Common Misconceptions/Myths

[uaskme]

They declined because of the EP and the threat of freeing slaves. No myth, just historical fact.

@uaskme ,

I see what you believe in the above, but let's try and see the other side's issue. Why the fight for independence? To ensure the safety of slavery. The Confederates fought on even with the idea of slavery being "safe" knew that the institution would be heading towards extinction in a Union where Southern states were surrounded by Free States.

As for the prior 13th Amendment, Lincoln and others knew it offered nothing more than what was already in existence, that the North had no intention of interfering with slavery where it existed. But you forget it was the South that rejected the amendment because they knew slavery would still be under threat with no slaves in the federal territories and again being surrounded by Free States.

Slavery dragged the Confederacy to it's doom because it firmly linked it's independence to the institution. The idea of free negroes on the same political and social standing as a white man terrified Southern whites. Lincoln cannot be a scapegoat for a regions fears over the abolishment of slavery.

And yes, Davis and the Lower South refused to compromise, even to the point of freeing slaves to serve as soldiers and look where it got them.

Unionblue

Lincoln hoped the EP would produce a Race War. Good reason he exempted the Border States and those under Federal Control. Prior Draft of the EP confirms this.

If Slavery is all you Study, Slavery is all you see. NC, TN, AR and VA clearly though Slavery was better protected in the Union. DE, MD, KY and MO rejected emancipation late in the War. They didn't want to be coerced into emancipation and the Federal Government didn't have Constitutional Power to do so.

TRR, Direct Trading with Europe, Rich Northern Aristocrats trying to start a Race War in the South, other economic issues along with Western Expansion you don't understand. I guess you think the Revolutionary War was about Taxation without Representation? Get you a good history book.

 

[leftyhunter]

And your point is wrong. The Burnt District in Missouri is an excellent example of the Federal gov. ordering people off their property and prohibiting their return, so the property can be raided and burned by those same Federal Authorities.

No because there property was returned within a year. A temporary inconvenience is not taking away someone's property.
Leftyhunter

 

[DixieRifles]

Basically if the slave owners didn't fret about expanding slavery and didn't bombarded Ft.Sumter and siezed US Government property their would be no war. Once a war starts things can get out of hand. My point remains valid Union troops didn't siezed property and kick out the inhapitants.

That's like saying the Japanese didnt capture any battleships at Pear Harbor.

 

[DixieRifles]

No because there property was returned within a year. A temporary inconvenience is not taking away someone's property.

Did they KNOW it would only be temporary? I doubt it.

 

[CowCavalry]

No because there property was returned within a year. A temporary inconvenience is not taking away someone's property.
Leftyhunter

Having your home and everything you couldn't carry away burnt to the ground is a "temporary inconvenience" ?

 

[thomas aagaard]

That's like saying the Japanese didnt capture any battleships at Pear Harbor.

A statement that is 100% correct.

 

[unionblue]

Lincoln hoped the EP would produce a Race War. Good reason he exempted the Border States and those under Federal Control. Prior Draft of the EP confirms this.

If Slavery is all you Study, Slavery is all you see. NC, TN, AR and VA clearly though Slavery was better protected in the Union. DE, MD, KY and MO rejected emancipation late in the War. They didn't want to be coerced into emancipation and the Federal Government didn't have Constitutional Power to do so.

TRR, Direct Trading with Europe, Rich Northern Aristocrats trying to start a Race War in the South, other economic issues along with Western Expansion you don't understand. I guess you think the Revolutionary War was about Taxation without Representation? Get you a good history book.

@uaskme ,

Lincoln encouraged a race war? Where did he state such when issuing the Emancipation Proclamation?

Slavery used not to be my main interest when studying the Civil War, even when I was first invited to join this forum way back in the early 1990's. But slavery kept rearing up and smacking me dead in the face every time I opened a history book or found history backed blogs showing the slaveholding South's insistence on maintaining the institution from perceived threats from the North on keeping it's peculiar institution. Blame Southern slaveholders and the Confederacy for my study of slavery as the cause of the war.

I really don't understand your fascination with the idea of a race war being started with Northern aristocrats. If anything, Northern businessmen wanted to keep things quiet and peaceful, as to not interfere with their trade with the South. They even begged Lincoln to keep on compromising with the South as to not upset profits.

As for the Revolutionary War, what I believe it was about compared to what the Civil War was about is two entirely different things. How do I know that? I've read those 'good' history books you talk about for the past 47 years and your right when you say you are just 'guessing' what I think.

You really want to know what I think about a point of history? You know you don't have to, as you have read my points of view here on this forum for a very long time.

Unionblue

 

[leftyhunter]

And your point is wrong. The Burnt District in Missouri is an excellent example of the Federal gov. ordering people off their property and prohibiting their return, so the property can be raided and burned by those same Federal Authorities.

