The Lincoln Gambit

[LedgerSko]

I wasnt EXACTLY sure where to put this, but I thought it was an interesting read, surely to spark some controversy here.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w62.html

 

[unionblue]

LedgerSko,

Sorry, but LewRockWell.com in general bores me to tears, and any article that refers to DiLorenzo's books as a source for praise, can in no way spark controversy.

Sorry,
Unionblue

 

[LedgerSko]

I would guess that Lew Rockwell would bore you. You seem to dismiss all causes of the war save slavery, and therefore since slavery was evil then Lincoln must have been good, meanwhile connections can be drawn between the Republican ideology and that of Lincoln to one that would infact hamper the ability of the South to function as a part of the American fabric, and I believe that it was Lincoln's administration that more or less destroyed the concept of federalism. We've never been the same since.

No I have not read DiLorenzo's book. I plan to just so I can see a different case, then I plan to also look into the Lincoln-Douglas debates. I know this is the only way to draw my own conclusions.....but I find it hard to simply be able to dismiss something because I dont agree with it.

 

[LedgerSko]

Unionblue - I dont mean to degrade, so please dont take it that way. I just always find it hard to be able to completely dismiss something unless its PROVEN false, ie 2+2 is 5. We all know that isnt true.

Anyway here is where I am so far. I know the majority of people here have read much more on the Civil War than I have but, thats why I am here. I am trying to learn.

I grew up in Wisconsin. I drank the Lincoln Kool-Aid for over 25 years, but as the old saying goes, "Nothing is ever as good as it seems, and nothing is ever as bad as it seems" Therefore I dont think its fair or right to deify Lincoln.

I read Lincoln's Inagural Address this past week. What he says immediately is that the Constitution does not allow him to do ANYTHING about slavery. What he contends is that the Union is supreme, based on the fact that the Constitution was created to form a more perfect union. If that is the case then what he simultaneously does is invalidate the Declaration of Independence, from which the phrase "That when any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness"

If the Declaration of Independence formed the union, and the Constitution created a more perfect union, how then could this idea of union trump the ideals laid out in the Declaration?

 

[LedgerSko]

Anyway since I am such a novice, Ill do less posting and more reading now ..... in either case I thought the article was interesting.

 

[cw1865]

Secession v. Natural Right of Revolution

I read Lincoln's Inagural Address this past week. What he says immediately is that the Constitution does not allow him to do ANYTHING about slavery.

The 1860 Republican Party platform officially recognizes this premise as did the Supreme Court with respect to the existence of slavery in current states.

That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the states, and especially the right of each state, to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depends, and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any state or territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.

However, the Republican Party Platform is also clear that the Republicans do not intend to permit slavery to proliferate in the Territories and the recent denial of entry to Kansas, as a slave state, gave sufficient fear to the South that the North would soon have an Amendment super-majority.

That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom; that as our republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that no "person should be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law," it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States.

What he contends is that the Union is supreme, based on the fact that the Constitution was created to form a more perfect union. If that is the case then what he simultaneously does is invalidate the Declaration of Independence, from which the phrase "That when any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness"

However, the Declaration clearly sets a standard: "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Prior to South Carolina's secession, Lincoln hadn't committed an affirmative act as President, he hadn't even taken office.

If the Declaration of Independence formed the union, and the Constitution created a more perfect union, how then could this idea of union trump the ideals laid out in the Declaration?

The Declaration of Independence clearly indicates that the natural right of revolution that they were asserting was not to be found in English law, but rather in natural law, or rather in an infringement of the natural rights of men.

