Civil War and some Myths.

[konradv]

The Corwin amendment was postulated as a method of getting the seceeded states back in AFTER the first wave of secession. It was also of dubious legal standing, as it could be replealed as an amendment, and THEN an amendment could be written banning slavery.

Also, the simple fact that this amendment was even postulated SHOWS that slavery was the number one issue regarding secession at the time.

Lets do a mental excercise. Remove the concept of slavery from the US at the time. With the other issues still there, tarriffs, taxes, and the gradual shift of # of states from south to north would there have EVER been seccession?

I say no. Slavery was the poison pill. Without it all the other issues could have been resolved. And it was not the North's insistance in ending it that was the prime issue, The Republicans only wanted to eliminate it from expanding into territories. It was the southern elite's fear that it would eventually be abolished in thier states that was the crux of secession.

Slavery was nothing other than a talking point to get people rialed up. But you cant speculate what would have happened if this or that had happened. You look at the facts as they stand. And the North was economically hoseing the south through extortion, mercantilism, and protectionism. Secession wasent even a question for most of the states until Lincoln violated the constitution and started to raise an army without consent of congress. It was the final actions of the north before the war that got most of the states to secede not slavery.

Staes' rights and tariffs are just revisionist cover stories, because otherwise people would be forced to defend slavery to defend the South. It was more than a mere talking point; it was the primary reason. Without slavery the rest could have been settled without bloodshed. Despited the fact that the majority of whites didn't own slaves, the entire society benefited from the practice and most were willing to fight and die for it. Maybe they were talked into serving with talk of regional pride, but that was just cynical BS by those in power to get others to preserve their own station.

 

[martybegan]

The Corwin amendment was postulated as a method of getting the seceeded states back in AFTER the first wave of secession. It was also of dubious legal standing, as it could be replealed as an amendment, and THEN an amendment could be written banning slavery.

Also, the simple fact that this amendment was even postulated SHOWS that slavery was the number one issue regarding secession at the time.

Lets do a mental excercise. Remove the concept of slavery from the US at the time. With the other issues still there, tarriffs, taxes, and the gradual shift of # of states from south to north would there have EVER been seccession?

I say no. Slavery was the poison pill. Without it all the other issues could have been resolved. And it was not the North's insistance in ending it that was the prime issue, The Republicans only wanted to eliminate it from expanding into territories. It was the southern elite's fear that it would eventually be abolished in thier states that was the crux of secession.

Slavery was nothing other than a talking point to get people rialed up. But you cant speculate what would have happened if this or that had happened. You look at the facts as they stand. And the North was economically hoseing the south through extortion, mercantilism, and protectionism. Secession wasent even a question for most of the states until Lincoln violated the constitution and started to raise an army without consent of congress. It was the final actions of the north before the war that got most of the states to secede not slavery.

Review your history. 7 states secceded before lincoln got into office. Only 4 left after sumter and the norths decsion to use force to keep the union intact.

How was the north hosing the south? If anything the south had an imbalance of representation using the 3/5ths clause to get non-citizen slaves counted in the census.

As for the unconstituionality of lincoln raising a force to stop insurrection, where the hell is the case that points that out? if there isnt its basically a seccessionist pipe dream, and not law.

Slavery was the prime economic issue causing the south to secede, and secession was all about economics. no matter how much people to try to spin it otherwise.

 

[Publius1787]

The Corwin amendment was postulated as a method of getting the seceeded states back in AFTER the first wave of secession. It was also of dubious legal standing, as it could be replealed as an amendment, and THEN an amendment could be written banning slavery.

Also, the simple fact that this amendment was even postulated SHOWS that slavery was the number one issue regarding secession at the time.

Lets do a mental excercise. Remove the concept of slavery from the US at the time. With the other issues still there, tarriffs, taxes, and the gradual shift of # of states from south to north would there have EVER been seccession?

I say no. Slavery was the poison pill. Without it all the other issues could have been resolved. And it was not the North's insistance in ending it that was the prime issue, The Republicans only wanted to eliminate it from expanding into territories. It was the southern elite's fear that it would eventually be abolished in thier states that was the crux of secession.

Slavery was nothing other than a talking point to get people rialed up. But you cant speculate what would have happened if this or that had happened. You look at the facts as they stand. And the North was economically hoseing the south through extortion, mercantilism, and protectionism. Secession wasent even a question for most of the states until Lincoln violated the constitution and started to raise an army without consent of congress. It was the final actions of the north before the war that got most of the states to secede not slavery.

