The American Civil War

GarryB wrote:The irony is that in the US and the west all the PC liberal norks are demanding all sorts of historical figures have their statues removed because they were pro slavery or anti gay or some such bullshit... it is sad when a civilisation eats itself, but the old saying... when an enemy is making a mistake... don't interrupt them...

To be honest some of the 'Iconic' statues being torn down in the U.S. were more than justified. For example Confederate Generals, like why the hell did insurrectionist traitors who caused the deaths of +600,000 Americans, and hundreds of thousands more maimed in to being amputees' (field hospitals routinely had several piles of sawed off limbs) have statues dedicated to them in the first place? Tear them shits down!

Calling the confederates traitors is funny, because the whole nation is made up of traitors. They were happy british citizens until the king tried to make peace with the "Indians". They oligarchs in the colonies wanted more land and needed more money from the king to kill "Indians" and as he refused they started a "rebellion" = committed treason.

No other military currently uses pictures of Jolly Roger AFAIK- https://theaviationgeekclub.com/fear-bones-baby-jolly-rogers-legacy/

LMFS wrote:

kvs wrote:And this secession was not based on freeing of the slaves.

As the bastard would put it himself:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]---that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

it is known that Lincoln did not like slavery, he regarded African Americans as not full citizens at first but changed over time. Lincoln was a politician, knew that the 'slave power' was a potential political weapon and he had to distinguish his policies from Douglas'. It was also obvious the slaveowners were trying to dominate the US. It was truly one or the other.

Two transformations that occurred during Lincoln's political career based on his ante-bellum non-exposure with Blacks on a personal level was Black suffrage and colonization. Candidate Lincoln maintained that while he believed in a Black's right to liberty and the fruits of their labor, he did not believe that they should have a right to vote yet after assuming the presidency which led to his interaction with Black leaders and common folk he eventually demanded that voting rights be extended to at least the Black veterans and the educated free Blacks. Lincoln also supported and signed into law Charles Sumner's 1864 bill extending habeas corpus protection and allowance of testimony in all Federal courts to free Blacks.

Lincoln's lifelong views as an advocate of colonization also changed during his presidency. Following his meetings with Black leaders and an 1863 meeting with Frederick Douglass where their anti-colonization viewpoints were voiced to the president, there was almost no further mention of colonization by Lincoln, with his personal secretary John Hay making a July 1, 1864 entry in his diary that after the Cow Island debacle, he's relieved that the president has given up on colonization.

kvs wrote:

Hole wrote:Calling the confederates traitors is funny, because the whole nation is made up of traitors. They were happy british citizens until the king tried to make peace with the "Indians". They oligarchs in the colonies wanted more land and needed more money from the king to kill "Indians" and as he refused they started a "rebellion" = committed treason.

There is a myth in the USA that the civil war was fought over slavery.   This is total BS and there is an excellent treatment of this
by a black American historian whom I saw interviewed on PBS a long time ago.   The emancipation of the slaves by Lincoln came late
in the game and was more of a ploy to break the South and this was stated by Lincoln himself.   The civil war was fought over the
secession of the South.   And this secession was not based on freeing of the slaves.

The South was fighting for the preservation of slavery, which it considered threatened. The US was fighting to preserve the nation, with no consideration for slavery at first. Later in the war, the US war effort did take slavery into consideration but not to preserve it.  

Slavery was the main issue for the side that started the war.

The US was willing to compromise to a certain extent on slavery in order to avoid war. But the US did not fight for or against slavery at the beginning of the war.

Slavery was the major issue because for the South, it was their major issue.

The purpose of both secession and the war was for the South to withdraw from the Union to form a separate country to protect slavery.

We can dance around in rhetorical games all we want but that's why Lincoln's election drove secession - meaning that by necessity "slavery was a major issue of the war."

andalusia wrote:

kvs wrote:

Hole wrote:Calling the confederates traitors is funny, because the whole nation is made up of traitors. They were happy british citizens until the king tried to make peace with the "Indians". They oligarchs in the colonies wanted more land and needed more money from the king to kill "Indians" and as he refused they started a "rebellion" = committed treason.

