The Civil War

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't know about the rest of the South, but the only reason NC left the union was because Lincoln wanted NC to attack SC and they didn't want to do it. The Western half of NC at the time was very pro-union during the war and many didn't own slaves at all and were very much against it. It was the rural eastern half of NC that owned most of the slaves.

The vote for secession was close in all southern states. The following was the margin of victory in these three deep southern states:
GA - 3,500
MS - 5,000
LA - 1,200

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So what did started the Civil War? Tariffs. Taxation, without representation.
South Carolina had already foiled the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations" and had vowed to leave the Union if the Senate passed the 1861 Morrill tariff.
The bill immediately raised the average tariff rate from about 15 percent to 37.5 percent, but with a greatly expanded list of covered items. The tax burden would about triple. Soon thereafter, a second tariff increase would increase the average rate to 47.06 percent. The slap in the face was that 80% of the import tariffs were being paid by the South and revenues were mostly going to the Northern industries.
Lincoln literally promised in his first inaugural address a military invasion if the new, tripled tariff rate was not collected.
What this meant was, the South could not sell their goods to other countries at a world price.

If you doubt any of this, research for yourself. Go to books that were printed in the late 1800's

Try squaring your Neo-Confederate revisionism with the statements of Davis, and Stephens.

CSA Vice President Alexander Stephens, "Our new gov't is founded upon the great truth that the negro is not the equall of the white man. That slavery - subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.

CSA President Jefferson Davis in respone to the Emancipation Proclamation, " On and after February 22, 1863, all free negroes within the limits of the southern confederacy shall be placed on slave status, and be deemed to be chattels, they and their issue forever".

I like how it is put in "A Patriot's History of the United State" on page 302.

...Indeed, Lincoln's promise not to touch slavery where it already existed only irritated the fire eaters more, exposing as it did their ultimate fear, that without expansion [of slavery into the territories], the south would only become darker. Being unable to transport slaves into the territories, as Senator Robert Johnson (D-AR) pointed out, would increase the population inequities, because of the "natural multiplication of colored people," until blacks would become equal in numbers to the whites, then exceeding them. At that point, a race war would ensue. Despite thiry years of philosophizing, denials, obfuscation, scriptual revision, and constitutional sophistries, it all came down to this: the south was terrified of numbers of blacks, slaves, or free. It is not an exaggeration to say that the Civil War was about slavery and, in the long run, only about slavery.

There was no justifiying or escaping the truth with regards to the CSA. It was a regime built entirely on racism which would not be matched until Hitler's rise in the 1930's. The rhetoric of Southerners with regards to the issue had shifted entirely from the 1790's when most despised it and thought it would be gone withing a decade or two, to the 1820's when they saw it as a "necessary evil", to finally the 1850's when people like Jefferson Davis challegned openly whether anything was "evil" about it.


Also I wouldn't be relying on the books in the "late 1800's" since that was the height of neo-confederate revisionism to try and turn the south into some kind of noble utopia that was disrupted by the evil immoral Yankees.

So what did started the Civil War? Tariffs. Taxation, without representation.
South Carolina had already foiled the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations" and had vowed to leave the Union if the Senate passed the 1861 Morrill tariff.
The bill immediately raised the average tariff rate from about 15 percent to 37.5 percent, but with a greatly expanded list of covered items. The tax burden would about triple. Soon thereafter, a second tariff increase would increase the average rate to 47.06 percent. The slap in the face was that 80% of the import tariffs were being paid by the South and revenues were mostly going to the Northern industries.
Lincoln literally promised in his first inaugural address a military invasion if the new, tripled tariff rate was not collected.
What this meant was, the South could not sell their goods to other countries at a world price.

If you doubt any of this, research for yourself. Go to books that were printed in the late 1800's

I have researched it myself and find that what you wrote is not supported by the evidence.

Take a look at what the leaders of South Carolina said were their reasons for secession:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
Anything about tarrifs in that?  nope.
Anything about slavery in that?  Yes.

Lets look at Lincoln's first inaugural address: http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html
The only mention of tarrifs is in a list of activities that he is responsible for as president. Nothing shocking in a president stating that he will do what his oath of office says he is supposed to do.
 Does the inaugural address  say slavery has anything to do with the situation?  Yes, in fact he said slavery "is the only substantial dispute".

Where does the claim that "80% of the import tariffs were being paid by the South" come from? This is a great mystery to me.  

Thats because its revisions to the historical record that aren't true. Thats why it has no basis in fact.