Staes' rights and tariffs are just revisionist cover stories, because otherwise people would be forced to defend slavery to defend the South. It was more than a mere talking point; it was the primary reason. Without slavery the rest could have been settled without bloodshed. Despited the fact that the majority of whites didn't own slaves, the entire society benefited from the practice and most were willing to fight and die for it. Maybe they were talked into serving with talk of regional pride, but that was just cynical BS by those in power to get others to preserve their own station.

1. Yeah, take a look at the C.S. constitution and look at the changes they made as I have shown earlyer.
2. The south did not fight to maintain slavery (especially the troops) any more than the north fought to get rid of it.
3. Absolutly no bloodshed was necessary anyway. Lincoln rejected the peace commission and refused to move troops out of fort sumter as he had done for the other forts. As for his starving ragged troops at fort sumter that "desperatly needed resupply" despite the fact they were purchasing goods from Charleston 3 WHOLE FREAKIN DAYS BEFORE THE FIRST SHOTS WERE FIRED. And what was the purpose of fort sumter? To uphold U.S. Tarrif law before entering Charleston harbor. No shit huh? How many trrops died at fort sumter due to confederate shelling? Thats a big fat zero! So was bloodshed needed at all? Absolitly not!
4. During Andrew Jackson Administration South Carolina threatened to secede over tarrifs.
5. The determining factor for the upper states of the south was Lincolns unconstitutional actions. Especiallialy Lincoln call for troops with out constitutional authority, destructions of local news papers, imprisionment of state legislators, and declarations of martial law in Maryland which was going to secede.
6. You cannot find a secession proclamation by any state that does not go down the line citing constitutional violation after constitutional violation and states rights violations after states rights violation. Yes they speak of slavery but (LIKE YOU SAID EARLYER IN REVERSE) If slavery was the ONLY issue would the south secede? The answer is absolutly not! It was the overall violations of the constitution and the restrictions of states rights that landed the south in secession.

 

[Publius1787]

The Corwin amendment was postulated as a method of getting the seceeded states back in AFTER the first wave of secession. It was also of dubious legal standing, as it could be replealed as an amendment, and THEN an amendment could be written banning slavery.

Also, the simple fact that this amendment was even postulated SHOWS that slavery was the number one issue regarding secession at the time.

Lets do a mental excercise. Remove the concept of slavery from the US at the time. With the other issues still there, tarriffs, taxes, and the gradual shift of # of states from south to north would there have EVER been seccession?

I say no. Slavery was the poison pill. Without it all the other issues could have been resolved. And it was not the North's insistance in ending it that was the prime issue, The Republicans only wanted to eliminate it from expanding into territories. It was the southern elite's fear that it would eventually be abolished in thier states that was the crux of secession.

Slavery was nothing other than a talking point to get people rialed up. But you cant speculate what would have happened if this or that had happened. You look at the facts as they stand. And the North was economically hoseing the south through extortion, mercantilism, and protectionism. Secession wasent even a question for most of the states until Lincoln violated the constitution and started to raise an army without consent of congress. It was the final actions of the north before the war that got most of the states to secede not slavery.

Review your history. 7 states secceded before lincoln got into office. Only 4 left after sumter and the norths decsion to use force to keep the union intact.

How was the north hosing the south? If anything the south had an imbalance of representation using the 3/5ths clause to get non-citizen slaves counted in the census.

As for the unconstituionality of lincoln raising a force to stop insurrection, where the hell is the case that points that out? if there isnt its basically a seccessionist pipe dream, and not law.

Slavery was the prime economic issue causing the south to secede, and secession was all about economics. no matter how much people to try to spin it otherwise.

1. You cannot find a secession proclamation that does not list a whole host of states rights and constitutional violations.

2. Northern news papers were fine with the secession until they figured out that a free trade nation on their front door step would destroy them economically.

3. Lincoln cannot raise troops or commit to war without congressional authority. Once he did this he lost more than 4 because he put maryland under martial law to prevent the free and democratic process of voting.

4. States with democratically elected represenatives who vote to seceed just as they voted to join IS NOT AN INSURECTION!

5. Once again. Compare the C.S. constitution with the U.S. constitution and all of the reasons the south seceeded are listed. If slavery was the only issue would they have drumed up enough support to secede? Absolutly not.

 

[Toronado3800]

Agreed, this article does much to refute the revisionist apologists of the CSA.

The MOTIVE behind the war was the defence of Southern economics.

Its economic capital was mostly in the form of slaves. I've read estimates that 85% of the capitalization of the ENTIRE SOUTH was slaves. That means the the rest of the southern states, every house, all the land the livestock, the cash on hand, the factories amounted to 15% of the capital of those states.