There is a myth in the USA that the civil war was fought over slavery.   This is total BS and there is an excellent treatment of this
by a black American historian whom I saw interviewed on PBS a long time ago.   The emancipation of the slaves by Lincoln came late
in the game and was more of a ploy to break the South and this was stated by Lincoln himself.   The civil war was fought over the
secession of the South.   And this secession was not based on freeing of the slaves.

The South was fighting for the preservation of slavery, which it considered threatened. The US was fighting to preserve the nation, with no consideration for slavery at first. Later in the war, the US war effort did take slavery into consideration but not to preserve it.  

Slavery was the main issue for the side that started the war.

The US was willing to compromise to a certain extent on slavery in order to avoid war. But the US did not fight for or against slavery at the beginning of the war.

Slavery was the major issue because for the South, it was their major issue.

The purpose of both secession and the war was for the South to withdraw from the Union to form a separate country to protect slavery.

We can dance around in rhetorical games all we want but that's why Lincoln's election drove secession - meaning that by necessity "slavery was a major issue of the war."

One of the reasons for secession was the opposition by the Republicans to the extension of slavery into the territories. Furthermore, the south realized that the territories were an inhospitable environment for plantation style agriculture and would not support slavery. Therefore, the territories would eventually become free states and outnumber the slave states in Congress. The southern states realized they would lose their political power on the national level as a result and decided to secede.

The Confederacy was founded to protect slavery, and its foundational ideology wasn't "all men are created equal", it was slavery for black people was good. We know this because they wrote it, shouted it, preached it, proclaimed it, and communicated it in every way they could, at top volume.

Certainly there was widespread racism in the North, but Southerners in 1860 would have told you that it wasn't nearly enough racism. In fact, that's exactly what they DID say:

A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

- South Carolina declaration of causes of secession

LMFS wrote:

kvs wrote:And this secession was not based on freeing of the slaves.

As the bastard would put it himself:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]---that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

President Lincoln’s thinking about participation of blacks in American society was revealed in a letter he wrote General James A. Wadsworth, an abolitionist Republican from New York, in early January 1864:

You desire to know, in the event of our complete success in the field, the same being followed by a loyal and cheerful submission on the part of the South, if universal amnesty should not be accompanied with universal suffrage.

Now, since you know my private inclinations as to what terms should be granted to the South in the contingency mentioned, I will here add, that if our success should thus be realized, followed by such desired results, I cannot see, if universal amnesty is granted, how, under the circumstances, I can avoid exacting in return universal suffrage, or, at least, suffrage on the basis of intelligence and military servic


How to better the condition of the colored race has long been a study which has attracted my serious and careful attention; hence I think I am clear and decided as to what course I shall pursue in the premises, regarding it a religious duty, as the nation’s guardian of these people, who have so heroically vindicated their manhood on the battle-field, where, in assisting to save the life of the Republic, they have demonstrated in blood their right to the ballot, which is but the humane protection of the flag they have so fearlessly defended.

The restoration of the Rebel States to the Union must rest upon the principle of civil and political equality of both races; and it must be sealed by general amnesty.



By today's standards, Lincoln was a racist.

By the standards of 1860, he was a radical on race and slavery among non-slaves in the slave states (for his anti-slavery views), and a moderate on race among whites in the free states.

By the time of death, he became the best friend of people of African descent in US history to date. He signed laws abolishing slavery in the US territories and the District of Columbia; supported and championed black enlistment; his Attorney General supported African American citizenship rights (in direct contradiction to Dred Scott); he became the first president to recognize African Americans as a constituent group by meeting with a number of African Americans during his stay in office; he supported the 13th Amendment to abolish slavery; and became the first president to publicly support black suffrage, albeit, a limited black suffrage (limited to educated blacks and veterans).

Upon his death, Lincoln was mourned and lionized within the African American community, and justly so.

