Dissing History

[unionblue]

It's funny when someone posts something, has no clue what it says, then opines on what they think is in it, and proves they have no clue what it says.

It is the absolute enforced ignorance one must apply to his own reasoning, convincing himself that his ancestors of the period were both liars and fools, too ignorant to know why they were fighting at all.

That's what is so sad.

 

[Jimklag]

Sure they were afraid of losing their slaves which was protected by the Constitution.
I see you posted "everything else was secondary" and that goes along with what lots of us has always been talking about. It just wasn't all about slavery.

One last time. Had there not been slavery, there would never have been secession or war. Therefore, the solitary cause of the war was slavery. There may have been other complaints in the south but they would not, singly or tied together, have led to war. In fact, most of these so-called other issues were directly linked to the S-word. The state right being argued was the right of a state to practice slavery. The economic things were the economics of slavery. Slice it and dice it anyway you want, and that big old S-word keeps showing up.

 

[Jimklag]

Invoking the "powers that be" is about like believing in the tooth fairy.

It's nice for the children, but adults know better.

Some adults, amigo. Just some.

 

[Rebforever]

One last time. Had there not been slavery, there would never have been secession or war. Therefore, the solitary cause of the war was slavery. There may have been other complaints in the south but they would not, singly or tied together, have led to war. In fact, most of these so-called other issues were directly linked to the S-word. The state right being argued was the right of a state to practice slavery. The economic things were the economics of slavery. Slice it and dice it anyway you want, and that big old S-word keeps showing up.

Well, Jim. I don't agree one iota with what you say. I suggest you read through Lincoln's inaugural address. He was not going to let the South off the hook and that is all there is to it. He wasn't going to let the South go and he says so.

 

[WJC]

One force firing on another does not always lead to war, while I think it was stupid to fire on Sumter I concede it could have produced direct talks between Montgomery and Washington . It depended on the character of the president in DC and few knew what kind of man Lincoln was prior to the firing on Sumter.

http://www.nytimes.com/1861/02/09/n...e-secretary-war-letter-jw.html?pagewanted=all

 

[Rebforever]

Here is just the beginning of Lincoln's inaugural speech.

"-------------------------------------------------- and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes……………….

-------------------------------------------------- I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted……………………………..

…………………….But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.

…………………………..It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionist or revolutionary, according to circumstances."

Jim, there is much more but I would rather for you read the balance of it and understand Lincoln was NOT going to let the South go under any circumstances."

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp

 

[Irishtom29]

Well, Jim. I don't agree one iota with what you say. I suggest you read through Lincoln's inaugural address. He was not going to let the South off the hook and that is all there is to it. He wasn't going to let the South go and he says so.

That doesn't refute the assertion that slavery was the sole cause of the rebellion, the rebellion being by it's nature a state of war.

 

[unionblue]

Well, Jim. I don't agree one iota with what you say. I suggest you read through Lincoln's inaugural address. He was not going to let the South off the hook and that is all there is to it. He wasn't going to let the South go and he says so.

Your opinion has been noted...

And noted, and noted, and noted.

As lacking in historical fact, calm reasoning, and the courage to face one's ancestors words.

And it has been replied to.

Again.

 

[Rebforever]

That doesn't refute the assertion that slavery was the sole cause of the rebellion, the rebellion being by it's nature a state of war.

I disagree with you.

Here is another line from the speech.

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp

 

[WJC]

history is whatever the powers that be, say it is.

Only if we allow the truth to be replaced by lies.
"The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history." --- Eric Arthur Blair (aka George Orwell) (25 June 1903- 21 January 1950), British Author. 1984.

 

[Tin cup]

Older historians certainly cast their net a lot wider than four declarations of causes and a few paragraphs from the Cornerstone Speech.

I'm not concerned about what "older historians" say, I'm concerned what they said it was in 1860-65...they said it was slavery!

Kevin Dally

 

[Irishtom29]

I disagree with you.

Here is another line from the speech.

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp

Yeah, so what does that have to do with the cause of the war? Elaborate.

 

[WJC]

Here is all of it.

"Confederate States of America - Mississippi Secession
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it."


http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

Wow! That really destroys the point made by @Jimklag
Except it only reinforces it! It WAS about slavery!

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.​

 

[MattL]

I disagree with you.