Given that, one can truly understand why the Southerners were scared to death of emancipation that they KNEW was inevitably coming.

I think the South took its best shot because they understood that THEN was the time, IF EVER.

And they lost mostly because they couldn't finace their war once the North blockaded New Orleans.

Seriously, had the found financing in the European bonds market, they might have been able to keep enough troops in the field long enough that the people of the North would have lost heart and given them their freedom.


They fought a magnificent war against the North, but in the long run they just couldn't finance the war and eventually, as their economy collapsed, so too did their chance of becoming an independent nation.

That's actually a pretty good summation, although there are a couple of additional points to consider. Another factor was that with the Radical Republican victory in the 1860 election, the nation was, for the first time in the hands of a purely sectional political party.The most troubling aspect of that, from a Southern point of view, is that the Southern states now faced the real prospect of a growing majority of states whose political and economic interests would be adverse to those of the South. Many concluded (correctly, as it turned out), that this would now inevitably occur, war or no war. Combine that, with the fact that a number of state legislatures, in the legislation by which they had ratified the constitution, had specifically reserved to themselves the right to leave the union if they desired. This was not only true of the Southern states; some New England states had done the same, and Massachusetts had in fact threatened to leave during the War of 1812. The question was in fact never submitted to the Supreme Court prior to the outbreak of hostilities; had it been the likelihood is that that court, led by Chief Justice Taney, would have upheld the legality of secession. It was not until the later years of Reconstruction that the question was submitted to a court purged of its more conservative justices, these replaced by the illegitimate "rump congress" ( the Southern portion of which was elected through Radical Republican fraud and disenfranchisement of White Southern voters) with some more amenable to the Radical point of view. Before the retirement of some of the more conservative members of the court, the Radicals so feared the idea of having the question reach the court, that they decided not to try Gen. Lee or Jefferson Davis. As one of them put it (in a moment of candor) "it would be a pity for the Union to have waged a successful war, only to have it declared unconstitutional" (which it very likely was).

With all that, the South finally concluded (some more reluctantly than others) that it had little to lose by trying to become independent. It was either that, or be crushed by a more and more powerful central government inimical to the South's interests (which is exactly what has transpired since the Late Unpleasantness) Even now, I and many other Southerners find being little more than the occupied territory of a Yankee dominated central government less than appealing, socially, culturally, or politically. I suggest that any of you liberals who think otherwise consider the idea of letting us put it to a vote. Seriously. Throw us out like Bob Beckel suggested you do, in 2004, or just let us leave, so you can have the socialist paradise you want. As it is, our history and culture are being suppressed, in the unholy name of Political Correctness. Oh, and one more thing; those of you up North, please, whatever you do, STAY THERE! Your presence here is neither needed, nor particularly appreciated. If you hate us, please stay away and leave us alone. No self-respecting Southerner wants to live in the North, so perhaps, you could reciprocate?

Did you just say the south is a bunch of racist bigots whom even in the 1969s had to be dragged into the 20th century at gun point by a big better educated Federal Government and you want to return to that "culture"?

 

[paperview]

... As for his starving ragged troops at fort sumter that "desperatly needed resupply" despite the fact they were purchasing goods from Charleston 3 WHOLE FREAKIN DAYS BEFORE THE FIRST SHOTS WERE FIRED. ...

The first shots were fired in January of 61, bub.

You cannot find a secession proclamation by any state that does not go down the line citing constitutional violation after constitutional violation and states rights violations after states rights violation. Yes they speak of slavery but (LIKE YOU SAID EARLYER IN REVERSE) If slavery was the ONLY issue would the south secede? The answer is absolutly not! It was the overall violations of the constitution and the restrictions of states rights that landed the south in secession.

Anybody who reads the secession documents objectively knows, and the documents state clearly, it was primarily about maintaining slavery.

 

[Publius1787]

... As for his starving ragged troops at fort sumter that "desperatly needed resupply" despite the fact they were purchasing goods from Charleston 3 WHOLE FREAKIN DAYS BEFORE THE FIRST SHOTS WERE FIRED. ...

The first shots were fired in January of 61, bub.

You cannot find a secession proclamation by any state that does not go down the line citing constitutional violation after constitutional violation and states rights violations after states rights violation. Yes they speak of slavery but (LIKE YOU SAID EARLYER IN REVERSE) If slavery was the ONLY issue would the south secede? The answer is absolutly not! It was the overall violations of the constitution and the restrictions of states rights that landed the south in secession.

