Thea, sorry it has taken me so long to respond, but I had been away from my computer for unavoidable reasons.
Nice to see you back and that you back is well enough for you to wade back into the fray.
You will be glad to know that I checked out the websites you mentioned concerning Thomas J. DiLorenzo. This is not the first time I have read Mr. DiLorenzo's presentations on his thoughts of the causes of the Civil War. I also have had the chance to read Mr. Adams and his spin on the Civil War.
Now what I hope is that you have taken my advice and read ALL of Karl Marx's newspaper article ( at
www.aotc.net/Marxen.htm) on what he thought the Civil War was truly about and you will see where Mr. Adams did a rather slick job of only taking Mr. Marx out of context to get his agenda across.
As for Mr. DiLorenzo, I suggest you check out another site,
www.independent.org/tii/forums/020507ipfTrans.html and read a debate between Mr. DiLorenzo and Mr. Jaffa titled, The Real Abraham Lincoln. In my opinion, the debate pretty much lays bare the fact that Mr. DiLorenzo is pretty much pushing his own agenda against the present Federal government by distorting and quoting Lincoln out of context, much like Mr. Adams does for his presentations.
Now, to get past the idea that you don't agree with my modern-day source about Lincoln and that I don't put much stock in your counter of DiLorenzo and Adams, why don't we both go to the source documents of our debate? Let us both hear what the past had to say on the subject of two things in particular; tariffs and slavery.
Tariffs IN NO WAY were the cause of the Civil War. Why do I believe this? Because the very men who led the country into rebellion say so.
From the South Carolina Declaration Debate, from the Charleston, South Carolina, COURIER, Dec. 22, 1860, I present the following extracts during the debate between two delegates, Mr. Gregg and Mr. Keitt, as they tried to hammer out a Declaration of Secession which all the delegates would agree on.
Mr. Gregg has just finished addressing the delegates stating his conviction that the causes for secession "was entirely perfect." He felt that the tariff should be included.
Mr. Keitt replied at length to include the following.
"My friend from Richland (Mr. Gregg) said that the violation of the Fugitive Slave Laws are not sufficient, and he calls up the Tariff. Is that one of the causes AT THIS TIME? What is that cause? Your late Senators, and every one of your members of the House of Representatives, VOTED FOR THE PRESENT TARIFF. (A Mr. Miles in the delegation replied, I did not. Keitt continues.) Well, those who were there at the time voted for it, and I have no doubt you would, if you were in it."
"...But the Tariff is not the question which brought the people up to their present attitude. We are to give a summary of our causes to the world, BUT MAINLY TO THE OTHER SOUTHERN STATES, WHOSE CO-ACTION WE WISH, and we MUST NOT MAKE A FIGHT ON THE TARIFF QUESTION."
"...Our people have come to this on the question of SLAVERY. I am willing, in that address to rest it upon that question. I think it is the GREAT CENTRAL POINT from which we are now proceeding, and I am not willing to divert the public attention from it."
Here from the very mouths of the men who kicked off The Great Rebellion, are admissions that the Tariff WAS NOT central to the idea of leaving the Union. As a matter of fact, they would have supported the Tariff if they were still in the Union and still had their seats in Congress! From their very own admission! So let us drop tariffs as a reason for the Civil War because our own ancestors didn't even buy that excuse.
As for the States having Supremacy over the Union, please do not use the example of the Revolutionary War as something similar to the South leaving the Union. The colonies did not secede from England, they rebelled. They knew they were committing a crime and if they were defeated, they would be considered traitors and hanged. That is why it is called the Revolutionary War, not the Secession War.
I again refer you to Rick McLeroy's excellent post on this board under Civil War Chat, under the thread, Did Lincoln declare War on the Confederacy?, Thursday, June 13, 2002 - 12:26 pm. Rick pretty much sums up who came first, the chicken or the egg, by explaining the formation of the country and it's government.
