The Civil War Is Playing This Week On PBS

[American Horse]

What the hell is Civil War revisionism?

It's the 'tards on the Right who say the war wasn't about slavery.

I don't see how you can make that statement. Please read my post #38 above; I'm of the right.
I don't recall anyone of my politics basing it on anything else, like Tariffs etc.

 

[American Horse]

# 1, I'm not a retard, I'm insulted that you would use that word considering my son is mentally retarded for real, as well as autistic.
# 2, I'm not on the "right", I'm a "moderate".
# 3. If the war was about slavery, why did the Emancipation Proclamation exempt all slaves in northern territory and those in southern territory already under northern command? Did you forget that there were 4 slave holding states that remained with the north and their slaves were not freed until AFTER the war was over? I'm not saying slavery wasn't part of the war, it just wasn't "THE" reason for the war. That had more to do with states rights and tariffs. As far as I know, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, South Carolina was the only state that listed "slavery" as their reason for leaving the union, all others listed states rights.

The Proclamation Emancipation only applied where a state of war still existed between rebel forces and the forces of the union; The president's oath of office forbade him asserting law as his own moral conviction. But where a state of belligerence existed, he (Lincoln) had the power as Commander In Chief to declare the slaves free. And with it's enactment, it turned the Union Army into an army of liberation wherever it advanced.

As for slavery not being the cause of the war; Lincoln was elected president of the new Republican Party which was founded by Aboltionists, which is why seven southern states seceded immediately after Lincoln was elected and before he could take office. And the violence and dispute about slavery in Missouri and subsequently Kansas/Nebraska were catalysts for abolition and secession, needing only the election of a Republican president as a tipping point to a split; and the only rationale for that was a claim of "state's rights"

As for tariffs; didn't they apply to imports? And Lincoln stated that while the south had a natural transportation system in it's river system, the "Internal Improvements" (a Republican party plank from the old Whig Party) needed in the north could be funded by the sale of public lands.

Lincoln was elected without a single vote from a southern state, which is way they immediately went to war. "States Rights". The problems started years before with a tariff that was put on manufactured goods, forcing the south to buy their good from the north. There were no such corresponding tariffs on raw goods, forcing the south to compete with the rest of the world selling their goods to the north.

Again, if it was all about slavery, why is it that none of the slaves in the north were freed until AFTER the war was over?

Because only a constitutional amendment could free the slaves; no act of congress or a president could change the constitution. The south had a population only one fourth that of the north, with a comparable ratio of voters, and they would not be expected to elect a president who was nominated by a party founded on the abolition of slavery, as much as they depended on it.

The tariffs you say were the cause were and had long been already in effect; not a proximate catalyst. As I said Lincoln had campaigned on funding improvements in the north with the sale of undeveloped public lands.

 

[American Horse]

Five myths about why the South seceded - The Washington Post

Myth Number Two:

2. Secession was about tariffs and taxes.
During the nadir of post-civil-war race relations - the terrible years after 1890 when town after town across the North became all-white "sundown towns" and state after state across the South prevented African Americans from voting - "anything but slavery" explanations of the Civil War gained traction. To this day Confederate sympathizers successfully float this false claim, along with their preferred name for the conflict: the War Between the States. At the infamous Secession Ball in South Carolina, hosted in December by the Sons of Confederate Veterans, "the main reasons for secession were portrayed as high tariffs and Northern states using Southern tax money to build their own infrastructure," The Washington Post reported.

These explanations are flatly wrong. High tariffs had prompted the Nullification Crisis in 1831-33, when, after South Carolina demanded the right to nullify federal laws or secede in protest, President Andrew Jackson threatened force. No state joined the movement, and South Carolina backed down. Tariffs were not an issue in 1860, and Southern states said nothing about them. Why would they? Southerners had written the tariff of 1857, under which the nation was functioning. Its rates were lower than at any point since 1816.

 

[American Horse]

More on Tariffs and the War:

The Real Abraham Lincoln: A Debate May 7, 2002
Harry V. Jaffa, Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Tariffs:
H. V. Jaffa: “ What happened in 1828 is also a very curious fact. 1828 was a crucial moment in the history of the tariff, because the national debt was just being paid off, and so the income from the tariff would produce a surplus in the treasury. And at that time, there was a great fear that a surplus in the federal treasury might be used to buy the freedom of slaves.

So the slave issue really underlaid the tariff issue. But it also happened that in the committee which was scheduling the tariffs, the people in South Carolina, and I think other Southerners, moved to raise the tariffs to this abominable level on the assumption that they would be voted down on the floor of the House. And they got fooled by that. Instead of being voted down, it was voted in. They were hoist by their own petard. But in 1833 a compromise was reached. The tariffs were reduced. Jackson’s Force Bill was repealed, and so there was a peaceful resolution of that.

I myself believe in free trade and would be glad it could be implemented whenever possible. But in the actual conflict that led to the Civil War, we had two obstacles to free trade, and I ask you to think which one of them was the greater obstacle. One was the tariff, and the other was slavery. ”

 

[Mr. H.]

What did Lincoln say after waking up from a three day drunk-fest?






"I freed WHO"?

 

[hortysir]

Define revisionist.

I can't say that I hate to be the one to break it to you.

Lincoln was the same kind of Republican that so many have accused G.W. Bush of being.
Difference being; instead of Oil, with Lincoln, it was about Agriculture.
That, and wanting to be "king" of a country.

We used to be referred to as THESE United States. With a very limited centralized government.
Lincoln couldn't give a shit less about the slaves.
He wanted the power.

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.

So who is the revisionist?
I say it's those that built a 20+ft tall marble monument to honor a power hungry asshole.