Anybody who reads the secession documents objectively knows, and the documents state clearly, it was primarily about maintaining slavery.

Who said the shots were fired at another date?

And all issues of dealing with slavery were, like every other issue cited, pertaining to how slavery related to the constitution and states rights. Which unfortunantly was true at the time.

 

[paperview]

... As for his starving ragged troops at fort sumter that "desperatly needed resupply" despite the fact they were purchasing goods from Charleston 3 WHOLE FREAKIN DAYS BEFORE THE FIRST SHOTS WERE FIRED. ...

The first shots were fired in January of 61, bub.

You cannot find a secession proclamation by any state that does not go down the line citing constitutional violation after constitutional violation and states rights violations after states rights violation. Yes they speak of slavery but (LIKE YOU SAID EARLYER IN REVERSE) If slavery was the ONLY issue would the south secede? The answer is absolutly not! It was the overall violations of the constitution and the restrictions of states rights that landed the south in secession.

Anybody who reads the secession documents objectively knows, and the documents state clearly, it was primarily about maintaining slavery.

Who said the shots were fired at another date?

Perhaps because of the way you referenced Fort Sumter? Duh.

The first shots were fired 2 months before Lincoln even stepped into office.

And all issues of dealing with slavery were, like every other issue cited, pertaining to how slavery related to the constitution and states rights. Which unfortunantly was true at the time.

Yes. The States Rights to own slaves.

 

[Publius1787]

The first shots were fired in January of 61, bub.
Anybody who reads the secession documents objectively knows, and the documents state clearly, it was primarily about maintaining slavery.

Who said the shots were fired at another date?

Perhaps because you referenced Fort Sumter? Duh.

The first shots were fired 2 months before Lincoln even stepped into office.

And all issues of dealing with slavery were, like every other issue cited, pertaining to how slavery related to the constitution and states rights. Which unfortunantly was true at the time.

Yes. The States Rights to own slaves.

I refuse to debate anyone who doesent know the simpleist of facts. You throw out your opinions and I shoot back with facts. How can I debate someone who cant even admit to historical fact?

The commander of Fort Sumter, South Carolina sent a request for provisions to Washington, and the execution of Lincoln's order to meet that request was seen by the secessionists as an act of war.[142] On April 12, 1861, Confederate forces fired on Union troops at Fort Sumter, forced them to surrender, and began the war. Fort Sumter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

President Lincoln in office. March 4th 1861.
Fort Sumter attacked. April 12th 1861 4:30 Am

 

[paperview]

Who said the shots were fired at another date?

Perhaps because you referenced Fort Sumter? Duh.

The first shots were fired 2 months before Lincoln even stepped into office.



Yes. The States Rights to own slaves.

I refuse to debate anyone who doesent know the simpleist of facts. You throw out your opinions and I shoot back with facts. How can I debate someone who cant even admit to historical fact?

The commander of Fort Sumter, South Carolina sent a request for provisions to Washington, and the execution of Lincoln's order to meet that request was seen by the secessionists as an act of war.[142] On April 12, 1861, Confederate forces fired on Union troops at Fort Sumter, forced them to surrender, and began the war. Fort Sumter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

President Lincoln in office. March 4th 1861.
Fort Sumter attacked. April 12th 1861 4:30 Am

lol.

Perhaps I should adopt your attitude.

Simplest of facts:

The first shots were fired in January of 1861.

Buchanan was President and he was trying to resupply Sumter.


Click to enlarge

The South fired upon the Union Steamship Star of the West

They took another ship and seized it: "The Marion."

Then converted her to a Man of War ship.
THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." ; SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR.

Star of the West

Note the date on the Harpers Weekly newspaper: January, 1861, linked above.

THE FIRST OF THE WAR.

WE publish herewith pictures of the United States steam-sloop Brooklyn, and of the steamship Star of the West, and of the steamship Marion, which three vessels figured so prominently in the movements of last week; and on page 37 we give a large plan of Charleston harbor, showing the forts, etc., together with a view of Fort Johnson. These pictures w ill enable our readers to realize what is going on in this most memorable contest of the present age.
On Wednesday morning, January 9, 1861, the

first shots were fired At daybreak on that morning at the steamship Star of the West, with 250 United States troops on board, attempted to enter the harbor of Charleston for the purpose of communicating with Fort Sumter

The people of Charleston had been warned of her coming and of her errand by telegraph. They determined to prevent her reaching Fort Sumter. Accordingly, as soon as she came within range, batteries on Morris Island and at Fort Moultrie opened on her. The first shot was fired across her bows ; whereupon she increased her speed, and hoisted the stars and stripes. Other shots were then fired in rapid

succession from Morris Island, two or more of which hulled the steamer, and compelled her to put about and go to sea. The accompanying picture shows the Star of the West as she entered Charleston harbor; the plan will explain the situation of the forts, and the position of the steamer when she was fired upon. The channel through which she passed runs close by Morris Island for some distance.
Fort Sumter made no demonstration, except at the port-holes, where guns were run out bearing on Morris Island.
​

They did this before Lincoln even set foot in the office. Before they had even all officially Seceded. An ACT OF WAR.

