“All Wars Are Economic And Are Always Between Centralists And Decentralists”
I ain’t sayin’ shit yet, this is all new to me. But let’s begin the journey, a fearless re-examination of history, right here with this post. If this is all de-bunked in five minutes, so be it. But let’s get on with it motherfuckers, let’s just dethrone political and dogmatic correctness, and restore truth as the King of Knowledge.
The Ten Causes Of The Second War Of Independence:
By James W. King and LtCol Thomas M. Nelson
Historians have long debated the causes of the Second War of Independence and the Southern perspective differs greatly from the Northern perspective. The only cause of the war was that the South was invaded and responded to Northern aggression.
I respectfully disagree with those who claim that the War Between the States was fought over slavery or that the abolition of slavery in the Revolutionary Era or early Federal period would have prevented war. It is my opinion that war was inevitable between the North and South due to complex political and cultural differences. The famous Englishman Winston Churchill stated that the war between the North and South was one of the most unpreventable wars in history. The Cause that the Confederate States of America fought for (1861-1865) was Southern Independence from the United States of America. Many parallels exist between the War for American Independence (1775-1783) and the War for Southern Independence.
There were 10 political causes of the war (causes of Southern Secession) —one of which was slavery— which was a scapegoat for all the differences that existed between the North and South. The Northern industrialists had wanted a war since about 1830 to get the South’s resources (land-cotton-coal-timber-minerals) for pennies on the dollar. All wars are economic and are always between centralists and decentralists. The North would have found an excuse to invade the South even if slavery had never existed.
A war almost occurred during 1828-1832 over the tariff when South Carolina passed nullification laws. The U.S. congress had increased the tariff rate on imported products to 40% (known as the tariff of abominations in Southern States). This crisis had nothing to do with slavery. If slavery had never existed –period–or had been eliminated at the time the Declaration of Independence was written in 1776 or anytime prior to 1860 it is my opinion that there would still have been a war sooner or later.
On a human level there were 5 causes of the war–New England Greed-New England Radicals–New England Fanatics–New England Zealots–and New England Hypocrites. During “So Called Reconstruction” ( 1865-1877 ) the New England Industrialists got what they had really wanted for 40 years–THE SOUTH’S RESOURCES FOR PENNIES ON THE DOLLAR. It was a political coalition between the New England economic interests and the New England fanatics and zealots that caused Southern secession to be necessary for economic survival and safety of the population.
1. TARIFF
Prior to the war about 75% of the money to operate the Federal Government was derived from the Southern States via an unfair sectional tariff on imported goods and 50% of the total 75% was from just 4 Southern states–Virginia-North Carolina–South Carolina and Georgia. Only 10%–20% of this tax money was being returned to the South. The Southern states were being treated as an agricultural colony of the North and bled dry. John Randolph of Virginia’s remarks in opposition to the tariff of 1820 demonstrates that fact. The North claimed that they fought the war to preserve the Union but the New England Industrialists who were in control of the North were actually supporting preservation of the Union to maintain and increase revenue from the tariff. The industrialists wanted the South to pay for the industrialization of America at no expense to them. Revenue bills introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives prior to the War Between the States were biased, unfair and inflammatory to the South. Abraham Lincoln had promised the Northern industrialists that he would increase the tariff rate if he was elected president of the United States. Lincoln increased the rate to a level that exceeded even the “Tariff of Abominations” 40% rate that had so infuriated the South during the 1828-1832 eras (between 50 and 51% on iron goods). The election of a president that was Anti-Southern on all issues and politically associated with the New England industrialists, fanatics, and zealots brought about the Southern secession movement.
2. CENTRALIZATION VERSUS STATES RIGHTS
The United States of America was founded as a Constitutional Federal Republic in 1789 composed of a Limited Federal Government and Sovereign States. The North wanted to and did alter the form of Government this nation was founded upon. The Confederate States of America fought to preserve Constitutional Limited Federal Government as established by America’s founding fathers who were primarily Southern Gentlemen from Virginia. Thus Confederate soldiers were fighting for rights that had been paid for in blood by their forefathers upon the battlefields of the American Revolution. Abraham Lincoln had a blatant disregard for The Constitution of the United States of America. His War of aggression Against the South changed America from a Constitutional Federal Republic to a Democracy ( with Socialist leanings ) and broke the original Constitution. The infamous Socialist Karl Marx sent Lincoln a letter of congratulations after his reelection in 1864. A considerable number of European Socialists came to America and fought for the Union (North).
3. CHRISTIANITY VERSUS SECULAR HUMANISM
The South believed in basic Christianity as presented in the Holy Bible. The North had many Secular Humanists (atheists, transcendentalists and non-Christians). Southerners were afraid of what kind of country America might become if the North had its way. Secular Humanism is the belief that there is no God and that man, science and government can solve all problems. This philosophy advocates human rather than religious values. Reference: Frank Conner’s book “The South under Siege 1830-2000.”
4. CULTURAL DIFFERENCES
Southerners and Northerners were of different Genetic Lineage’s. Southerners were primarily of Western English (original Britons), Scottish, and Irish lineage (Celtic) whereas Northerners tended to be of Anglo-Saxon and Danish (Viking) extraction. The two cultures had been at war and at odds for over 1000 years before they arrived in America. Our ancient ancestors in Western England under King Arthur humbled the Saxon princes at the battle of Baden Hill (circa 497 AD –516 AD). The cultural differences that contributed to the War Between the States (1861-1865) had existed for 1500 years or more.
5. CONTROL OF WESTERN TERRITORIES
The North wanted to control Western States and Territories such as Kansas and Nebraska. New England formed Immigrant Aid Societies and sent settlers to these areas that were politically attached to the North. They passed laws against slavery that Southerners considered punitive. These political actions told Southerners they were not welcome in the new states and territories. It was all about control–slavery was a scapegoat.