As for the idea that suddenly Ft. Sumter was suddenly in the middle of "the domain of South Carolina", reminds me of the magician's trick, "now you see it, now you don't!" Or maybe the other saying is more appropriate, "Just saying it don't make it so."
Fact: At the time of the crisis at Fort Sumter; South Carolina and the United States Government, and the Confederate Government considered the Fort to be the LAWFUL PROPERTY of the United States Government. The constitution of the United States declares that Congress shall have power to exercise "exclusive legislation" in all "cases whatsoever" over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings. When therefore a purchase of land for any of these purposes is made by the national government, and the state legislature has given its consent to the purchase, the land so purchased by the very terms of the constitution ipso facto falls within the EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATION OF CONGRESS, AND THE STATE JURISDICTION IS COMPLETELY OUSTED (25 Fed. Cas. 646, no. 14,867 C.C.D.R.I. 1819). So the idea that the Fort was in the domain of South Carolina is just not true and South Carolina even knew that.
And one last thing on who decided what at Fort Sumter. The South did not have to fire on the Fort, even when it had the chance of being resupplied. THE SOUTH CHOOSE TO FIRE even when some of it's very own supporters begged them not to. There were no Northern fingers on any of the triggers surrounding the fort. THe biggest reason the South took such a foolish action was to convince wavering Southern States that South Carolina was serious this time about taking action on leaving the Union, even if it meant war. It wasn't Lincoln and any sinister plots that caused the firing, but Southern manuvering for more States to leave the Union that brought about the first shots in the war.
A bit more on General Sherman. I stated that there was no way that I thought I could convince you to change you mind or opinion about him. But I do feel you are judging him by your standards of today. So be it, you have that right. I will present just a few more letters that passed between him and General Hood during 1864.
On Sept 1864, Gen. Sherman sent a letter to Gen. Hood requesting his cooperation in the peaceful evacutation of civilians from Atlanta, which was to be converted into an exclusively military fortress and target.
Gen. Hood wrote back agreeing to cooperate since, "I don not have any alternative in this matter," but added a reproach. "Permit me to say that the unprecedented measure you propose transcends, in studied and ingenious cruelty, all acts ever before brought to my attention in the dark history of war. In the name of God and humanity, I protest, believing that you will find that you are expelling from their homes and firesides the wives and children of a brave people."
Gen. Sherman's reply. "In the name of common-sense, I ask you not to appeal to a just God in such a sacrilegious manner. You who, in the midst of peace and prosperity, have plunged a nation into war--dark and cruel war--who dared and badgered us to battle, insulted our flag, seized our arsenals and forts that were left in the honorable custody of peaceful ordnance sergeants, seized and made 'prisoners of war' the very garrisons sent to protect your people against negroes and Indians, long before any overt act was committed by the (to you) hated Lincoln Government; tried to force Kentucky and Missouri into rebellion, spite of themselves; falsified the vote of Lousiana; turned loose your privateers to plunder unarmed ships; expelled Union families by the thousands, burned their houses, and declared, by an act of your Congress, the confiscation of all debts due Northern men for goods had and received! Talk thus to the marines, but not to me, who have seen these things, and who will this day make as much sacrifice for the peace and honor of the South as the best-born Southerner among you! If we must be enemies, let us be men, and fight it out as we propose to do, and not deal in such hypocritical appeals to God and humanity. God will judge us in due time, and he will pronounce whether it be more humane to fight with a town full of women and the families of a brave people at our back or to remove them in time to places of safety among their own friends and people."
Thea, sorry this one is so short, but I am afraid my own medical problems prevent me from continuing, plus the fact that others on this board must be getting bored with all my postings! I will await your response and gather up my facts for further debate. I enjoy my time with you and can hardly wait.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
}}} under a NEW heading. Hopefully, though, we will be able to at least print 3 paragraphs. I couldn't even do that with my other post. 
Linear Mode