GarryB wrote:To be clear I am a white person of British descent, I want to comment that I liked the three above posts not because they reveal terrible racism from people normally revered in white history as being great people, but because they reveal a truth hidden from white people via their media and their education system which dwells more on the success of the white man and rather not at all regarding their crimes and depraved acts that made them successful and rich and powerful.

I don't know what you are talking about. The education system here in America demonizes the founding fathers as slave owners and traditional white american heroes like Daniel Boone, Davy Crocket and a host of others. Maybe they do that in New Zealand but not here in America.

LMFS wrote:

kvs wrote:And this secession was not based on freeing of the slaves.

As the bastard would put it himself:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]---that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

Lincoln was ahead of the curve when it came to the Black race although his ostensive disinterest with emancipation early in his presidency led some abolitionists and radical Republicans to label him a tool of the slave power. He quickly silenced many of his critics during 1862 when he successfully pushed the Congress to pass legislation to emancipate the slaves in Washington D.C. and followed up with diplomatic recognition of Haiti, a country run by ex-slaves. In fact when Lincoln was informed by a Haitian lobbyist that President Geffard of Haiti was willing to send a white diplomat as its minister to Washington, he replied "Well you can tell Mr. Geffard that I shan't tear my shirt if he does send a negro here."



I give him credit for being unequivocal on the idea that slavery was wrong during his Illinois senate run. That was not a universally popular idea in the state, and it was abhorrent to the slave states, where some number of people in Illinois had their origins.

Meanwhile, there is no doubt that his actions as President made Lincoln a hero among many African American, and justly so. He championed and helped to accomplish the end of slavery, his administration's attorney general opined that blacks were due the protection of Constitutional/citizenship rights, and he said aloud that at least some blacks were deserving of the vote. It is fair to say that "his actions counted far more than the words he said to racist audiences he was trying to get to vote for him."

One can't totally dismiss some of the stuff he said before the war or during the early parts of it. But that does not take away from the fact that he was fundamental in securing equal rights and liberties for people of African descent.

The real problem to me is that the term racist connotes a number of different meanings to different people, and some of those are not appropriate or fair in the case of Lincoln. Making the statement that he was a racist, and letting it go at that, is unfair for a person who did so much for the cause of equality, and who may have died for it.


There are a couple of ways to look at it:
1. Lincoln thought slavery was wrong and consistently worked against it his entire life. His family had been anti-slavery as well. He thought it was wrong because it was theft: the theft of a person's labor. That is the violation: "you work and earn bread and I'll eat it." He thought it was what was wrong with the United States.

2. These beliefs coexisted with belief in white superiority he and the rest of the 19th century white society believed as well.
He just didn't think that race justified slavery.

3. He did a thought experiment: if you encounter a man whose skin is fairer than yours, do you automatically become his slave? If you justify slave owning on the grounds of intellectual superiority, do you become the slave of the first man you meet who's smarter than you. Thinking like this undermined the idea of white supremacy.

4. He was part of the 19th century republic called the United States. He wasn't an abolitionist or revolutionary, although he ended up acting as both. He believed in rules and the political process and the law. The law was to be obeyed but also to be shaped or changed. And a lot of the worse laws and rules in American society were around slavery.

5.You have to scale him to the spectrum of opinion at his time. In that case, he sounds like Martin Luther King. He undermines and argues against slavery his whole life. He emancipates the slaves, and finally destroys slavery. His opponents are driven frantic by his actions, which tend to undermine white supremacy, and move African Americans to being Americans and equal citizens. The bile directed at Lincoln was virulently racist. Finally he is murdered specifically because of his plan to extend the franchise to African Americans.