6. NORTHERN INDUSTRIALISTS WANTED THE SOUTH’S RESOURCES
The Northern Industrialists wanted a war to use as an excuse to get the South’s resources for pennies on the dollar. They began a campaign about 1830 that would influence the common people of the North and create enmity that would allow them to go to war against the South. These Northern Industrialists brought up a morality claim against the South alleging the evils of slavery. The Northern Hypocrites conveniently neglected to publicize the fact that 5 New England States (Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and New York ) were primarily responsible for the importation of most of the slaves from Africa to America. These states had both private and state owned fleets of ships.
7. SLANDER OF THE SOUTH BY NORTHERN NEWSPAPERS
This political cause ties in to the above listed efforts by New England Industrialists. Beginning about 1830 the Northern Newspapers began to slander the South. The Industrialists used this tool to indoctrinate the common people of the North. They used slavery as a scapegoat and brought the morality claim up to a feverish pitch. Southerners became tired of reading in the Northern Newspapers about what bad and evil people they were just because their neighbor down the road had a few slaves. This propaganda campaign created hostility between the ordinary citizens of the two regions and created the animosity necessary for war. The Northern Industrialists worked poor whites in the factories of the North under terrible conditions for 18 hours a day (including children). When the workers became old and infirm they were fired. It is a historical fact that during this era there were thousands of old people living homeless on the streets in the cities of the North. In the South a slave was cared for from birth to death. Also the diet and living conditions of Southern slaves was superior to that of most white Northern factory workers. Southerners deeply resented this New England hypocrisy and slander.
8. NEW ENGLANDERS ATTEMPTED TO INSTIGATE MASSIVE SLAVE REBELLIONS IN THE SOUTH
Abolitionists were a small but vocal and militant group in New England who demanded instant abolition of slavery in the South. These fanatics and zealots were calling for massive slave uprisings that would result in the murder of Southern men, women and children. Southerners were aware that such an uprising had occurred in Santa Domingo in the 1790 era and that the French (white) population had been massacred. The abolitionists published a terrorist manifesto and tried to smuggle 100,000 copies into the South showing slaves how to murder their masters at night. Then when John Brown raided Harpers Ferry, Virginia in 1859 the political situation became inflammatory. Prior to this event there had been more abolition societies in the South than in the North. Lincoln and most of the Republican Party (64 members of congress) had adopted a political platform in support of terrorist acts against the South. Some (allegedly including Lincoln) had contributed monetarily as supporters of John Brown’s terrorist activities. Again slavery was used as a scapegoat for all differences that existed between the North and South.
9. SLAVERY
Indirectly slavery was a cause of the war. Most Southerners did not own slaves and would not have fought for the protection of slavery. However they believed that the North had no Constitutional right to free slaves held by citizens of Sovereign Southern States. Prior to the war there were five times as many abolition societies in the South as in the North. Virtually all educated Southerners were in favor of gradual emancipation of slaves. Gradual emancipation would have allowed the economy and labor system of the South to gradually adjust to a free paid labor system without economic collapse. Furthermore, since the New England States were responsible for the development of slavery in America, Southerners saw the morality claims by the North as blatant hypocrisy. The first state to legalize slavery had been Massachusetts in 1641 and this law was directed primarily at Indians. In colonial times the economic infrastructure of the port cities of the North was dependent upon the slave trade. The first slave ship in America, “THE DESIRE”, was fitted out in Marblehead, Massachusetts. Further proof that Southerners were not fighting to preserve slavery is found in the diary of an officer in the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia. He stated that “he had never met a man in the Army of Northern Virginia that claimed he was fighting to preserve slavery”. If the war had been over slavery, the composition of the politicians, officers, enlisted men, and even African Americans would have been different. Confederate General Robert E. Lee had freed his slaves (Custis Washington estate) prior to 1863 whereas Union General Grant’s wife Julia did not free her slaves until after the war when forced to do so by the 13th amendment to the constitution. Grant even stated that if the abolitionists claimed he was fighting to free slaves that he would offer his services to the South. Mildred Lewis Rutherford (1852-1928) was for many years the historian for the United Daughters Of The Confederacy (UDC). In her book Truths Of History she stated that there were more slaveholders in the Union Army (315,000) than the Confederate Army (200,000). Statistics and estimates also show that about 300,000 blacks supported the Confederacy versus about 200,000 for the Union. Clearly the war would have been fought along different lines if it had been fought over slavery. The famous English author Charles Dickens stated “the Northern onslaught upon Southern slavery is a specious piece of humbug designed to mask their desire for the economic control of the Southern states.”
10. NORTHERN AGGRESSION AGAINST SOUTHERN STATES
Proof that Abraham Lincoln wanted war may be found in the manner he handled the Fort Sumter incident. Original correspondence between Lincoln and Naval Captain G.V.Fox shows proof that Lincoln acted with deceit and willfully provoked South Carolina into firing on the fort (A TARIFF COLLECTION FACILITY). It was politically important that the South be provoked into firing the first shot so that Lincoln could claim the Confederacy started the war. Additional proof that Lincoln wanted war is the fact that Lincoln refused to meet with a Confederate peace delegation. They remained in Washington for 30 days and returned to Richmond only after it became apparent that Lincoln wanted war and refused to meet and discuss a peace agreement. After setting up the Fort Sumter incident for the purpose of starting a war, Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to put down what he called a rebellion. He intended to march Union troops across Virginia and North Carolina to attack South Carolina. Virginia and North Carolina were not going to allow such an unconstitutional and criminal act of aggression against a sovereign sister Southern State. Lincoln’s act of aggression caused the secession of the upper Southern States.
On April 17th 1861, Governor Letcher of Virginia sent this message to Washington DC: “I have only to say that the militia of Virginia will not be furnished to the powers of Washington for any such use or purpose as they have in view. Your object is to subjugate the Southern states and the requisition made upon me for such a object-an object in my judgement not within the purview of the constitution or the act of 1795, will not be complied with. You have chosen to inaugurate civil war; having done so we will meet you in a spirit as determined as the administration has exhibited toward the South.”