 

[paperview]

I know you are not familiar with my posts, Publius, but it may behoove you to look back and see the extensive discussions I've engaged here regarding the Civil War.

Trust me. You won't win many arguments against me when it comes to this topic.

Ask around.

 

[paperview]

A little Timeline for you, from the SC Convention forward:

December 20, 1860: South Carolina convention passes ordinance of secession.
December 24, 1860: Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis introduces a "compromise" proposal which would effectively make slavery a national institution.
December 26, 1860: Major Anderson moves Federal garrison in Charleston, SC, from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter.
January 3, 1861: Georgia seizes Fort Pulaski. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.
January 4, 1861: Alabama seizes U.S. arsenal at Mount Vernon. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.
January 5, 1861: Alabama seizes Forts Morgan and Gaines. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.
January 6, 1861: Florida seizes Apalachicola arsenal. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE ARSENAL BEFORE THEY SECEDED.
January 7, 1861: Florida seizes Fort Marion. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.
January 8, 1861: Floridians try to seize Fort Barrancas but are chased off.
January 9, 1861: Mississippi secedes.

Star of the West fired on in Charleston Harbor <-- FIRING ON A SHIP - A CLEAR ACT OF WAR
THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR.
January 10, 1861: Florida secedes.

Louisiana seizes U.S. arsenal at Baton Rouge, as well as Forts Jackson and St. Philip.
January 11, 1861: Alabama secedes.

Louisiana seizes U.S. Marine Hospital.
January 14, 1861: Louisiana seizes Fort Pike. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.
January 19, 1861: Georgia secedes.
January 26, 1861: Louisiana secedes.
January 28, 1861: Tennessee Resolutions in favor of Crittenden Compromise offered in Congress.
February 1, 1861: Texas secedes.
February 8, 1861: Provisional Constitution of the Confederacy adopted in Montgomery, AL.

Arkansas seizes U.S. Arsenal at Little Rock.
February 12, 1861: Arkansas seizes U.S. ordnance stores at Napoleon.
February 18, 1861: Jefferson Davis inaugurated as President of the Confederacy.
March 4, 1861: Abraham Lincoln inaugurated as 16th President of the United States.
March 21, 1861: "Cornerstone speech" delivered by Alexander Stephens. (This is where the Confederate V President lays it out clearly: Slavery is the Cornerstone of the Confederacy.)

April 12, 1861: Fort Sumter fired upon by Confederates.
THE WAR OFFICIALLY BEGINS.

 

[paperview]

Both the President and the Vice president of the CSA said slavery was THE CORNERSTONE of the confederacy.

THE CORNERSTONE. It doesn't get much more foundational than that.

 

[Publius1787]

Perhaps because you referenced Fort Sumter? Duh.

The first shots were fired 2 months before Lincoln even stepped into office.



Yes. The States Rights to own slaves.

I refuse to debate anyone who doesent know the simpleist of facts. You throw out your opinions and I shoot back with facts. How can I debate someone who cant even admit to historical fact?

The commander of Fort Sumter, South Carolina sent a request for provisions to Washington, and the execution of Lincoln's order to meet that request was seen by the secessionists as an act of war.[142] On April 12, 1861, Confederate forces fired on Union troops at Fort Sumter, forced them to surrender, and began the war. Fort Sumter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

President Lincoln in office. March 4th 1861.
Fort Sumter attacked. April 12th 1861 4:30 Am

lol.

Perhaps I should adopt your attitude.

Simplest of facts:

The first shots were fired in January of 1861.

Buchanan was President and he was trying to resupply Sumter.


Click to enlarge

The South fired upon the Union Steamship Star of the West

They took another ship and seized it: "The Marion."

Then converted her to a Man of War ship.
THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." ; SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR.

Star of the West

Note the date on the Harpers Weekly newspaper: January, 1861, linked above.

THE FIRST OF THE WAR.