No because there property was returned within a year. A temporary inconvenience is not taking away someone's property.
Leftyhunter

Having your home and everything you couldn't carry away burnt to the ground is a "temporary inconvenience" ?

Absolutely it's a big difference to have your home burned down vs bring siezed without compensation.
In Missiouri there was a counterinsurgency campaign and in counterinsurgency campaigns homes get burned that's just how it goes.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Edited

Did they KNOW it would only be temporary? I doubt it.

Yes they did because General Blunt never stated he would seize property.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Edited

That's like saying the Japanese didnt capture any battleships at Pear Harbor.

Indeed they did not and some battleships were raised from the mud and were used in WWII.
Leftyhunter

 

[DixieRifles]

Indeed they did not and some battleships were raised from the mud and were used in WWII.
Leftyhunter

Exactly my point. No land nor property was seized at Pearl Harbor, yet the entire Country immediately went to War.

 

[uaskme]

@uaskme ,

Lincoln encouraged a race war? Where did he state such when issuing the Emancipation Proclamation?

Slavery used not to be my main interest when studying the Civil War, even when I was first invited to join this forum way back in the early 1990's. But slavery kept rearing up and smacking me dead in the face every time I opened a history book or found history backed blogs showing the slaveholding South's insistence on maintaining the institution from perceived threats from the North on keeping it's peculiar institution. Blame Southern slaveholders and the Confederacy for my study of slavery as the cause of the war.

I really don't understand your fascination with the idea of a race war being started with Northern aristocrats. If anything, Northern businessmen wanted to keep things quiet and peaceful, as to not interfere with their trade with the South. They even begged Lincoln to keep on compromising with the South as to not upset profits.

As for the Revolutionary War, what I believe it was about compared to what the Civil War was about is two entirely different things. How do I know that? I've read those 'good' history books you talk about for the past 47 years and your right when you say you are just 'guessing' what I think.

You really want to know what I think about a point of history? You know you don't have to, as you have read my points of view here on this forum for a very long time.

Unionblue

Here is a good History Book. Lincoln's Enancipation Proclamation by Allen c Guelzo. pp225-226

 

[CowCavalry]

No because there property was returned within a year. A temporary inconvenience is not taking away someone's property.
Leftyhunter

Absolutely it's a big difference to have your home burned down vs bring siezed without compensation.
In Missiouri there was a counterinsurgency campaign and in counterinsurgency campaigns homes get burned that's just how it goes.
Leftyhunter

That's like telling someone in Salem, MA circa 1692 that "so, during church service Sunday, guess whose name came up? Yours!"

Instead of a "temporary inconvenience", I would offer that " a devastating, life altering and shattering, signal event that could well lead to not only financial devastation and bankruptcy, but even sickness and death for the weak, the very old, and the very young", would be a more appropriate description.

 

[jcaesar]

TRR, Direct Trading with Europe, Rich Northern Aristocrats trying to start a Race War in the South, other economic issues along with Western Expansion you don't understand. I guess you think the Revolutionary War was about Taxation without Representation? Get you a good history book.

Jefferson in his later years letters to John Adams argued the North and South had become very much split into two separate political blocs while in the Union. He did refer to what seemed to be a deep seated southern fear that northern elites intended to try to pierce state sovereignty to arm the slaves. I recall in his letters during the Revolution period fears of Lord Dunmore arming the slaves, but not anything from the northern aristocracy.

Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 22 January 1821

"Our anxieties in this quarter are all concentrated in the question What does the Holy alliance, in and out of Congress, mean to do with us on the Missouri question? and this, by the bye, is but the name of the case. it is only the John Doe or Richard Roe of the excitement. the real question, as seen in the states. afflicted with this unfortunate population, is, Are our slaves to be presented with freedom and a dagger?

For if Congress has a power to regulate the conditions of the inhabitants of the states, within the states, it will be but another exercise of that power to declare that all shall be free. are we then to see again Athenian and Lacedemonian Confederacies? to wage another Peloponnesian war to settle the ascendancy between them? or is this the tocsin of merely a servile war? that remains to be seen: but not I hope by you or me. surely they will parley a while, and give us time to get out of the way. what a Bedlamite is man?—But let us turn from our own uneasinesses to the miseries of our Southern friends."

 

[CowCavalry]

No because there property was returned within a year. A temporary inconvenience is not taking away someone's property.
Leftyhunter

So the real estate was returned a year later, with their homes, barns, outbuildings, livestock, crops, and possessions that could not be carried on their backs burnt to the ground. Sounds like a minor inconvenience.

