followed events closely knew: "The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty."

Marx was only wrong on one point: the war was about principle at one level. It was about the principle of self-determination and the right not to be taxed to support an alien regime. Another way of putting this is that the war was about freedom, and the South was on the same side as the original American revolutionaries.

Interesting, isn't it, that today, those who favor banning Confederate symbols and continue to demonize an entire people's history also tend to be partisans of the federal government in all its present political struggles? Not much has changed in 139 years. Adams's book goes a long way toward telling the truth about this event, for anyone who cares to look at the facts.

[David13]

David13,

You have been caught up in that revisionist history. Not the others on this thread.
And you thus fall into the trap of political correctness, that now says we have to go out and destroy civil war monuments, to protest Trump under the g

You always so accuse, but I am the only one citing original sources. You also blow away my continued references to admiring Lee, Jackson, and those who fought for the south. I surely don't endorse destroying war monuments or statues. So I am the one historically accurate, and not politically correct.

The most radical political correctness of today is splt between the alt right, and the intifa. and YOU guys are closer to the alt right political correctness than I am. I am the lone voice in the wilderness trying to remind people to return to sanity and the truth as it was recognized at the time of the war.

Regards,

George Clay

George
Take off your tin foil hat. Reality is out there.
dc

[Silver]

George,
Here's a real cause upon which you can expend your passion:

https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-ne ... ut-slavery

Wednesday, 30 August 2017
Statues Away: Who Really Cares About Slavery?
Written by Selwyn Duke

Statues Away: Who Really Cares About Slavery?
If those on the Left really cared about slavery, they wouldn’t be obsessed with tearing down the statues of long-dead slave-owners. They wouldn’t spend their time impugning George Washington and other Founders for something that, until relatively recently, was the norm most anywhere and everywhere and was defended by most anyone and everyone.

What they might do is combat the slavery still occurring in non-Western countries.

A good example is Mauritania, an Islamic African nation currently in the news because it receives United States trade benefits despite having one of the world’s highest rates of modern-day slavery. As The Guardian wrote Friday, Mauritania “is currently on a list of countries that benefit from the African Growth and Opportunity Act (Agoa). The act, designed to promote the economic development of countries that can show they uphold human rights and meet labour standards, enables African countries to export goods duty-free to U.S. markets.”

A union of U.S. labor organizations has protested this state of affairs. As The Guardian also informs, “‘The government of Mauritania routinely fails to conduct investigations into cases of slavery, rarely pursues prosecutions for those responsible for the practice and fails to ensure access to remedy or otherwise support victims,’ the union wrote in a petition, adding that the state harasses and imprisons anti-slavery activists and will not publicly acknowledge the continued existence of slavery.”

“‘This represents a total failure to take any meaningful steps to establish freedom from forced labour,’ said the petition.”

While Mauritania didn’t abolish slavery until 1981, making it the last nation to do so (must have been the influence of all those Confederate statues), and didn’t criminalize the practice until 2007, it’s not alone in tolerating slavery. Forty-six million people worldwide live as modern-day slaves, and the Clever provides a list of 15 countries that are the worst offenders; it includes usual suspects such as North Korea, India, China, Nigeria, the Congo, and Pakistan. Notable is that not one Western — or as some say, “white supremacist” — nation is among them.

This brings us to the true white privilege: that enjoyed by anyone residing in a “white” Western country. It means you live in not only the most prosperous civilization in history, but also the most morally victorious. You live in a civilization that

• likely wasn’t the first to practice slavery but was the first to end it.

• didn’t birth human-rights abuses, but did birth our whole modern concept of human rights to begin with.

• provides both enough freedom and free time so that self-flagellation can become a fashion

There are people and organizations that combat this extant Third World slavery — it’s just that our statue-hating leftists aren’t among them. In fairness, there are some legitimate reasons for this. People naturally focus more on their own country than on others, where it’s more difficult to effect change, anyway (especially since protesting in Mauritania could earn you a cracked skull).

In reality, though, few slavery-obsessed leftists actually care about slavery. Rather, it’s a convenient vehicle through which to advance today’s anti-American cultural revolution. You can’t change American culture, after all, by directing your energies toward Mauritanian culture.

As an SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) extremist once wrote, “The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution.” This partially explains why leftists could be against segregation in the '60s but for it today; aghast at pedophilia when the matter is the Catholic Church scandal, but then work toward its legitimization elsewhere; preach tolerance one week and stifle opposing views the next; rail against inequality and then enforce double standards; and condemn President Trump for sexual assault (which he never committed) but then turn a blind eye toward Bill Clinton and director Roman Polanski.