WE publish herewith pictures of the United States steam-sloop Brooklyn, and of the steamship Star of the West, and of the steamship Marion, which three vessels figured so prominently in the movements of last week; and on page 37 we give a large plan of Charleston harbor, showing the forts, etc., together with a view of Fort Johnson. These pictures w ill enable our readers to realize what is going on in this most memorable contest of the present age.
On Wednesday morning, January 9, 1861, the

first shots were fired At daybreak on that morning at the steamship Star of the West, with 250 United States troops on board, attempted to enter the harbor of Charleston for the purpose of communicating with Fort Sumter

The people of Charleston had been warned of her coming and of her errand by telegraph. They determined to prevent her reaching Fort Sumter. Accordingly, as soon as she came within range, batteries on Morris Island and at Fort Moultrie opened on her. The first shot was fired across her bows ; whereupon she increased her speed, and hoisted the stars and stripes. Other shots were then fired in rapid

succession from Morris Island, two or more of which hulled the steamer, and compelled her to put about and go to sea. The accompanying picture shows the Star of the West as she entered Charleston harbor; the plan will explain the situation of the forts, and the position of the steamer when she was fired upon. The channel through which she passed runs close by Morris Island for some distance.
Fort Sumter made no demonstration, except at the port-holes, where guns were run out bearing on Morris Island.
​

They did this before Lincoln even set foot in the office. Before they had even all officially Seceded. An ACT OF WAR.

What does this have to do with anything Ive said? They fired a warning shot across the bow of the boat followed by aimed shots. It turned around and went home. While they were the firsts shots they did not lead to the civil war. Fort sumter was the whiney outcry from the noth that led us to the civil war. As I said earleyer and I QUOTE

Absolutly no bloodshed was necessary anyway. Lincoln rejected the peace commission and refused to move troops out of fort sumter as he had done for the other forts. As for his starving ragged troops at fort sumter that "desperatly needed resupply" despite the fact they were purchasing goods from Charleston 3 WHOLE FREAKIN DAYS BEFORE THE FIRST SHOTS WERE FIRED. And what was the purpose of fort sumter? To uphold U.S. Tarrif law before entering Charleston harbor. No shit huh? How many trrops died at fort sumter due to confederate shelling? Thats a big fat zero! So was bloodshed needed at all? Absolitly not

Oh, and the majority of those forts were signed over without a single casualty. And Jems Bucannon didnt try to stop these takeovers.

 

[Publius1787]

Both the President and the Vice president of the CSA said slavery was THE CORNERSTONE of the confederacy.

THE CORNERSTONE. It doesn't get much more foundational than that.

Untitled Document

Charles Dickens "Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel"

The North American Review (Boston October 1862): "Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation". An editorial in the Charleston Mercury 2 days before the November 1860 election stated: "The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism."

The New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861: "They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union."

. The Philadelphia Press on 18 March 1861 demanded a blockade of Southern ports, because, if not, "a series of customs houses will be required on the vast inland border from the Atlantic to West Texas. Worse still, with no protective tariff, European goods will under-price Northern goods in Southern markets. Cotton for Northern mills will be charged an export tax. This will cripple the clothing industries and make British mills prosper. Finally, the great inland waterways, the Mississippi, the Missouri, and the Ohio Rivers, will be subject to Southern tolls."

The Chicago Daily Times foretold the disaster that Southern free ports would bring to Northern commerce: "In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow."

Similarly, the economic editor of the NY Times, who had maintained for months that secession would not injure Northern commerce or prosperity, changed his mind on 22 March 1861: "At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States." On 18 March, the Boston Transcript noted that while the Southern states had claimed to secede over the slavery issue, now "the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...."

The Republican platform of 1860 called for higher tariffs; that was implemented by the new Congress in the Morill tariff of March 1861, signed by President Buchanan before Lincoln took the oath of office. It imposed the highest tariffs in US history, with over a 50% duty on iron products and 25% on clothing; rates averaged 47%. The nascent Confederacy followed with a low tariff, essentially creating a free-trade zone in the South. Prior to this "war of the tariffs", most Northern newspapers had called for peace through conciliation, but many now cried for war.

the South paid an undue proportion of federal revenues derived from tariffs, and these were expended by the federal government more in the North than the South: in 1840, the South paid 84% of the tariffs, rising to 87% in 1860. They paid 83% of the $13 million federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35 million to Northern shipping interests which had a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports. The South, in effect, was paying tribute to the North. The address of Texas Congressman Reagan on 15 January 1861 summarizes this discontent: "You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue law, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of northern capitalists. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and institutions." As the London Times of 7 Nov 1861 stated: "The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....".