Here is another line from the speech.

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp

The official Georgia Commissioner sent to the Virginia Secession Convention both disagreed with you and Lincoln, I'll believe him about why they seceded rather than you and your confidence in the South's faith in Lincoln's promise of not threatening slavery.

Georgia Commissioner to Virginia Secession Convention

http://secession.richmond.edu/docum...t=1&order=date&direction=ascending&id=pb.1.86

----
The PRESIDENT—

In further execution of the order of the day, I have the honor of introducing to you the Hon. HENRY L. BENNING, of Georgia.

...

What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North- was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery. This conviction, sir, was the main cause. It is true, sir, that the effect of this conviction was strengthened by a further conviction that such a separation would be the best remedy for the fugitive slave evil, and also the best, if not the only remedy, for the territorial evil. But, doubtless, if it had not been for the first conviction this step would never have been taken. It therefore becomes important to inquire whether this conviction was well founded.

Is it true, then, that unless there had been a separation from the North, slavery would be abolished in Georgia? I address myself to the proofs of that case.

In the first place, I say that the North hates slavery, and, in using that expression I speak wittingly. In saying that the Black Republican party of the North hates slavery, I speak intentionally. If there is a doubt upon that question in the mind of any one who listens to me, a few of the multitude of proofs which could fill this room, would, I think, be sufficient to satisfy him. I beg to refer to a few of the proofs that are so abundant; and the first that I shall adduce consists in two extracts from a speech of Lincoln's, made in October, 1858. They are as follows : "I have always hated slavery as much as any abolitionist; I have always been an old line Whig; I have always hated it and I always believed it in the course of ultimate extinction, and if I were in Congress and a vote should come up on the question, whether slavery should be excluded from the territory, in spite of the Dred Scott decision, I would vote that it should."

These are pregnant statements; they avow a sentiment, a political principle of action, a sentiment of hatred to slavery as extreme as hatred can exist. The political principle here avowed is, that his action against slavery is not to be restrained by the Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States. I say, if you can find any degree of hatred greater than that, I should like to see it. This is the sentiment of the chosen leader of the Black Republican party ; and can you doubt that it is not entertained by every solitary member of that same party? You cannot, I think. He is a representative man; his sentiments are the sentiments of his party; his principles of political action are the principles of political action of his party. I say, then; it is true, at least, that the Republican party of the North hates slavery.
----

 

[WJC]

I disagree with you.
Here is another line from the speech.
"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp

So Lincoln WAS willing to leave slavery alone where it already existed. He really was not the threat the fire eaters said he was....
Thanks for making that point.

 

[Jimklag]

Well, Jim. I don't agree one iota with what you say. I suggest you read through Lincoln's inaugural address. He was not going to let the South off the hook and that is all there is to it. He wasn't going to let the South go and he says so.

You make me laugh. Now, Lincoln's first inaugural was the cause of the war. You leave no yarn unspun and no obtuse theory unpropounded. My hat's off to you. I never thought I would hear even the most hardcore lost-causer claim Lincoln's first inaugural was the detonator that touched off the Civil War.

 

[WJC]

Here is just the beginning of Lincoln's inaugural speech.

"-------------------------------------------------- and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes……………….

-------------------------------------------------- I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted……………………………..

…………………….But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.

…………………………..It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionist or revolutionary, according to circumstances."

Jim, there is much more but I would rather for you read the balance of it and understand Lincoln was NOT going to let the South go under any circumstances."

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp

Notice that word? "Perpetuity"?

 

[highplainsdrifter59]

So Lincoln WAS willing to leave slavery alone where it already existed. He really was not the threat the fire eaters said he was....
Thanks for making that point.

I believe Lincoln wasn't any type of blood thirsty, fire eater type. I wished he would have lived and been able to see his reconstruction plan through.

 

[WJC]

I believe Lincoln wasn't any type of blood thirsty, fire eater type. I wished he would have lived and been able to see his reconstruction plan through.

Agreed. The shame is twofold: First, that Southern fire eaters didn't give him a chance. Second that he didn't live to complete his vision.

 

[jgoodguy]

An act of war like the firing on the Star of the West or the taking of United State assets might not result in war, but after such provocations the taking of a United States fort by force will likely lead to war. Davis backed Lincoln into a corner where was no good way out except war.