The WAR BETWEEN THE STATES 1861-1865 occurred due to many complex causes and factors as enumerated above. Those who make claims that “the war was over slavery” or that if slavery had been abolished in 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was signed or in 1789 when The Constitution of the United States of America was signed, that war would not have occurred between North and South are being very simplistic in their views and opinions.
The following conversation between English ship Captain Hillyar and Capt. Raphael Semmes-Confederate Ship CSS Sumter (and after 1862 CSS Alabama) occurred during the war on August 5th, 1861. It is a summary from a well-educated Southerner who is stating his reasons for fighting. Captain Hillyar expressed surprised at Captain Semme’s contention that the people of the South were “defending ourselves against robbers with knives at our throats”, and asked for further clarification as to how this was so, the exchange below occurred. I especially was impressed with Semmes’ assessment of Yankee motives - the creation of “Empire”!
Semmes: “Simply that the machinery of the Federal Government, under which we have lived, and which was designed for the common benefit, has been made the means of despoiling the South, to enrich the North”, and I explained to him the workings of the iniquitous tariffs, under the operation of which the South had, in effect, been reduced to a dependent colonial condition, almost as abject as that of the Roman provinces, under their proconsuls; the only difference being, that smooth-faced hypocrisy had been added to robbery, inasmuch as we had been plundered under the forms of law”
Captain Hillyar: “All this is new to me”, replied the captain. “I thought that your war had arisen out of the slavery question”.
Semmes: “That is the common mistake of foreigners. The enemy has taken pains to impress foreign nations with this false view of the case. With the exception of a few honest zealots, the canting hypocritical Yankee cares as little for our slaves as he does for our draught animals. The war which he has been making upon slavery for the last 40 years is only an interlude, or by-play, to help on the main action of the drama, which is Empire; and it is a curious coincidence that it was commenced about the time the North began to rob the South by means of its tariffs. When a burglar designs to enter a dwelling for the purpose of robbery, he provides himself with the necessary implements. The slavery question was one of the implements employed to help on the robbery of the South. It strengthened the Northern party, and enabled them to get their tariffs through Congress; and when at length, the South, driven to the wall, turned, as even the crushed worm will turn, it was cunningly perceived by the Northern men that ‘No slavery’ would be a popular war-cry, and hence, they used it.
It is true that we are defending our slave property, but we are defending it no more than any other species of our property - it is all endangered, under a general system of robbery. We are in fact, fighting for independence. The Union victory in 1865 destroyed the right of secession in America, which had been so cherished by America’s founding fathers as the principle of their revolution. British historian and political philosopher Lord Acton, one of the most intellectual figures in Victorian England, understood the deeper meaning of Southern defeat. In a letter to former Confederate General Robert E. Lee dated November 4, 1866, Lord Acton wrote “I saw in States Rights the only available check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy. I deemed you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization and I mourn for that which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo (defeat of Napoleon). As Illinois Governor Richard Yates stated in a message to his state assembly on January 2, 1865, the war had “tended, more than any other event in the history of the country, to militate against the Jeffersonian Ideal ( Thomas Jefferson ) that the best government is that which governs least.
Years after the war former Confederate president Jefferson Davis stated “I Am saddened to Hear Southerners Apologize For Fighting To Preserve Our Inheritance”. Some years later former U.S. president Theodore Roosevelt stated “Those Who Will Not Fight For The Graves Of Their Ancestors Are Beyond Redemption”.
James W. King
Past Commander Camp 141
Lt. Col. Thomas M. Nelson
Sons of Confederate Veterans
PO Box 70577 Albany, Georgia 31708
229-436-0397
jkingantiquearms@bellsouth.net
 |
|
As a descendant of Confederate soldiers, this is not news to me. I was told all this in simpler terms as a child by my grandmother in the early 60s. Slavery was a canard, a foil (not to say it is a good thing), but the war as taught to my generation was all about economics. So it is today. So, we may fight again. Hope not. Just remember one thing: a Southern Man will pick up a gun and he will fight. If there is a next time, we won’t run out of ammo twice. CSA.
When did the south not have bullets to shoot back with. I don’t remember any battle where the south had nothing to shoot…not even at the very end.
Funny comment!
I would be suspicious of the statement “ALL wars are economic” as this sounds very marxist in that marxists relate ALL human activity to the economic. I would offer that there are several reasons for war, economic being one, but not always the primary one. For example the jihadists want global domination, which would have economic consequences, mostly positive(booty) but I would say their primary motivation is power wrapped up in religious justifications. (which would also explain our leftists inability to understand them since they don’t understand the spiritual life) There are several other reasons, old grudges, tribal tensions, honor, and so on. I’m not much of a typist, so I will let off with this meager offering in the hopes that a better typist may fill this thought out.
The war between the states damn near happened in Geo Washington’s administration. The cause was the tariff on whiskey. Also called The Whiskey Rebellion.
Southerners as far back as the Revolution were always a people who were both looked down upon by the North and an agricultural society apart from the Northern manufacturing and big cities society.
There was bound to be a clash sooner or later. The question of slavery during the Missouri Compromise brought the slavery issue front and center.
Lincoln was anti-slavery and pro big government and he was bound and determined to both smash slavery as an institution (though he frequently used less-than polite terms to describe blacks); and bring big government rule to the south.
I read one comment by Robert E Lee who stated that if slavery were the only issue; he would have fought for the North. He saw the war as an invasion and an affront to his “country” (Virginia).
Wars are fought for many reasons. Hitler fought his to kill Jews and other undesireables because he fancied himself as another Roman Caesar. And he wanted revenge for WWI, It had NOTHING to do with economics.
Hitler, Hirohito, and Mussolini were all imperialists and fought WWII for world domination, booty and revenge.
WWI was started over the death of one man. It was an excuse for old tensions between Germany, France and the Austian-Hungarian empires to finally be settled. It gave the Russians and the Turks opportunity to settle old scores, It gave the Arabs an opportunity to break free of centuries Ottoman domination.
The Revolutionary war was a war fought over the right to govern one’s own affairs without having some country interfere with those affairs.