[cpeeks]

Your quote from Jeff Davis is in Feb, 1863. Furthering my poing that it became about slavery after Lincoln issued the emancipation proclomation.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Your quote from Jeff Davis is in Feb, 1863. Furthering my poing that it became about slavery after Lincoln issued the emancipation proclomation.

no, its in late 1862.

The Stephens quote is from 1861. And the Robert Johnson quote is from period between Lincoln's election and his taking office. Try again.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Lost cause theorists emphasized the irrelevancy of slavery as a cause of the way and sought to make the conflict about economic issues such as the tariff and cultural differences between the "honerable south" and the "immoral" North.  They emphasized constitutional values and states' rights, not the issue of human chattel.  But the record is quite different. Jefferson Davis "had frequently spoken to the United States Senate about the significance of slavery to the South and had threatened secession if what he perceived as Northern threats to the institution continued".

Davis served in the Senate in the 1850's.

[cpeeks]

PGT Beuraguard did not fire on Fort Sumpter to keep slaves, and Lincoln did not call for 75,000 troops to free slaves, he did it to put down the rebellion. Why dont you try again.

[WillK]

PGT Beuraguard did not fire on Fort Sumpter to keep slaves, and Lincoln did not call for 75,000 troops to free slaves, he did it to put down the rebellion. Why dont you try again.

But why was there a rebellion in the first place?

Answer: slavery.

[True Federalist]

PGT Beuraguard did not fire on Fort Sumpter to keep slaves, and Lincoln did not call for 75,000 troops to free slaves, he did it to put down the rebellion. Why dont you try again.

He didn't fire on Fort Sumpter at all, he fired on Fort Sumter, despite how the New York Times consistently misspelled the name during the crisis.  Calling it Fort Sumpter always strikes me as an attempt at faux authenticity.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

PGT Beuraguard did not fire on Fort Sumpter to keep slaves, and Lincoln did not call for 75,000 troops to free slaves, he did it to put down the rebellion. Why dont you try again.

Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard fired on Fort Sumter because he was ordered to by Montgomery (Then capital of the CSA), which was siezing all federal property because they were rebelling against the lawfull federal gov't over the fear that the Lincoln administration would shut off expansion of slavery and then risk blacks outnumbering whites in the South, as Senator Robert Johnson had admitted at the time, was their fear.

[cpeeks]

Im sure when Pickett's, Trimble, and Pettigrew's divisions were charging the center at Gettsburg on the third day there battle cry was not keep the slaves, just like when Burnside's Grand Division were charging Marey's Heights at Fredricksburg were not screaming free's. The soldiers who fought the civil war were not fighting for slaves, lol slavery was not there battle cry. When you consider  90% of Rebel soldiers did not own slaves.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Im sure when Pickett's, Trimble, and Pettigrew's divisions were charging the center at Gettsburg on the third day there battle cry was not keep the slaves, just like when Burnside's Grand Division were charging Marey's Heights at Fredricksburg were not screaming free's. The soldiers who fought the civil war were not fighting for slaves, lol slavery was not there battle cry. When you consider  90% of Rebel soldiers did not own slaves.

We weren't talking about battle cries. We were talking about the South's justification for the rebellion.


Battle cries are often propagandistic, meant to get the troop's dander up and get em a movin. What th troops were fighting for means little and had no bearing on what the politicians' who started the War by rebelling were thinking. 

[cpeeks]

 I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came, and now it must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize the musket and fight our battle, unless you acknowledge our right to self government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence, and that, or extermination.  President Jefferson Davis, Confederate States of America

Lol wow REALLY I MEAN REALLY?

[cpeeks]

Or maybe you would prefer this one

"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world".
Abraham Lincoln-U.S. Congress 1847

A little over 10 years later after the South attempted precisely that , Lincoln, when asked, "Why not let the South go in peace"? replied; "I can't let them go. Who would pay for the government"? "And, what then will become of my tariff"?
Abraham Lincoln to Virginia Compromise Delegation March 1861

[??????????]

PGT Beuraguard did not fire on Fort Sumpter to keep slaves, and Lincoln did not call for 75,000 troops to free slaves, he did it to put down the rebellion. Why dont you try again.

But why was there a rebellion in the first place?

Answer: slavery.

The reason why Fort Sumter was fired on was due to the fact that the US Military would not leave the property of the Confederate govt. Sorry but the constitution does not state anywhere that the federal government has any right to own property.

[WillK]

"I can't let them go. Who would pay for the government"? "And, what then will become of my tariff"?
Abraham Lincoln to Virginia Compromise Delegation March 1861

This is a totally made up quote.  You have been suckered.

[WillK]

PGT Beuraguard did not fire on Fort Sumpter to keep slaves, and Lincoln did not call for 75,000 troops to free slaves, he did it to put down the rebellion. Why dont you try again.