The federal government has been sticking their over-reaching paws further and further into shit they don't belong in ever since......

 

[waltky]

Granny says...

... Save yer Confederate money, boys...

... the South shall rise again!

 

[MarcATL]

Granny says...

... Save yer Confederate money, boys...

... the South shall rise again!

Yeah...wif good ole' Heyluh BawBuh at the helm right?


lol

 

[Two Thumbs]

So how many revisionist are already or are planning on watching the real story unfold year-by-year, day-by-day, piece-by-piece and fact-by-fact?

How many knew of it?

How many even care?

When I want an acurate telling of history I watch the History Channel.

If I wanted a modern liberals idea of what happened, I'll watch PBS.

But since I prefer facts over kicking my country around, I'll stick with the History Channel.

lol

It's funny that I prefer facts over opinion?

well in that case; Why are you not a republican? Since it was a white, male, republican that got other white men to die so you could be free.

 

[rightwinger]

Define revisionist.

I can't say that I hate to be the one to break it to you.

Lincoln was the same kind of Republican that so many have accused G.W. Bush of being.
Difference being; instead of Oil, with Lincoln, it was about Agriculture.
That, and wanting to be "king" of a country.

We used to be referred to as THESE United States. With a very limited centralized government.
Lincoln couldn't give a shit less about the slaves.
He wanted the power.

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.

So who is the revisionist?
I say it's those that built a 20+ft tall marble monument to honor a power hungry asshole.

The federal government has been sticking their over-reaching paws further and further into shit they don't belong in ever since......

And yet, we became THE UNITED STATES and turned into the wealthiest and most powerful nation in history

Thanks Mr Lincoln and FDR

 

[American Horse]

Define revisionist.

I can't say that I hate to be the one to break it to you.

Lincoln was the same kind of Republican that so many have accused G.W. Bush of being.
Difference being; instead of Oil, with Lincoln, it was about Agriculture.
That, and wanting to be "king" of a country.

We used to be referred to as THESE United States. With a very limited centralized government.
Lincoln couldn't give a shit less about the slaves.
He wanted the power.

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.

So who is the revisionist?
I say it's those that built a 20+ft tall marble monument to honor a power hungry asshole.

The federal government has been sticking their over-reaching paws further and further into shit they don't belong in ever since......

Nonsense; that quote proves nothing. Above everything else Lincoln honored the constitution. He said many things over the years opposing slavery, but his power, as he understood it, lay in his consitutional powers as president.
And go ahead; bring up suspension of writ of habeas corpus.

 

[editec]

I'm watching it. This is another well done documentary. ANOTHER reason why PBS should be publicly financed.

I'm sure the History Channel could never have put together something of this quality. Only government money can do this caliber of work.

Face it, past success not withstanding, PBS is obsolete. Made so by the Food Network, History Channel, A&E, Bravo, Travel Channel, Military Channel, BBC America, HGTV and a few others. Every single show they have on there, save public access, is done better elsewhere for profit.

Most of the stuff presented on PBS is also done by for-profit companies.

PBS buys it and show its, much as the for profit networks typically do.

A chum of mine from high school produces documentaries, some of which were on PBS, some of which made it to the History Channel and Discovery channel.

I can assure you his motive for making those shows, regardless of what network showed them, was entirely venal.

 

[xsited1]

So how many revisionist are already or are planning on watching the real story unfold year-by-year, day-by-day, piece-by-piece and fact-by-fact?

How many knew of it?

How many even care?

It's either that or Tron Legacy. If I choose to watch Tron Legacy instead, could you let me know how it turns out? Last time I rooted for the Union, but the Confederates might win this time.

I saw Tron Legacy and was not impressed. So did the Confederates win this time?

 

[Mr_Rockhead]

So how many revisionist are already or are planning on watching the real story unfold year-by-year, day-by-day, piece-by-piece and fact-by-fact?

How many knew of it?

How many even care?

This series is probably 30 years old but I never get tired of watching it. However, I am not watching the current airing because I purchased the DVDs several years ago.

I also rank this as some of the best TV I have ever seen even though it is just a bunch of still photos with some narration. Too bad so many of them old photos never made it. They really tell a tale all by themselves.

 

[konradv]

What the hell is Civil War revisionism?

It's the 'tards on the Right who say the war wasn't about slavery.

# 1, I'm not a retard, I'm insulted that you would use that word considering my son is mentally retarded for real, as well as autistic.
# 2, I'm not on the "right", I'm a "moderate".
# 3. If the war was about slavery, why did the Emancipation Proclamation exempt all slaves in northern territory and those in southern territory already under northern command? Did you forget that there were 4 slave holding states that remained with the north and their slaves were not freed until AFTER the war was over? I'm not saying slavery wasn't part of the war, it just wasn't "THE" reason for the war. That had more to do with states rights and tariffs. As far as I know, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, South Carolina was the only state that listed "slavery" as their reason for leaving the union, all others listed states rights.

It may not have been all about slavery, but it WAS the overwhelming reason. Here are some quotes from the period.

"It is not safe ... to trust $800 million worth of Negroes in the hands of a power which says that we do not own the property. ... So we must get out ..." — The Daily Constitutionalist, Augusta, Ga., Dec. 1, 1860

"[Northerners] have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery. ... We, therefore, the people of South Carolina ... have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and other States of North America dissolved." — from "Declaration of the Causes of Secession"

"As long as slavery is looked upon by the North with abhorrence ... there can be no satisfactory political union between the two sections." — New Orleans Bee, Dec. 14, 1860

"Our new government is founded upon ... the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race is his natural and moral condition." — Alexander Stephens, vice president of the Confederacy, March 21, 1861


http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-pitts-20110410,0,2032771.story