How many wars in ancient times were fought over coomerce? Hannibal? Spartucus maybe? Budica? Not lately. They fought for freedom and revenge.
Rome and Greece, Eqyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians all fought wars for booty and power and expansion of territories, not economics. They were motivated by supremicist ideologies.
Islam fights wars for booty, and power and because they think their false god Allah gives them the right to kill and convert all by force, slavery and dhimnitude. It isn’t economic. It is philosophy-driven. Just like Hitler.
We are the untermech, therefore we must be wiped out or enslaved. That’s Islam’s view.
Now we fight a defensive war against Islam. It is a reaction to the aggression of 9-11 and Islamist supremacy, not economics. Same as the Crusades were the anti-jihad.
A defensive reaction to Muslim encroachment on Constantinople and the 500 years of Muslim massacres of Christian pilgrims going to the Holy Land.
All the wars of aggression by Islam against the west were fought over by the West for liberty and freedom for Spain, France, Italy, Portugal and Eastern Europe.
I disagree with the relativist gobble-de-gook that modern so-called historians preach. All wars cannot be bottled up into one cause. There are many causes for war.
I wasn’t gonna say anything but its getting a bit much. Karl Marx is not the end all be all of what ever you wanna call it. Karl Marx is one man who ripped off and over-simplified the work of Hegel.
Yes all wars are economic, because everything is economic. Peoples and societies are a system of needs and all needs regardless of there nature are ultimately bound up in our material and empirical experience of the world.
Even if one believes that we have spirits or consciousness independent of the material world (which i do) our experiences, knowledge, needs, preference and dispositions are bound up in our empirical experience of the world.
Karl Marx took a number of truths about human experience and mutilated their implications so much so that now most American are totally unwilling to touch the topic.
I think ever reader should dethrone there politics and dogmas and just look at the structure of society and how it has operated though out history.
Look at the struggle of peoples to survive in a world of limited resources and the inevitable conflicts which arise over resources.
forget all this stuff about inalienable rights and equality and ask yourselves how one navigates a course to “freedom” through the web of power that is society.
if there is a second one there will be plenty of us in the Northern states that will pick up guns and fight with you not against you.
Ever since the usurper has tried to align himself with Lincoln I have had this issue turning over in my head.
Does he see himself as a new Lincoln, to create a division so great amongst the American citizenry that a civil war will occur with the result of permanently remaking the Untied States into a unified state which is ruled by a central power. The result being that individual states rights will be reduced to minutia, so that we are no longer a functioning Republic, but are now ruled as a representative democracy.
(For the good of us all, you must understand)
I have always known that the civil war was not based just on the issue of slavery, but it was ultimately over states rights. Slavery is repugnant and it’s emotional impact on decent humans was the perfect emotional string to pull to convince the unenlightened to kill their fellow citizens.
I agree with this article completely.
I doubt it. Plain and simple, I don’t see Obama trying to force a Civil War. He has to know if he does, liberalism doesn’t stand a chance. For one, Conservatives, although slightly outnumbered by liberals control almost all of the country’s resources. Moreover, we already have them in blockade possession. Cities are the centers of Liberalism. Outside they are surrounded mainly by moderates and conservatives. The only card Obama has is the Military, which is mostly conservative, primarily so in the Officer Corps. Even then in the event of War, the Military will either most likely not act, or join the Conservative cause.
Spot on, Pat. Our government hasn’t taught a “fair” representation of the history of the Civil War during my lifetime, as far as I can tell. There’s a 180-degree difference between what we’re taught today versus what people IN THAT ERA thought. Wonder why?
Did y’all get any better training from the instructors at our War colleges? I’d hope that we’d at least avoid political correctness there, and strive to find out more precise information about historic wars.
Anyway, I hope you keep this series going!
Regards,
Brian
CDTFLINT - I am not sure the kenyan is smart enough to pull it off, but he and his owners may be that foolish to believe that is possible. He is an idealist, he wants to change America fundamentally and our Constitution is flawed he says; to try and put your logical reasoning into the equation does not work with the psychotic. I would hope that those around him are not insane and can reason with him, but look at ‘em.
If it comes to a physical battle, I think some of the military will follow the usurper, but it will be a small number willing to kill fellow citizens and it will fail.
I have to agree with you. War always has Economics involved with it. Plain and simple, to win a war you have to be stronger, that means being able to finance the war, which requires economic gains. The only thing I hate more than people bitching about Global Warming is people who say that economics are the driving force of war. Plainly put, they may be part of a war, but NEVER are economics strong enough to go to war.
I’ll Fight By God!!! Congress, The Fed.,The United Nations and the Brains behind it all… The Council on Foreign Relations! I figure if the DOD continues watching our backs… We can CLEAN HOUSE quickly, as long as we know the ones behind the Fuck Up!
Pat,
Now I know the whole story. It’s amazing how litte we know of the truth.
If the south had simply abolished slavery THEN announce secession, Lincoln would have had a lot of wind taken out of his sails.
The South GAVE the North the “canard” of slavery…
One could simplify history by asking the question, “Qui bono?” or “who benefits?”.
Look into the causes of wars, but even deeper and see who got rich from the wars. If you look deeper into those people, I’ll be you’ll find agitators and people who played both sides in order to profit from both sides and gain wealth and power.
Nice try. Southern B.S. propaganda revisionism.
Explain to me this:
South Carolina Seceded December 20, 1860,
Joined the Confederacy Feb 8, 1861
Abraham Lincoln was not inaugurated until March 4, 1861
How could he have raised the tariff on imports to states that were no longer in the Union?
The TRUTH is that the history of the United States is littered with a series of tragedies where tyhe only goal was to appease the south and persuade them from seceding.
Adams and Jefferson acceding to Rutledge’s demands
Inordinate representation in the House of Representatives
Missouri Compromise
Kansas-Nebraska
Dred Scott
Always kicking the can down the road to the next generation.