The law with respect to the Supremacy of the Federal Government, creating an inviolable sovereignity over those delegated enumerated powers, is abundantly clear on the face of the Constitution, how it is interpreted by the Supreme Court and by ancillary evidence (specifically expansion westward at public expense which no state would fund if those acquired Territories could simply opt out and secede at will)

Notwithstanding, all involved, including Lincoln and Madison acknowledge that the 'natural right of revolution' would trump Supremacy, but that irrespective it is 'an extra & ultra constitutional right'. As Madison would write:

"And in the event of a failure of every constitutional resort, and an accumulation of usurpations & abuses, rendering passive obedience & non-resistence a greater evil, than resistence & revolution, there can remain but one resort, the last of all, an appeal from the cancelled obligations of the constitutional compact, to original rights & the law of self-preservation. This is the ultima ratio under all Govt. whether consolidated, confederated, or a compound of both; and it cannot be doubted that a single member of the Union, in the extremity supposed, but in that only would have a right, as an extra & ultra constitutional right, to make the appeal." Madison to Everett, 1830

Clearly the South's secession simply does not rise to this level. The Declaration of Causes of Secession are laced with the language of slavery. As Jefferson Davis would say in his 'farewell speech' as he was leaving the Senate: "She [the State of Mississippi] has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races."

 

[cash]

I would guess that Lew Rockwell would bore you. You seem to dismiss all causes of the war save slavery, and therefore since slavery was evil then Lincoln must have been good

The Lew Rockwell site is boring because it's a pack of lies. This particular article repeats the same claptrap that has been shown to be a pack of lies hundreds of times already. Just as an example, Fort Sumter had nothing to do with collecting the tariff. The tariff was collected at the Customs House in Charleston, located on the waterfront. The building is still there today. You can go visit it if you like.

The confederates themselves, at the time, dismissed any cause of the war except slavery.

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery." [Mississippi Declaration of Causes]

"The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery." [Georgia Declaration of Causes]

"They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States." [Texas Declaration of Causes]

"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]

"Our people have come to this on the question of slavery." [Lawrence Keitt, South Carolina Secession Debates, Taken from the Charleston, South Carolina, Courier, dated Dec. 22, 1860.]

"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the 'rock upon which the old Union would split.' He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact." [Alexander Stephens, Savannah, Georgia, 21 March 1861]

Alfred P. Aldrich, South Carolina legislator from Barnwell: "If the Republican party with its platform of principles, the main feature of which is the abolition of slavery and, therefore, the destruction of the South, carries the country at the next Presidential election, shall we remain in the Union, or form a separate Confederacy? This is the great, grave issue. It is not who shall be President, it is not which party shall rule -- it is a question of political and social existence." [Steven Channing, Crisis of Fear, pp. 141-142.]

"Better, far better! endure all the horrors of civil war than to see the dusky sons of Ham leading the fair daughters of the South to the altar." [Virginian William M. Thompson to his father, Warner A. Thompson, 2 Feb 1861]

"Our homes, our firesides our land and negroes and even the virtue of our fair ones is at stake." [W. R. Redding, 13th Georgia, to "Lizzie," Aug, 1861]

"The vandals of the North . . . are determined to destroy slavery. . . . We must all fight, and I choose to fight for southern rights and southern liberty." [Kentuckian Lunsford Yandell, Jr., to Sally Yandell, 22 Apr 1861]

"A stand must be made for African slavery or it is forever lost." [William Grimball of South Carolina to Elizabeth Grimball, 20 Nov 1860]

"The Confederate states are united by the institution of slavery, a bond of union stronger than any which holds the north together." [Berkley Grimball, brother of William Grimball, to Elizabeth Grimball, 8 Dec 1860]

"We are fighting for our liberty against tyrants of the North . . . who are determined to destroy slavery." [Lunsford Yandell, Jr., to Sally Yandell, 22 Apr 1861]

When the wife of a captain in the 15th Georgia asked about the future of slavery, he told her that if the Confederacy won the war "it is established for centuries." [Edgeworth Bird to Sallie Bird, 28 Aug 1863]

"This country without slave labor would be completely worthless. We can only live & exist by that species of labor: and hence I am willing to fight to the last." [William Nugent, 28th Mississippi, to Eleanor Nugent, 7 Sep 1863]

A captain in the 8th Alabama said he would "fight forever, rather than submit to freeing negroes among us. . . . [We are fighting for] rights and property bequeathed to us by our ancestors." [Elias Davis to Mrs. R. L. Lathan, 10 Dec 1863]