There is a reason for this consistent inconsistency: Like far too many today, leftists are moral relativists — meaning, they don’t believe in Truth (absolute by definition). Of course, without Truth there can be no moral absolutes, and without moral absolutes there can be no principles, only preferences.

Not having Truth as a yardstick for behavior is why leftists rely on emotion instead; it’s why they popularized the credo “If it feels good, do it.”

And without principles, leftists are reduced to personal governance by their baser instincts, such as sexual urges; anger; the desire for vengeance; and, as infamous atheist/moral relativist Friedrich Nietzsche put it, the “will to power.”

So, ironically, if leftists really cared about freedom, they might first seek to emancipate themselves from their enslavement to their own passions.

[captainfearnot]

I'm out of my depth when it comes to Civil War history, and I don't really have a dog in this fight. I lean towards George's interpretation that slavery was the primary issue dividing the country, but of course there were other factors. Perhaps slavery was merely the most visible manifestation of fundamental differences in governing philosophy, but either way it seems like we're just arguing semantics at some point.

I have one question. If I remember my US history, maps in the 1800s always designated states as either "Free States" or "Slave States." Was this a universal convention, or had our textbooks already fallen to Northern/PC interpretations of the Civil War by the time I was in school? I grew up in Texas, but maybe further in the Deep South their textbooks label the states something else? I don't know, Federalist States vs. States Rights States or something? (David13, maybe you can check your 1940s textbook for us and see how the states are designated...)

Wasn't the Missouri Compromise all about maintaining the delicate balance between Free States and Slave States? Wasn't the overriding issue, every time a new state was annexed, whether it would be a Free State or Slave State? I don't see how you can argue that slavery wasn't the primary issue when that was how states were identified and counted during this period. But that could just be how I learned it.

[kittycat51]

I may be eviscerated by writing this but I DOUBLE DOG DARE you fighting men (If that's what you are) to read "The Lincoln Hypothesis" by Timothy Ballard. It won't hurt you I promise. (Deseret Book carries it) THEN if you still persist in your views so be it. You will find that what Lincoln thought going into the Civil War and what he believed by the end are 2 different things.....

[gclayjr]

Silver,

f those on the Left really cared about slavery, they wouldn’t be obsessed with tearing down the statues of long-dead slave-owners. They wouldn’t spend their time impugning George Washington and other Founders for something that, until relatively recently, was the norm most anywhere and everywhere and was defended by most anyone and everyone.

What they might do is combat the slavery still occurring in non-Western countries.

This is one of the funniest things I have ever read. You are the first person I know who has accused me of supporting the Left? Most people accuse me of standing to the right of Atilla the Hun

I never said the Left cared about slavery. The South who voted to seceed was primarily Democrat. Most of the KKK members were Democrat, THe Jim Crowe laws were passed by Democrats. I never said the Democrats, or the Left really gave a Damn about Slavery. Maybe that is what is so pathetically sad about all of this.

So many people are bending and twisting the true history of the roots of the Civil war, where the terrible sufferings of those who were really the victims are lost to promote various political agenda. The Left creates an imaginary world of conservative and republican oppressors of Black people to suck them into a Socialist Big Brother government to take care of the poor oppressed minorities. The radical Libertarians create an imaginary world of noble "States Righters" who were just rebelling against a big brother brother government. The Lincoln Haters create a false history of Lincoln not giving a damned about slavery and just wanting to be an emperor for ... well I never quite understood this one... and the alt right are buying into this fantasy to promote a strong anti-left right with racial overtones.

Lost in all of this is the fact of America's original sin that kept it from reaching the lofty goals stated in the Declaration of Independence was finally removed, though through the shedding of much noble blood on both sides.

And nobody really gives a damned about either the slaves, or those who were conscripted to fight on either side, as long as they can make the story tell the message they want.

How pathetic

Regards,

George Clay

[ajax]

Lost in all of this is the fact of America's original sin that kept it from reaching the lofty goals stated in the Declaration of Independence was finally removed, though through the shedding of much noble blood on both sides. Was slowly dying out anyway. Would have continued to do so, like in every other industrialized western nation.

And nobody really gives a damned about either the slaves, or those who were conscripted to fight on either side, as long as they can make the story tell the message they want.

Sorry George, but we're the only ones that give a damn. You suggest that the killing of hundreds of thousands of lives was worth it. We say it wasn't. We are the one's that actually care that people aren't conscripted and butchered over the insanity of forced union.

It was an unnecessary war. Lincoln ramped it up big time after the dud at Sumter. He ramped it up to save the union. To coerce union. That's it.
Why? What were the Northern interests? Cronyism? Feverish self righteousness to stamp out sin? Transport yourself back to 1861. Would you have signed up to march into another state (not your own), to force people to bend you your will via the sword?

How pathetic

Regards,

George Clay