There would never have been a war if not for slavery -
The south’s slaves counted as census population toward apportionment (does the 3/5ths of a man canard that the bigoted race-baiters trot out sound familiar?). Slaves could not vote, were not treated as people but as chattel, yet their masters were allowed additional headcount in the legislative branch.
Don’t forget that the War was NOT North vs. South, but Republican vs. Democrat. Fifth column democrats - COPPERHEADS - were working in the north to subvert the war effort. The Democrat platform for MacLellan in 1864 sounded like Obama’s; end the war.
I don’t know if I will continue coming around if “Civil War Trutherism” is acceptable here. I cringed at some of the Stormfront stuff that was posted previously and didn’t speak out then.
This might not be the vehicle for restoration that I thought.
If you say you want a revolution, don’t you know that you can count me out.
This Trutherism is the same as the Pearl Harbor Truthers and the 9/11 Truthers.
Did the south have the right to secede?
Legally, Yes. Morally, No.
Did the North have the right to conquer it’s slave owning neighbor and force abolition upon them?
Legally, No. Morally, Yes.
I beleive the “South” shall rise again and perhaps in the not to distant future.
The causes of the war may have been economic. But ultimately, can anyone really say that the war would have been fought if the South got up one morning and collectively said “Well boys, Slavery is hereby abolished. All former slaves are now free men with the exact same rights as any other southerner. And, oh yeah, we’re seceding from the North.”
You can’t have a war if no one is willing to fight it. The average Northerner in the army has to have a cause that isn’t economic. This is what happened during the first Gulf War. The vice president made the mistake of telling everyone that the war was about oil, and immediately the entire country started to back away. At which point, he had to reiterate the fact that Sadam was a psychopath, a butcher, invaded another country, etc.
Same thing with the South. Yes, the causes at the top have to be economic, but the government will not get support if the war has no moral backing. The Southerners were not idiots, they must have known this. Yet they didn’t abolish slavery, which tells me that slavery was a big part of this war.
I just learned more about the Civil War in the last 10 minutes, Than I had in my whole life. Thanks.
In a way Ron, slavery DOES still exist. We are ALL Slaves of the Goverment, The IRS… And it does not feel very good, knowing how much power these people hold on MY LIFE.
If the people of America truely believed in Freedom the way our Founding Fathers did, then that Slave feeling would disappear, and Taxes would be held in check, and MY Represenatives would actually listen to me.
I’m sorry, those days are LONG GONE.
That is a very good article. There was so much more to it than slavery and I always wanted to know what those factors were. This issue came up in one of my classes this week also, strange coincidence.
Perhaps. And I know most will be on the conservative side, i.e. “Red States”.
Interesting how most of our “better” officers are from the South, even in the recent past and also today’s military.
Pat does WP 2.0 have a button that we can click to agree or disagree with our fellow patriots here in the comment board? In the meantime this will have to do.
hegelbot 
Steve in NC 
Brian L
Concerning the direct local nature of our current Fed - It is my belief that the values and devices present in the capital are so vicious that stepping foot in there is nothing short of going into little Italy as a known enemy of the mob. I believe that this was what corrupted our ‘94 freshman class. The movie Donnie Brasco tells the story of an FBI agent who infiltrates the mob, and is sucked in to their mindset and behavior. This I believe is what happens when we send our well-meaning politicians to DC.
Concerning authority - I’m sure in the history of our country there have been residents of DC dating as far back as the founding of DC as the capital. These residents are removed from 99% of the country by generations and by distance. In local populaces, behavior is easier to regulate without legislation. No one wants to be thought of as the village idiot. But for years this concept of a strong centralized national government has emboldened the residents to believe that their opinion matters more than that of a simple cotton farmer from the panhandle of Texas. I see this as a mental set of values that does not stand up in the real world, and is naturally combative towards the external set of values that says they are no more important than the rest of us. The corruption and hedonism can be watered down to a defensive ego.
I’m not really sure if I’ve said anything of value concerning the 2nd War for Independence. But I hope I have presented my ideas concisely and added to the discussion.
-Allen TX
Obama wasn’t inaugurated until January 20th after being elected on November 4th. Of course we all saw the stock market fall rapidly when it began to become apparent that Obama was favored to win.
Timelines are useful for laying out things in order but are not always indicative of causality.
As a descendant of W.T. Sherman, maybe I better just keep my mouth shut on this one……
Once again,good job Pat.This is the side of history we were never taught in gubament schools………..
I have become increasingly suspecious of U.S. history as we were taught it.Over these many years I have come to believe some simple facts such as…….
1) Money is truely the root of al evil
2) Power corupts,absolute power corupts absolutly
3) Politicans will sell their soul to get re-elected
4) Nothing done in history is accidental,all events were planned, usually for gains in treasure or power,or both.
Great Article! Everyone should read The Federalist Papers.
Pat, I love you man,
BUT, as Paul in Iowa stated(and if he goes, good riddance, bye bye) the south had been threatening to secede for a long time. The core of the confrontation was the idea that slavery was going to spread to the western states, as they became states from territories. Northern Republicans did not want slavery spreading to the west because they were more worried about slaves taking the jobs of white men, and of course there was a strong abolitionist trend among many places where the new Republican party existed. The south was desperate to maintain slavery, not so much because they were evil hatemongers, but because it was the system they were bred into, the idea that slaves may be freed, given the right to vote, and be treated as equals shocked them to the very core of what they were raised to believe.
However, you are right that northern industrialists wanted to control southern resources, and the war may have erupted at some point if the south had abolished slavery, but the civil war as it happened, could not have happened the way it did had it not been for slavery. John Brown was a Moses of his time who never got to see the fruits of his labor. We should be embracing John Brown, not Robert E. Lee. And we should keep in mind that OBAMA is nothing like LINCOLN. He is just someone who is using a hero to paint himself as being the same man, who will save our country. We just have to remember its Jefferson Davis in the white house, not Abe Lincoln.
As Paul said, The South had the legal right but did not
own the moral high ground.