"The [Emancipation] Proclamation is worth three hundred thousand soldiers to our Government at least. It shows exactly what this war was brought about for and the intention of its ****able authors." [Henry L. Stone, a sergeant with Morgan's cavalry, to his father, 13 Feb 1863]

"After Lincoln's [Emancipation] Proclamation any man that would not fight to the last should be hung as high as Haman." [John Welsh, 27th Virginia, to his mother and his wife, 26 Jan 1863]

"I never want to see the day when a negro is put on an equality with a white person. There is too many free ni**ers . . . now to suit me, let alone having four millions." [George Hamill Diary, March, 1862]

The son of a North Carolina dirt farmer said he would never stop fighting the Yankees "trying to force us to live as the colored race." [Samuel Walsh to Louisa Proffitt, 11 Apr 1864]

"Some of the boys asked them [Confederate prisoners] what they were fighting for, and they answered, 'You Yanks want us to marry our daughters to the ni**ers.' " [Chancey Cook, 25th Wisconsin, to his parents, 10 May 1864]

"[If the Yankees won, my] sister, wife, and mother are to be given up to the embraces of their present dusky male servitors." [Thomas Key of Arkansas, Diary Entry, 10 Apr 1864]

"[Lincoln not only wants to free the slaves but also] declares them entitled to all the rights and privileges as American citizens. So imagine your sweet little girls in the school room with a black wolly headed negro and
have to treat them as their equal." [William W. Garner to Henrietta Garner, 2 Jan 1864]

"[If Atlanta and Richmond fall] we are irrevocably lost and not only will the negroes be free but . . . we will all be on a common level. . . . The negro who now waits on you will then be as free as you are & as insolent as she is ignorant." [Allen D. Candler to his wife, 7 July 1864]

"The South had always been solid for slavery and when the quarrel about it resulted in a conflict of arms, those who had approved the policy of disunion took the pro-slavery side. It was perfectly logical to fight for slavery, if it was right to own slaves." [John S. Mosby, _Mosby's Memoirs,_ p. 20]

John Townsend, "The Doom of Slavery in the Union: Its Safety Out of It," a speech delivered 29 Oct 1860 at The Edisto Island Vigilant Association, in South Carolina: "I call upon you then, men of the South, (not the poltroons of the South) true men of the South, (not traitors of the South), to rally to the rescue of your cherished, native land. Suffer not the counsels of the submissionist to prevail. Honor and duty call upon you for resistance,-undying resistance,-to defend your country against the ready purposes of her enemies [abolition of slavery]."

It is upon this gigantic interest, this peculiar institution of the South, that the Northern States and their people have been waging an unrelenting and fanatical war for the last quarter of a century. An institution with which is bound up, not only the wealth and prosperity of the Southern people, but their very existence as a political community. . . . Shall we wait until our enemies shall possess themselves of all the powers of the Government? until Abolition Judges are on the Supreme Court bench, Abolition Collectors at every port, and Abolition Postmasters in every town, secret mail agents traversing the whole land, and a subsidized Press established in our midst to demoralize the people? Will we be stronger then, or better prepared to meet the struggle, if a struggle must come? No, verily!" [Letter of Stephen F. Hale to Gov. Magoffin of Kentucky, 27 Dec 1860]

"At a meeting of Louisiana students attending the University of North Carolina, nineteen-year-old Thomas Davidson recorded the proceedings. The Louisianans accused 'fanatics of the North' of robbing 'the South of her most cherished liberties,' and pledged their lives to the protection of slavery, 'that Institution at once our pride and the source of all our wealth and prosperity.'" [Resolutions of Louisiana students at the University of North Carolina, 1861. The undated resolutions followed Louisiana's seizure of forts on 26 Jan 1861. Quoted in Chandra Manning, What This Cruel War Was Over: Soldiers, Slavery, and the Civil War, p. 19] "Thomas Davidson served the Confederacy as a private in the Nineteenth Louisiana Infantry until he was killed at Atlanta." [Ibid., p. 21]