But why was there a rebellion in the first place?

Answer: slavery.

The reason why Fort Sumter was fired on was due to the fact that the US Military would not leave the property of the Confederate govt.

It was not property of the Confederate govt.

Sorry but the constitution does not state anywhere that the federal government has any right to own property.

Shocking ignorance of the constitution.  Article 1, Section 8, 17th clause clearly gives the federal government the power to purchase and own property.  It was by this constitutional provision that the Federal government owned Sumter.   

The exact same clause appeared in the Confederate Constitution -- the Confederate government had not purchased Sumter.

[??????????]

So the property that is now federal parks and military bases were purchased from the states? Somehow I highly doubt that. The federal govt only has such lands at the pleasure of the states IMHO.

[WillK]

So the property that is now federal parks and military bases were purchased from the states?

No, and thats not what the Constitution says.

The Constitution says that the state legislature must give its consent for the feds to purchase land in that state. 

[??????????]

And if that state secedes?

[cpeeks]

Haha good point.

[WillK]

And if that state secedes?

If such a thing could occur,  what of it?  Does secession nullify property titles?

[??????????]

That would be up to the seceded state? Would Germany have the right to evict us from our bases?

[True Federalist]

That would be up to the seceded state? Would Germany have the right to evict us from our bases?

Does Cuba have the right to evict us from Guantanamo?  No, the U.S. and Cuba signed a lease, and as long we maintain our end of it, the U.S. cannot be evicted.

The whole reason we had a crisis at Fort Sumter is that Governor Pickens was a greedy idiot.

Major Anderson and his troops were originally in Fort Moultrie.  Governor Pickens rather than occupy Fort Sumter when South Carolina seceded, let the workmen who were constructing Fort Sumter using Federal funds stay on the job.  It was only when Anderson moved his command from Moultrie, which was in no condition to be defended against a land attack, to Sumter that Pickens suddenly thought that the Federal government should have nothing to do with Sumter.  If Pickens had simply bothered to move a militia company into Sumter and evict the Federal workmen, there would have been no crisis over Fort Sumter.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came, and now it must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize the musket and fight our battle, unless you acknowledge our right to self government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence, and that, or extermination.  President Jefferson Davis, Confederate States of America

Lol wow REALLY I MEAN REALLY?

Of course he would say that. He wanted to keep the non slaveholding whites  not only that but get them to die for his cause. Its also downright false as he spent the whole decade of the 1850's denying that slavery was evil and insisting on not only the South's right to maintain it but that it was consitutionally protected and all laws restricting it were unconstitutional.

Or maybe you would prefer this one

"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world".
Abraham Lincoln-U.S. Congress 1847

A little over 10 years later after the South attempted precisely that , Lincoln, when asked, "Why not let the South go in peace"? replied; "I can't let them go. Who would pay for the government"? "And, what then will become of my tariff"?
Abraham Lincoln to Virginia Compromise Delegation March 1861

Notice he says any people have the right not any state or entity. That was a common statement at the time and today but usually it is contect of "the world" or "other" countries. As most considered, including Lincoln, that the people of the US had been liberated in the Revolution. The people have the right in the US to overthrow the gov't VIA elections. And you have a Bill of Rights and the parts of the Consitution meant to protect the political minorities rights unlike in direct democracies or attempts at Republics which failed that didn't protect. No Southerner was going to become less free because the Republicans won the election of 1860.  They could still speak what they wanted to, go to the church of their choice, write what they wish, etc etc. The Bill of Rights was perfectly intact. They lost a political fight and couldn't tollerate that and tried to engage in an illegal rebellion to get their way.

That would be up to the seceded state? Would Germany have the right to evict us from our bases?

Does Cuba have the right to evict us from Guantanamo?  No, the U.S. and Cuba signed a lease, and as long we maintain our end of it, the U.S. cannot be evicted.

The whole reason we had a crisis at Fort Sumter is that Governor Pickens was a greedy idiot.

Major Anderson and his troops were originally in Fort Moultrie.  Governor Pickens rather than occupy Fort Sumter when South Carolina seceded, let the workmen who were constructing Fort Sumter using Federal funds stay on the job.  It was only when Anderson moved his command from Moultrie, which was in no condition to be defended against a land attack, to Sumter that Pickens suddenly thought that the Federal government should have nothing to do with Sumter.  If Pickens had simply bothered to move a militia company into Sumter and evict the Federal workmen, there would have been no crisis over Fort Sumter.

Very true.

[cpeeks]

Ahh and I see you totally ignored the part about why he wouldnt let the south go.