I also find it amusing that in the article posted King et al
states the Southern blacks were “well fed” as opposed to thier Northern counterparts. My thoughts:
A. Sick to use this as a excuse of justification for slavery.
B. Implies it is better to be a piece of property, a slave,
if your belly is full(Like the libs would have us be) versus hungry but free.
Yesterday’s slave is today’s terrorist/muslim/gitmo/gay marriage/abortion/assault weapon/wealth. Pick one or all; they are all used to create emotional reactions and opinions.
The North used the issue of slavery as an emotional polarizing lightning rod; in doing this they created a false moral high ground for themselves by demonizing an entire culture, The South.
The North won the Civil War, albeit barely, so they got to write history in a way that extolled Lincoln and the Union as emancipators of slaves.
The reality is that the Civil War was fought for freedom. Freedom from government despotism.
Fuck it.
Lets just get it on already and skip this shit.
Pick a side and go to war.
Fascinating read and I appreciate the effort it took to put all this together. A few notes:
–I agree the issue wasn’t slavery (on moral grounds) for the North, at least for the vast majority of the folks involved. But slavery (on financial grounds) was an important play in the war. Business in the North could not compete with the South financially (they believed) because the South had an “unfair advantage” when it came to labor. It was unfair that the businessmen from the North had to pay the dirty Irish to pluck chickens in their factories (their terminology btw), and the South could get their cotton picked for “free” (disregarding the food/lodging/clothing expenses). So slavery was an issue in the war, but not a moral one. It was financial. I’m not saying this was the sole issue (as evidenced in your article), but it was one of the powder kegs.
–I wanted to note that history has given the southern U.S. the ugly reputation as racist, evil slave owners and the Africans as victims. What’s important to note is that slavery has ALWAYS been around in one form or another, even from early biblical times. Jews were enslaved by the Egyptians. Christians were enslaved by the Romans. Conquering kings sold off their conquered into slavery as their booty. The Africans themselves sold each other to the slave traders for financial benefit. It’s always been around and it was an accepted fact of life until recent history (and in fact still goes on in a limited way in some parts of the Muslim & African world). If we go back far enough, many of us could trace our lineage back to slaves or slave owners/sellers and sometimes both. What happened with the U.S. (southern states) is that the slavery question came to a head there with the world watching, and with the successful “messaging” or propaganda from the North, the reputation stuck to the South. tsk tsk tsk, those rich white Americans and those poor African victims…when in reality, all the world, all the races & cultures, were just as guilty and have been for centuries right up to that time.
–What I wondered about while reading your article was the Obama/Lincoln link. Is Obama projecting to the world what his true intentions are by consistently wrapping the Lincoln image around himself? When you say: “shows proof that Lincoln acted with deceit and willfully provoked South Carolina into firing on the fort (A TARIFF COLLECTION FACILITY). It was politically important that the South be provoked into firing the first shot so that Lincoln could claim the Confederacy started the war.” … it has me wondering if Obama has hit the ground running and is TRYING to provoke armed civil unrest (the “first shot”) so that he can really accomplish what he wants…to blow the U.S. up and remake it in his own image, er, remake it into a socialist utopia?
–The Obama team is a master of manipulative propaganda (as evidenced during the campaign) and very savvy with online social proofing and agenda pushing. What’s real and what isn’t real? Americans are in a precarious position methinks (I’m Canadian btw).
While much of the article is true, it’s also an attempt to whitewash the South, which was AT LEAST as responsible for the war as the North. The election of Lincoln was the final straw on top of others going back to 1776.
The quasi-aristocrats of the South never truly got behind the Revolution (many fine gentlemen from Virginia not withstanding). Many fought under the Union Jack, not the Stars and Stripes. There were many compromises made almost as soon as the first shots were fired at Concord.
As the North industrialized (yeah, yeah, work conditions sucked, where didn’t they?) the South refused to leave the Middle Ages. The main revenue source before the income tax was tariffs. That hurt the South, which produced little besides raw materials, far more than the North. The lords of the manors were on top of the heap, and fought any change to the status quo tooth and nail. That meant the Industrial Revolution passed them by.
That also royally pissed off the businessmen of the North, who were denied access to the huge markets and opportunities in the South. Then, as we expanded westward, there was a struggle, sometimes bloody, to set the character of the new territories. The Northern industrialists and abolitionists (’zealots’ and ‘fanatics’ who dared to believe that one human being owning another like livestock is wrong) won that fight.
This left the South even more isolated and weak. All the time this was going on, the Abolition movement was gathering steam. At the same time, the oligarch plantation owners were pounding the ‘State’s Rights’ mantra into the heads of the masses in the South. The same people kept in a state of serfdom from one generation to the next, with virtually no opportunity to improve their lives or the lives of their children, were destined to become the cannon fodder of the Confederacy.
On both sides, especially the North, corrupt politicians took advantage of the situation and fanned the flames in order to seize more and more power. Using slavery as a pretext, they transfered more and more power from the States to the Federal Government.
While that violated the Constitution, the South kept giving them the pretext to do it. There was a widespread refusal on the part of many Southerners (that continues to this day) to acknowledge that they were, in all too many ways, in the wrong. In the end, all their lofty talk of State’s Rights, Independence, Freedom, and Liberty, were justifying oppression, tyranny, and pure evil.
The usurpation of State’s Rights, the fact that tariffs were by far a heavier burden on the South, and North’s shaping the new territories in their own image are all facts and were what drove the South to secede, but the underlying causes of so much of the conflict were slavery and the refusal of the South’s economic, political, and social leadership to move past a Feudal Age worldview.
This is one of those cases where the truth really can be found by taking what each side says and splitting the difference. This guy is just as hypocritical, self-serving, and dishonest as Lincoln’s cheerleaders.
er umm rigth, the Anglo-Saxons are the evil axis
This is a distraction and a tired analysis. While there are many interesting questions yet unanswered from the first American civil war, we must remain focused on the current crisis. This is NOT a crisis of state’s right’s vs. federal government rights, or the rights of free-men vs. slaves (in the context of the civil war era). It is a matter of the preservation of the American way of life in the form of a Constitutional Republic vs. a third-way socialist revolution (using the existing form of American polity to destroy itself, as Hitler did in Germany). Ultimately it is a move toward global socialism. This agenda must be stopped at all costs for freedom, as we know it, to endure.