"As one Virginia private put it, 'the poisonous germ which must have sooner or later brought about a conflict between the two sections of the United States' was Northerners' apparent determination to bar 'slaveholders from introducing slavery' into the territories." [Pvt. John Lyon Hill, Churchville Cavalry (Later Va. Cavalry), diary, 9 Aug 1861, Camp Alleghany, Va., quoted in Manning, Op. Cit., pp. 21-22]

"As Rufus Carter put it, when northern 'fanatics' like Lincoln 'misinterpreted and "perverted' the Constitution to bar slavery from the western territories, they relieved white Southerners of all obligations of loyalty, and licensed the southern states to frame a new government 'suited to themselves,' even if doing so precipitated war." [Lt Rufus Carter, 19th LA, to cousin, 26 Jun 1861, quoted in Manning, Op. Cit., p. 24]

"Shared belief in the dangers of abolition powerfully united Confederate soldiers and motivated them to fight, even when they shared little else. An urbane young lawyer and son of a wealthy South Carolina plantation owner recognized the unifying potential of perceived threats to slavery when he urged 'the whole South to make common cause against the hordes of abolitionists who are swarming southwards." [Lt Christopher Winsmith, 1st SC, to mother, 24 Apr 1861, quoted in Manning, Op. Cit., p. 31]

"Joseph Bruckmuller, a German immigrant saloon keeper who fought with the Seventh Texas, had almost nothing in common with the scion of the Palmetto State, yet Bruckmuller also saw the need to preserve slavery as a powerful glue binding all whites in the South. Scoffing at 'improve-the-world ideas of emancipation,' Bruckmuller urged his fellow 'adoption citizens' to stand by 'your own countrymen and race' against the 'murder and arson, hanging and stealing' that were sure to accompany the 'liberation of the half-civilized cannibal.'" [Pvt Joseph Bruckmuller, 7th TX, Address delivered to other prisoners at Ft. Douglas Prison, Chicago, June, 1862, quoted in Manning, Op. Cit., pp. 31-32]

"When discussing reasons for the conflict, a Georgia regimental newspaper, The Spirit of '61, pointed to personal liberty laws, 'those grievous enactments of some of the free state legislatures in regard to fugitive slaves,' as evidence that Northerners were 'black hearted abolitionists' who must be opposed before they crushed slavery." [_The Spirit of '61,_ the camp paper of the 18th Georgia, 25 Dec 1861, quoted in Manning, Op. Cit., p. 32]

"Confound the whole set of Psalm singing 'brethren' and 'sistern' too. If it had not been for them preaching abolitionism from every northern pulpit, I would never have been soldiering." [Pvt. James Williams, 21st AL, to wife, 20 Dec 1861]

South Carolina soldier Chesley Herbert summed up many white Southerners' conflation of abolitionism with general moral decay when he dismissed Northerners everywhere and unionists in border states as 'abolitionist and any other sort of an 'ist' that is not good.'" [Lt. Chesley Herbert, 3rd SC, to wife, 3 Jul 1861, quoted in Manning, Op. Cit., pp. 34-35]

"Georgia soldier A. H. Mitchell, for one, linked abolitionism in the North to other moral pathologies like 'spiritualism and free love.'" [Georgia soldier A. H. Mitchell to father, 17 May 1861, quoted in Manning, Op. Cit., p. 35]

"Where the two races approximate equality in numbers, slavery is the only protection of the laboring classes against the evils of amalgamation."" ["The Irrepressible Conflict," Richmond Enquirer, 2 Oct 1860]

"One Georgia recruit fretted about rumors that slaves who thought the war meant freedom were already discussing 'whom they would make their wives among the young [white] ladies.'" [Thomas, private in a Ga. Regiment, to mother, 10 May 1861, quoted in Manning, Op. Cit., p. 36]

Regards,
Cash

 

[OpnDownfall]

LedgerSko, will have to tighten up his study of historical facts. As CW1865 has pointed out, Lincoln did Not, say Only the Constitution does not allow him to do ANYTHING about slavery. As noted by CW 1865, Lincoln had MORE to say about the spread of slavery into the Territories of the UDA, in the same Address.
FYI LedgerSko, Lincoln considered the Union to predate the DoI.