A couple of items that may stimulate some thought:

http://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2013/11/25/abraham-lincoln-and-racial-equality/

http://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2013/12/31/lincoln-and-race/


Lincoln lived long enough to both say and write enough on race to be accused of or credited with virtually every sentiment one can utter about race. Like every person reading this, we are raised in a cultural milieu that establishes parameters of what is culturally acceptable, what is the norm for behavior and belief, whether it be when and where gentleman are to wear hats to what other tribe you may employ to enlarge your shrunken head collection. Whatever Lincoln said or did about race he did as a person born in the early 19th Century and come to maturity in the middle of that Century. That he transcended much, if not all, of that racism, shows that in that area he moved to the forefront of those who wanted to better the lives of America's enslaved, and then freedmen, and for that he should be commended. What else could we reasonably expect? It never ceases to annoy me when today's perceived wisdom seems to be that these earlier people should have thought as us, should have behaved as we do, should value equally what we do. To such more comfortably enlightened souls I say that there are cherished beliefs and practices you never think much about accepting that will one day be seen as insensitive, uncaring, selfish and plain stupid and will that make you in the eyes of those yet unborn insensitive, uncaring, selfish and stupid?

Hole wrote:Calling the confederates traitors is funny, because the whole nation is made up of traitors. They were happy british citizens until the king tried to make peace with the "Indians". They oligarchs in the colonies wanted more land and needed more money from the king to kill "Indians" and as he refused they started a "rebellion" = committed treason.

The Founding Fathers of the United States of America were traitors to King George III of the United Kingdom. They are not revered as saintly figures in the UK.

Had the Confederates won, they would have been considered the Founding Fathers of the CSA, and despised as traitors here in the USA.

I'm sure some people in the United Kingdom considered the Founding Fathers of the US to be traitors years after the war was over and the Constitution written and signed. But since the Founders won, and since Great Britain signed the Treaty of Paris, legally the Founders were not considered to be traitors to the crown but rather citizens of a foreign nation. That's what happens when you win.

The rebelling colonists resorted to violent revolution to resolve their claims because, it seemed to them, all other means had failed them. The result of this trial by combat was their claim being upheld by their ability to overcome their opponent with force. They won the trial by combat, won a country and a voice in history.
The rebelling confederates resorted to violence, too. They lost the trial by combat and history judges their platform through the eyes of the victor.

Benjamin Franklin answered a similar question at the time of the revolution: “A rebellion is always legal in the first person, such as "our rebellion." It is only in the third person - "their rebellion" - that it becomes illegal.” Ditto for treason.

The other governing principle is the Revolutionists won, the Confederates lost and the winners get to decide who gets labeled as treasonist. (Although a UK-centric history would probably label the revolutionists as traitors and treasonists.)

kvs wrote:The slavery explanation for the civil war is pure BS.   Just because the South wanted to preserve it does not imply that it was
the prime cause.   The prime cause was secession.   Secession was prompted by many factors including too much power
being effectively wielded by the North.   US states are legally supposed to be something close to countries and not provinces.

So you can fantasize all you want but that does not make for an argument.

I’d recommend getting your history from real historians, whose approach is scientific, and whose views are based on historical facts, rather than Lost Cause sentiment, modern day politics, or, worst of all, neo-confederate extremism.

Then what was the prime cause of secession? If you contention is true, why did the seceding states issue proclamations upon secession declaring that the purpose of secession was to protect the institution of slavery? As in nullification slavery is at the root of the trouble. Nullification in 1828 was about tariffs but it is because of the south’s slave driven agrarian economy that it was an issue at all.
So slavery is at the root of or in some cases is the whole tree of secession whether it be tariffs or expansion or states rights or whatever.

https://wallbuilders.com/confronting-civil-war-revisionism-south-went-war/

Of course, a nation without the ability to make treaties with other nations, or coin its own money, or mantain a military force of its own would not be regarded as fully sovereign, to say the least.

The States in my understanding were never sovereign.

First they were colonies.
Then they formed a tenuous union. The "United Provinces of (North) America."
Then we get the Articles of Confederation, which produce a weak (pitifully so), but real national government.
Then we get the Constitution, which pretty much rules out any of the powers that are exercised only by independent sovereign bodies and grants them to the national government.

The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it were intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It is intended for perpetual union, so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government (not a compact) which can only be dissolved by revolution, or by the consent of all the people in convention assembled.​
<J. William Jones, Life and Letters of Robert Edward Lee, Soldier and Man. (New York: Neale Publishing Company, 1906), pp. 120-121.>