Loving this PAT!!
Political fish.
I would rather be distracted by learning more to the civil war than bickering about Rush Limbaugh like the libutards.
Liberals and facts are like oil and water.
This is becoming states right vs. Federal rights.
Last night Reid was speaking in front of an energy panel who was against the “new smart grid” because it invades state rights and Reid said “too bad the federal gov. trumps all, end of debate”
Studying the civil war will be insightful of the fight that is brewing in DC
No question which side Hussein is on
I agree with those above who say that all wars are not economic as regards their cause/motivation.
But, I think it’s a fair statement to say that all wars are won by the side that prevails economically. You cannot win a war if you don’t have the economic means to fight or continue the war.
I think bho’s objective is to destroy this country’s economy and circumvent any ability to fight or resist his agenda going forward.
I appreciate your post fellow patriot. You may enjoy the distraction, I do not share that luxury. I have studied the CW through readings of James McPherson, Shelby Foote, Bruce Catton and many others. I never said there were not parallells, some valuable. I choose not to be distracted by the revisionist historical rhetoric of the left. I choose instead to focus on the paramount issue of today’s political exegency: democratic third-way socialism and the demise of our Constitutional Republic in the current age. The time for dialogue is over, its time to get ACTIVE now!!!
Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and to form one that suits them better. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may make their own of such territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority intermingling with or near them who oppose their movement.
Lincoln on the floor of Congress, 13 January 1848
Congressional Globe, Appendix
1st Session 30th Congress, page 94
Lincoln’s order to General Dix of May 18, 1864: “arrest and imprison in any fort or military prison in your command the editors, proprietors and publishers of the New York World and the New York Journal of Commerce.”(11) The two journals were the very embodiment of all that was most respected, so that General Dix hesitated, and was compelled to obey by peremptory letters from Secretary Stanton.(12) Rhodes mentions “the arrest of a crippled newsboy for selling the New York Daily News in Connecticut.”(13)
It would be difficult to characterize the above described usurpations in language stronger than was applied at the time. Rhodes quotes from a lecture of Wendell Phillips delivered in New York and Boston, December, 1861, as follows:
“Lieber says that habeas corpus, free meetings like this, and a free press, are the three elements which distinguish liberty from despotism. All that Saxon blood has gained in the battles and toils of two hundred years are these three things. But today, Mr. Chairman, every one of them — habeas corpus, the right of free meeting, and a free press — is annihilated in every square mile of the Republic. We live today, every one of us, under martial law. The Secretary of State puts into his bastile, with a warrant as irresponsible as that of Louis XIV, any man whom he pleases. And you know that neither press nor lips may venture to arraign the Government without being silenced. At this very moment one thousand men at least are “bastiled” by an authority as despotic as that of Louis…. For the first time in our history government spies frequent our great cities.”(14)
And Rhodes quotes protests of Robert C. Winthrop, in a speech of November 2, 1864 — almost three years later — of “newspapers silenced and suppressed at the tinkling of an executive bell a thousand miles away from the scene of hostilities.”(15)
And Rhodes goes on:
“Yet the matter did not go unquestioned. Senator Trumbull introduced a resolution asking information from the Secretary of State in regard to these arrests, and, in his remarks supporting it, pointed out the injustice and needlessness of such procedure. ‘What are we coming to,’ he asked, ‘if arrests may be made at the whim or the caprice of a Cabinet Minister?’ and, when Senator Hale asked, ‘Have not arrests been made in violation of the great principles of our Constitution?’ no one could gainsay it….
In truth, the apprehension of men in Maine, Vermont, Connecticut, and northern New York on suspicion that they were . traitors, instead of leaving them to be dealt with by the public sentiment of their thoroughly loyal communities, savored rather of an absolute monarch than of a desire to govern in a constitutional way.”
Rhodes quotes from a letter from Schleinden to Sumner: “One of the most interesting features of the present state of things is the unlimited power exercised by the Government. Mr. Lincoln is in that respect the equal, if not the superior, of Louis Napoleon”; and Rhodes refers, too, to “the comparison constantly made in England between the coup d’etat of Louis Napoleon and the coup d’etat of Abraham Lincoln,” and, excusing the use of such power, adds, “The county attorney of Illinois had assumed the power of a dictator”
Rhodes’ History of the United States is one of the latest records in this matter. While he eulogizes Lincoln as ardently as any other, he speaks of “the enormity of the acts done under his authority,” and says, “he stands responsible for the casting into prison of citizens of the United States to be counted by thousands on orders as arbitrary as the Lettres de Cachet of Louis XIV,” when the mode of procedure might have been, “as in Great Britain in her crises between 1793 and 1802, on legal warrants,” and he pronounces Lincoln’s conduct “inexpedient, unnecessary, and wrong.”(19) And Rhodes says more specifically on the same page, “After careful consideration… I do not hesitate to condemn the arbitrary arrests and the arbitrary interference with the freedom of the press in States which were not in the theatre of the war and where the courts were open… that the offenders should have been prosecuted according to law, or, if their offenses were not indictable, permitted to go free.” Besides all this, Rhodes gives unqualified commendation to Governor Seymour for a patriotic spirit and proper jealousy for his country’s liberty shown in his bitter opposition to Lincoln’s usurpations, and shows how very far Seymour’s resentment towards Lincoln went. Rhodes even calls Lincoln a “tyrant.” Of a proclamation issued two days after the edict of Emancipation (Sept. 24, 1862) he says, after giving particulars of it, that it “applied to the whole country…. and was the assumption of the authority exercised by an absolute monarch.”(20) And he quotes Joel Parker, Professor of Law in Harvard, as follows: “Do you not perceive that the President is not only an absolute monarch, but that his is an absolutely uncontrollable government, a perfect military despotism?” And Rhodes says of Curtis, a Justice of the Supreme Court, that “he now published a pamphlet, entitled Executive Power, which called Lincoln ‘a usurper’ and his power ‘a military despotism.” And Rhodes adds, “Indeed it is not surprising that it gave currency to an opinion that he intended to suppress free discussion of political events.”(21)
Good post Pat
Southern children should know most of this, I know I learned it. Often my yankee transplant friends change their views after you drop some of these facts. I didn’t know that the Union Troops had more vested in slaves than the Confederates.