 

[unionblue]

Unionblue - I dont mean to degrade, so please dont take it that way.

I did not assume you meant to degrade, and did not take it as such, I assure you.

I just always find it hard to be able to completely dismiss something unless its PROVEN false, ie 2+2 is 5. We all know that isnt true.

I agree with your outlook that one should not judge until one has read or researched a source or book in question. That's my problem, I have read DiLorenzo's book, The Real Lincoln, and I have researched some of the articles on LewRockWell.com. I have found both sources to be poorly researched, partisan in their outlook, and basically trying to rewrite history is about the kindest charge I could level against them.

But let me also repeat, this is MY experience and MY conclusions. You should read and research the same source and come up with your own conclusions.

Anyway here is where I am so far. I know the majority of people here have read much more on the Civil War than I have but, thats why I am here. I am trying to learn.

As you should. But learning is an individual pursuit, something that you will have to do own your own. You can ask for other views here and help with sources, but in the end, it is you who will determine what you think is correct or incorrect concerning the history of the Civil War. Again, as it should be.

I grew up in Wisconsin. I drank the Lincoln Kool-Aid for over 25 years, but as the old saying goes, "Nothing is ever as good as it seems, and nothing is ever as bad as it seems" Therefore I dont think its fair or right to deify Lincoln.

Nor do I. But I also think one should be convinced by history, not by someone who can't get their facts straight or who is out to advance a modern-day political agenda.

I read Lincoln's Inagural Address this past week. What he says immediately is that the Constitution does not allow him to do ANYTHING about slavery.

Read his second Inagural Address.

What he contends is that the Union is supreme, based on the fact that the Constitution was created to form a more perfect union. If that is the case then what he simultaneously does is invalidate the Declaration of Independence, from which the phrase "That when any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness"

If the Declaration of Independence formed the union, and the Constitution created a more perfect union, how then could this idea of union trump the ideals laid out in the Declaration?

In my own view, it didn't.

But I see others have presented their own views in response to your question above, and I will let them answer.

The point is, you are correct in that you should not judge a book or view without reading it or researching it. But research it ALL, not just the view you wish to keep or present. Be honest with yourself and your research. Do not fixate on a moment of time, but follow the man, point, view, account, etc., throughout the entire period. In this way, you'll get a more rounded idea of what was going on.

IMO.

Good luck, and enjoy your journey of discovery and learning. It's been a blast for me and I am sure it will be the same for you, just by the question you have asked already.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[LedgerSko]

Yes, thank you unionblue, the problem is the more I read the more confused I get. One of the struggles for me is the cause of the war. One the one hand I abhor slavery on the other I dont think the south was COMPLETELY wrong. I think slavery was a cause for the war likely the main cause but the main cause through how the rights of man were interpreted by those in the South. If the South wasnt a slave holding nation or had voluntarily chosen to give up slavery there could likely have not been a war or could have in fact been an economic war but not one in at least some fashion over slavery. Now if they would have gotten rid of slavery DURING the war, and had been recognized by the Brits and French, then what??

As I've stated in other threads I dont like oppressive big government. I like Ron Paul. If that makes me a looney then so be it.

I happen to believe nearly all wars are fought for economic reasons. Based on those economic reasons both the North and South were fighting for their "interests"

From what I have read "so far" on history the North and South never REALLY saw themselves as being the same, and what happens in politics is that you always end up advocating for things that will favor you personally or your hometown, state etc. With that were northern and southern soldiers and citizens prodded into fighting a war for elite interests on either side? I dont think we can absolve either government for their role in the war. Were average citizen/soldiers on either side fighting for or against slavery?