 

[paperview]

As long as you're going to take the lazy way out and do a cheap cut and paste from some idiot dude with a web page who knows diddly squat about Civil War history ...and proceeds to use cherry picked quotes to completely deny the root cause - and the decades long events which led up to it - which was the defense of slavery, I may as well take the cheap route too.

“The conflict between slavery and non-slavery is a conflict for life and death.” --South Carolinian John Preston to Virginia Secession Convention, February 1861

“[T]his country without slave labor would be completely worthless…. If the negroes are freed the country … is not worth fighting for…. We can only live & exist by that species of labor: and hence I am willing to continue to fight to the last.”--Lieutenant William Nugent, 28th Mississippi, July 28, 1863

“[W]e have hitherto contended that Slavery was Cuffee’s normal condition, the very best position he could occupy, the one of all others in which he was happiest … No! freedom for whites, slavery for negroes. God has so ordained it.”
--North Carolinian Catherine Ann Devereux Edmondston, December 30, 1864

“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery…. A blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization…. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union.”
--Mississippi Secession Convention, 1861

“[A]fter Lincoln’s proclamation any man that would not fight to the last ought to be hung as high as Haman.”
--Virginia Captain John Welsh, January 26, 1863

“Although slavery is one of the principles that we started to fight for … if it proves an insurmountable obstacle to the achievement of our liberty and nationality, away with it!”
--Montgomery (Alabama) Weekly Mail, September 9, 1863

“This terrible war and extreme peril of our country [were] occasioned … more by the institution of negro slavery [than] by any other subject of quarrel.”
--Macon (Georgia) Telegraph and Confederate, March 30, 1865

“[T]he mere agitation in the Northern States to effect the emancipation of our slaves largely contributed to our separation from them.”
--Charleston Mercury, November 3, 1864

“What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?”
--Virginia’s Robert M. T. Hunter, March 7, 1865

“To say that we are ready to emancipate our slaves would be to say, that we are ready to relinquish what we commenced fighting for.”
--Galveston (Texas) Tri-Weekly News, March 3, 1865

Let's pray to god you have an original thought in your head, should you decide to follow up. Otherwise, not worth my time.

 

[Publius1787]

As long as you're going to take the lazy way out and do a cheap cut and paste from some idiot dude with a web page who knows diddly squat about Civil War history ...and proceeds to use cherry picked quotes to completely deny the root cause - and the decades long events which led up to it - which was the defense of slavery, I may as well take the cheap route too.

“The conflict between slavery and non-slavery is a conflict for life and death.” --South Carolinian John Preston to Virginia Secession Convention, February 1861

“[T]his country without slave labor would be completely worthless…. If the negroes are freed the country … is not worth fighting for…. We can only live & exist by that species of labor: and hence I am willing to continue to fight to the last.”--Lieutenant William Nugent, 28th Mississippi, July 28, 1863

“[W]e have hitherto contended that Slavery was Cuffee’s normal condition, the very best position he could occupy, the one of all others in which he was happiest … No! freedom for whites, slavery for negroes. God has so ordained it.”
--North Carolinian Catherine Ann Devereux Edmondston, December 30, 1864

“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery…. A blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization…. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union.”
--Mississippi Secession Convention, 1861

“[A]fter Lincoln’s proclamation any man that would not fight to the last ought to be hung as high as Haman.”
--Virginia Captain John Welsh, January 26, 1863

“Although slavery is one of the principles that we started to fight for … if it proves an insurmountable obstacle to the achievement of our liberty and nationality, away with it!”
--Montgomery (Alabama) Weekly Mail, September 9, 1863

“This terrible war and extreme peril of our country [were] occasioned … more by the institution of negro slavery [than] by any other subject of quarrel.”
--Macon (Georgia) Telegraph and Confederate, March 30, 1865

“[T]he mere agitation in the Northern States to effect the emancipation of our slaves largely contributed to our separation from them.”
--Charleston Mercury, November 3, 1864

“What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?”
--Virginia’s Robert M. T. Hunter, March 7, 1865

“To say that we are ready to emancipate our slaves would be to say, that we are ready to relinquish what we commenced fighting for.”
--Galveston (Texas) Tri-Weekly News, March 3, 1865

Let's pray to god you have an original thought in your head, should you decide to follow up. Otherwise, not worth my time.

Hisw quotes come from Charles Adams who is the worlds leading scholor on the history of taxation. He is also born and raised in the North. No matter which way you toss it THE SOUTH DID NOT FIGHT FOR THE PROTECTION OF SLAVERY ANY MORE THAN THE NORTH FOUGHT TO ABOLISH IT.