The Centralists versus Decentralists remains the same. Secular Humanism based around a collectivist ideology is the real enemy we face.
The reason we are given rights by a “Creator” is so that no human legislation can supercede our rights. Ever, even if you don’t believe in a diety, you should understand the principles behind that.
These facts, regarding Lincoln’s actions during the period of conflict 1861-1865, are not unknown to history. Nor should we be suprised that the current usurper would be willing to do the same or more during the comming confrontation. What we should be asking is wether our prominent generals will be supporting the socialists, or the people, as this will determine the outcome. Will Franks, Petraeus, and Schwartzkopf stand with the Constitutional Patriots? or will they side with the socialists? What is Powell’s position, and what is that traitor Clark up to? The lesson to learn from the CW, among other things, is that the people MUST prevail and reaffirm our soveriegnty, or be content to asume the yolk of socialism under Obama and the nearing global governement.
I follow the thrust of your argument and cede the point, it is well made. Your exegesis identifies Obama’s ‘Lincoln’ and assists to define the enemy mindset. In history, as in the present, context is everything. The primary difference being that Lincoln took those actions (rightly or wrongly) to preserve the Union and form what we now know as America, Obama seems prepared to take similar action to destroy what we now know as America. Therefore, we must focus on the preservation of our way of life, in the context of a Constitutional Republic, and forge relationships with those who will fight to preserve it, both military and civilian.
“…When a burglar designs to enter a dwelling for the purpose of robbery, he provides himself with the necessary implements. The slavery question was one of the implements employed to help on the robbery of the South…. ”
And we now have a likely manufactured economic ‘crisis’ as the implement to rob us of personal liberty.
AND money.
@PatriotofPast(Thomas)
To say that we are all slaves is absolute garbage. If you don’t go to work tomorrow no one is going to tie you to a fence post and whip you into a coma. To get an idea of what slavery (and freedom) means, read Frederik Douglas’ autobiography. You can google it online.
Look, the author of the article is contradicting himself. On the one hand he says slavery was no big deal, and in virtually the same breath he says that to free the slaves would cause economic ruin. I’m surprised no one else picked up on that.
Furthermore, it is utterly and completely insane to say that a freed man is treated the same as a slave. Something which he effectively says when he compares mistreated Northern factory workers to well fed slaves. Oh really? So how many Northern factory workers went down to the South and sold themselves into bondage?
Its precisely this kind of UFO thinking which causes me to dismiss everything else he comes up with. Why should I bother confirming the things I don’t know, when the obvious things are so clearly wrong?
Look, no offense to you all, but this is ridiculous. Can’t you see that this guy (James w. King) has an axe to grind? He’s using your very justifiable outrage regarding the Messiah, and the misreporting of this war to push forward his own wacky views. Screw that.
“UFO thinking”?
You actually know anything about UFOs?
That Patriot is right. It has nothing to do with your job. Either we’re free or we’re not. Either the Constitution and Bill of Rights are in effect or they’re not. Either they mean something or they don’t. This country is becoming more tyrannical than the Founders ever dreamed. You know it, I know it, and the others on here know it. That’s why we’re here, isn’t it?
I agree with it being the second war of independance and that slavery was a sideshow, though major.
But this obviously was written from a southern point of view. A conspiracy theory to suggest Lincoln wanted the south to attack first. Most of England is Anglo Saxon as they came and made the Celts a minority. The Vikings or Danes then came. so to say that there is cultural war from the ancient times is wrong and out there. Oh and the South lost the war because they did not have a vision to fight a strategic, TOTAL war. Also didnt help that the south got slapped around out West, oh and the best damn general the North had was Robert E Lee as he shot up the confederacy. By the way I’m from the West so I have no stake in the who’s side I am on in the event that South rises again only to lose again!
I just want to use your comment as an example of what bothers me about this whole discussion “whether we’re free or we’re not. Either the Constitution and Bill of Rights are in effect or they’re not”
As much as the authors of the article raises good points about the origins of the civil war. I think he does have and axe to grind, and that an attempt to vindicate the south is basically wrong-headed.
People have become so dependent upon the constitution and the bill of rights as some sort of talisman for the success of our country. And while i no doubt agree that the Anglo-Celtic or Anglo-Saxon or British legal tradition have contributed to this success; this country has become a great country for many other reasons. For example: a total lack of military rivals at all times in our history on the two continents in our hemisphere (or at least the ability to defeat those perceived rivals), cultural hegemony for over 250 years which is just now starting for fade, a strong central government which at the end of the day has shown restraint after suppressing opposition and infringing upon constitutional rights, an unexploited continent with abundant natural resources and room to grow, steady population growth during our entire history. This have all contributed to the success the American nation.
I am certainly not going so far as to say that the law, states rights, constitution, bill of rights, are not important, but i will say that most of the readers here put more stock in them then they perhaps deserve.
The result being that many of you have arrived at an world-view with states rights and the constitution at its core and are now willing to entertain parallels between our time and the time prior to the civil war, or to accept Lincoln as a sort of Marxist centralist.
That seems unfair to me. Lincoln supporting the union and industrial capitalism defeated the south, and in doing so prevented the rise of a rival nation in North America and allowed finally for westward expansion which had been halted by the slavery debate.
I’m not gonna argue that he was the best president. however he left our nation stronger and in a position to become the super-power it is today. Our quality of life the relative freedoms we enjoy have as much to do with economics and projecting military force around the world as it has to do with our bill of rights and the constitution. So it is not as simple as “are we free” or “is the constitution in force”.