Anyway I know that turned into a ramble and thats only about 1/5th of the thoughts swirling in my head about this era in history, this conflict or what it has meant for this nation. Its an incredibly complex story, but for what its worth thats why I am here. As I continue to learn I will not agree 100% of the people here, or with the powers that be that seem to "control" this board, but I thats I guess we dont all vote the same, dont all work the same jobs or have the same interests. People read the source documents and infer different conclusions, even if they read the same material......ok Im done for now.

 

[Freddy]

I read Lincoln's Inagural Address this past week. What he says immediately is that the Constitution does not allow him to do ANYTHING about slavery. What he contends is that the Union is supreme, based on the fact that the Constitution was created to form a more perfect union. If that is the case then what he simultaneously does is invalidate the Declaration of Independence, from which the phrase "That when any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness"

If the Declaration of Independence formed the union, and the Constitution created a more perfect union, how then could this idea of union trump the ideals laid out in the Declaration?

I maintain that the DOI was invalidated once the AOCAPU were ratified in 1781. The AOCAPU created a confederation and union. In 1789 the Constitution created a government and union.

From the DOI:
"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. —"

First it is the United States of America, then united Colonies, and finally Free and Independent States. Nevertheless the authority comes from the people of the colonies.

None of the colonies/states alone ever exercised any of those listed powers. Only Congress, whether the Continental, Confederation, or US Congress exercised those powers.

 

[ole]

I happen to believe nearly all wars are fought for economic reasons. Based on those economic reasons both the North and South were fighting for their "interests"

I agree that nearly all wars are fought for self-interest ... that economics are frequently involved with that self-interest.

But the economic interests of the CW seem to be centered within the planter class, which feared a decline in the value of their slaves. Think about it: did the mills and manufacturers want the planter's slaves and their property? I don't see it. When there was a good year, the price of cotton was lower. When there was a bad year, the price of cotton was higher. Of what value was taking over the cotton kingdom?

Industrialists all over the north urged peace. Even then they could see that with a shortened supply, their businesses would suffer. All they wanted was a steady supply of raw material. (Today, we'd talk of parts or subassemblies.)

This is as good a forum as any to discuss whatever you'd like. It easier to take a statement such as the one I've addressed, so we can break it down into bite-sized pieces. For example, the essay on the Rockwell thread ... there is so much historical error in there that it would take up way to much time to answer each sentence. (And much of it has already been discussed. Which is not to say you can't bring it up again ... the longer one has been on the boards, the more the same things come up again and again.)

Ole

 

[LedgerSko]

First it is the United States of America, then united Colonies, and finally Free and Independent States. Nevertheless the authority comes from the people of the colonies.

I dont see how you can have the U.S. before having united Colonies.

Now I also believe that the government derives its powers from the consent of the governed. If the south no longer consented do they not have natural rights to form their own government, and thus adhere to a government that they consent to?


Also Unionblue - I guess I'd have to go back and look at your numerous postings but...do you contend the ONLY cause of the war was slavery or the MAIN cause of the war was slavery.......then on that note was the North fighting to end slavery...or fighting to preserve their own self-interests, or are they one and the same?


Ole - Guessing by the backlash you are likely correct on the DiLorenzo article....but again I guess I would have to research it myself. In terms of economic issues of wars, economics is the main self-interest. Like is said in any presidential election cycle...its the economy stupid.

 

[ole]

Now I also believe that the government derives its powers from the consent of the governed. If the south no longer consented do they not have natural rights to form their own government, and thus adhere to a government that they consent to?

When you get time to catch up on some of the archives, you'll find that many hold the opinion that there was a way out of the Union ... just not the way they did it.

Also Unionblue - I guess I'd have to go back and look at your numerous postings but...do you contend the ONLY cause of the war was slavery or the MAIN cause of the war was slavery.......then on that note was the North fighting to end slavery...or fighting to preserve their own self-interests, or are they one and the same?

Save you a little trouble here, Unionblue is quite willing to admit that there were some other factors present, but MOST also involved slavery. And you've seen it said, that "state rights" is seen as a right involving keeping slaves and extending slave territory. But he can speak for himself.