 

[paperview]

Nearly all noted historians agree, the South fought the war primarily for the protection of slavery, the literal blood that kept the engine of the south going. The North fought initially to keep the Union together. With the Emancipation Proclamation, it became a war about slavery for the North.

This is 5th grade stuff.

I'm beginning to think you're about 14 years old.

 

[paperview]

As long as you're going to take the lazy way out and do a cheap cut and paste from some idiot dude with a web page who knows diddly squat about Civil War history ...and proceeds to use cherry picked quotes to completely deny the root cause - and the decades long events which led up to it - which was the defense of slavery, I may as well take the cheap route too.

“The conflict between slavery and non-slavery is a conflict for life and death.” --South Carolinian John Preston to Virginia Secession Convention, February 1861

“[T]his country without slave labor would be completely worthless…. If the negroes are freed the country … is not worth fighting for…. We can only live & exist by that species of labor: and hence I am willing to continue to fight to the last.”--Lieutenant William Nugent, 28th Mississippi, July 28, 1863

“[W]e have hitherto contended that Slavery was Cuffee’s normal condition, the very best position he could occupy, the one of all others in which he was happiest … No! freedom for whites, slavery for negroes. God has so ordained it.”
--North Carolinian Catherine Ann Devereux Edmondston, December 30, 1864

“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery…. A blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization…. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union.”
--Mississippi Secession Convention, 1861

“[A]fter Lincoln’s proclamation any man that would not fight to the last ought to be hung as high as Haman.”
--Virginia Captain John Welsh, January 26, 1863

“Although slavery is one of the principles that we started to fight for … if it proves an insurmountable obstacle to the achievement of our liberty and nationality, away with it!”
--Montgomery (Alabama) Weekly Mail, September 9, 1863

“This terrible war and extreme peril of our country [were] occasioned … more by the institution of negro slavery [than] by any other subject of quarrel.”
--Macon (Georgia) Telegraph and Confederate, March 30, 1865

“[T]he mere agitation in the Northern States to effect the emancipation of our slaves largely contributed to our separation from them.”
--Charleston Mercury, November 3, 1864

“What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?”
--Virginia’s Robert M. T. Hunter, March 7, 1865

“To say that we are ready to emancipate our slaves would be to say, that we are ready to relinquish what we commenced fighting for.”
--Galveston (Texas) Tri-Weekly News, March 3, 1865

Let's pray to god you have an original thought in your head, should you decide to follow up. Otherwise, not worth my time.

Hisw quotes come from Charles Adams who is the worlds leading scholor on the history of taxation. He is also born and raised in the North. No matter which way you toss it THE SOUTH DID NOT FIGHT FOR THE PROTECTION OF SLAVERY ANY MORE THAN THE NORTH FOUGHT TO ABOLISH IT.

I've decided to give you one more shingle to dingle with (though ignorance at such a level is hard to overcome):

In order to give Adams any quarter, you have to ignore all that led up to the war, including
the decades long increasingly embittered debate that took place in Congress, in states houses, in pulpits, on soapboxes, and in practically every newspaper and journal in the country.
It was THE topic.

You'd also have to ignore
The Compromise of 1850
the Kansas-Nebraska Act
Bleeding Kansas
The Dred Scott decision
The John Brown Affair
and the myriad other intensities growing wildfire by 1860 to reach his convoluted conclusions.

You also have to ignore:

- the declarations of the causes of secession that gave slavery as the reason for the rebellion,
-the secession commissioners that gave slavery as the reason for the rebellion
-the newspaper editorials that gave slavery as the reason for the rebellion

I guess they were all lying.

You'd have to make a case virtually all of the southern leadership was lying in order to get their people to fight for them

Just think about that.

 

[Publius1787]

Nearly all noted historians agree, the South fought the war primarily for the protection of slavery, the literal blood that kept the engine of the south going. The North fought initially to keep the Union together. With the Emancipation Proclamation, it became a war about slavery for the North.

This is 5th grade stuff.

I'm beginning to think you're about 14 years old.

Uh huh. So the overwhelming number of southerners in the Confederate States Army were risking their lives so that others can own slaves. And Lincoln had some fetish to see that the Union remained togather?

1. Why would someone fight so that others can own slaves?

2. Why would lincoln sacrafice lives in the bloodiest war in American history because he doesent want a divorce from a recently formed country that voted themselves out in a democratic republican fashon and is absolutly no threat to the north? So much for a government by the people, of the people, and for the people huh?