 

[jcaesar]

The idea of the Union dissolving and Civil War breaking out was discussed and debated in the Virginia legislature decades before the war. One of a number of major arguments in favor of slavery abolition in the VA legislature was that one day the Union would dissolve and the North would use their slaves to conquer and dominate them.

Thomas Jefferson Randolph: text from the abolition debate of 1831

 

[leftyhunter]

So the real estate was returned a year later, with their homes, barns, outbuildings, livestock, crops, and possessions that could not be carried on their backs burnt to the ground. Sounds like a minor inconvenience.

No one from the burnt district shed any tears about the Lawrence Massacre . The Kanas troops didn't shoot every man and boy over 13 that they encountered so what's the big deal?
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

So the real estate was returned a year later, with their homes, barns, outbuildings, livestock, crops, and possessions that could not be carried on their backs burnt to the ground. Sounds like a minor inconvenience.

No one from the burnt district shed any tears about the Lawrence Massacre . The Kanas troops didn't shoot every man and boy over 13 that they encountered so what's the big deal?
Leftyhunter

The idea of the Union dissolving and Civil War breaking out was discussed and debated in the Virginia legislature decades before the war. One of a number of major arguments in favor of slavery abolition in the VA legislature was that one day the Union would dissolve and the North would use their slaves to conquer and dominate them.

View attachment 389681

Thomas Jefferson Randolph: text from the abolition debate of 1831

Randolph was right because in 1775 Major Dunsmore of the British Army did exactly that by arming slaves and giving freedom and substance to the former slaves and their families if they joined the British Army. During the War of 1812 the Royal Marines had the " Colonial Marines" mentioned in the original Star Spangled Banner.
Lincoln just did the third and final act in a long drama.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

So the real estate was returned a year later, with their homes, barns, outbuildings, livestock, crops, and possessions that could not be carried on their backs burnt to the ground. Sounds like a minor inconvenience.

No one from the burnt district shed any tears about the Lawrence Massacre . The Kanas troops didn't shoot every man and boy over 13 that they encountered so what's the big deal?
Leftyhunter

The idea of the Union dissolving and Civil War breaking out was discussed and debated in the Virginia legislature decades before the war. One of a number of major arguments in favor of slavery abolition in the VA legislature was that one day the Union would dissolve and the North would use their slaves to conquer and dominate them.

View attachment 389681

Thomas Jefferson Randolph: text from the abolition debate of 1831

Randolph was right because in 1775 Major Dunsmore of the British Army did exactly that by arming slaves and giving freedom and substance to the former slaves and their families if they joined the British Army. During the War of 1812 the Royal Marines had the " Colonial Marines" mentioned in the original Star Spangled Banner.
Lincoln just did the third and final act in a long drama.
Leftyhunter

That's like telling someone in Salem, MA circa 1692 that "so, during church service Sunday, guess whose name came up? Yours!"

Instead of a "temporary inconvenience", I would offer that " a devastating, life altering and shattering, signal event that could well lead to not only financial devastation and bankruptcy, but even sickness and death for the weak, the very old, and the very young", would be a more appropriate description.

Welcome to the wonderful world of counterinsurgency. Confedrate troops did the same and more to Unionists including torturing woman to find the where's of " mossbacks" men who fled to the country to escape Confedrate military service.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

So the real estate was returned a year later, with their homes, barns, outbuildings, livestock, crops, and possessions that could not be carried on their backs burnt to the ground. Sounds like a minor inconvenience.

No one from the burnt district shed any tears about the Lawrence Massacre . The Kanas troops didn't shoot every man and boy over 13 that they encountered so what's the big deal?
Leftyhunter

The idea of the Union dissolving and Civil War breaking out was discussed and debated in the Virginia legislature decades before the war. One of a number of major arguments in favor of slavery abolition in the VA legislature was that one day the Union would dissolve and the North would use their slaves to conquer and dominate them.

View attachment 389681

Thomas Jefferson Randolph: text from the abolition debate of 1831

Randolph was right because in 1775 Major Dunsmore of the British Army did exactly that by arming slaves and giving freedom and substance to the former slaves and their families if they joined the British Army. During the War of 1812 the Royal Marines had the " Colonial Marines" mentioned in the original Star Spangled Banner.
Lincoln just did the third and final act in a long drama.
Leftyhunter

That's like telling someone in Salem, MA circa 1692 that "so, during church service Sunday, guess whose name came up? Yours!"

Instead of a "temporary inconvenience", I would offer that " a devastating, life altering and shattering, signal event that could well lead to not only financial devastation and bankruptcy, but even sickness and death for the weak, the very old, and the very young", would be a more appropriate description.

Welcome to the wonderful world of counterinsurgency. Confedrate troops did the same and more to Unionists including torturing woman to find the where's of " mossbacks" men who fled to the country to escape Confedrate military service.
Lef