Guessing by the backlash you are likely correct on the DiLorenzo article....but again I guess I would have to research it myself. In terms of economic issues of wars, economics is the main self-interest. Like is said in any presidential election cycle...its the economy stupid.

The link you provided wasn't written by DiLorenzo. (Yes. I read it.) It only cited DiLorenzo. For the most part, the article was rehashing what contributors almost always post on Rockwell's site. Which is why I suggested that you take a paragraph and present that for discussion ... there's just too many factual errors in the article to cover in one sitting.

If you were to search the archives for "DiLorenzo," I hope you're retired; it will take you a long time to wade through just those posts and threads. And, by all means, ask, propse and discuss.

Ole

 

[LedgerSko]

Thanks Ole, I appreciate your help. Im a novice at this but I have to start somewhere right?

 

[Freddy]

I dont see how you can have the U.S. before having united Colonies.

Now I also believe that the government derives its powers from the consent of the governed. If the south no longer consented do they not have natural rights to form their own government, and thus adhere to a government that they consent to?

You will have to take that up with Jefferson and the Second Continental Congress.
The DOI title:

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America​

The people have the natural right of revolution/rebellion. The South attempted to exercise it and lost.​

 

[LedgerSko]

Freddy - I understand that is the title but how do you conclude that you have United States before United Colonies? Since the DOI created the United States there were no such entities before the DOI.

 

[unionblue]

Also Unionblue - I guess I'd have to go back and look at your numerous postings but...do you contend the ONLY cause of the war was slavery or the MAIN cause of the war was slavery.......then on that note was the North fighting to end slavery...or fighting to preserve their own self-interests, or are they one and the same?

My contention has always been the reason for Southern secession was slavery. Period.

BUT, what others fail sometimes to see after I say the above is that the North went to war with the South in order to preserve the Union, NOT to end slavery.

Without slavery, no Southern secession. Without Southern secession, no war to preserve the Union.

To me, it is that simple.

Ole - Guessing by the backlash you are likely correct on the DiLorenzo article....but again I guess I would have to research it myself.

I very much encourage you to do so. But do as ole has suggested, and go to Search section of the header bar above, click on it, then click on the "advanced search", then type in "DiLorenzo" then click on the "titles only" part and go. You will find several threads of interest on the man at this forum in its archives. Might save you some hassle. If you are not satisfied with what you find there, keep looking, keep reading, but check on the sources listed in DiLorenzo's books. Then you will know why I hold him not as a serious Civil War subject matter expert.

In terms of economic issues of wars, economics is the main self-interest. Like is said in any presidential election cycle...its the economy stupid.

The only economic self-interest I can find that contributed to the way, in my opinion, was the two - four billion dollars tied up in Southern slaves and their direct impact on all else in the Southern economy.

As someone has stated on the forum before, the tariff concerned itself with millions, slavery with billions.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[OpnDownfall]

The DoI, as a historical event, should not studied in isolation from its historical context. The representatives of all the colonies have already met in General Congress Assembled and United all the colonies under the authority of all the good people of the colonies.
After justifying rebellion, they conclude "That these united Colonies are, and of right, ought, to be Free and Independent States,..." it then, followed that, logically, if the America colonies were no longer colonies of Britain, then the representatives in General Congress Assembled, chose to changed the, now inaccurate, descriptive, united Colonies, to the more accurate, United States of America.
Quite logical, really And, even better, Historical.

 

[cash]

If the South wasnt a slave holding nation or had voluntarily chosen to give up slavery there could likely have not been a war or could have in fact been an economic war but not one in at least some fashion over slavery.

No slavery, no secession. No secession, no war.

Now if they would have gotten rid of slavery DURING the war, and had been recognized by the Brits and French, then what??

Since they seceded to protect slavery, they would not have given it up.

I happen to believe nearly all wars are fought for economic reasons. Based on those economic reasons both the North and South were fighting for their "interests"

Take a look at how much money the rebels had invested in slavery.

Were average citizen/soldiers on either side fighting for or against slavery?

See Chandra Manning's book, _What This Cruel War Was Over._

Regards,
Cash