Jefferson Davis reenactment on 2/19/2011

[CID1990]

While very few southerners owned slaves, it has been estimated that 3/5s of the wealth in South Carolina at the time of secession was in the form of human capital. That is a very powerful motivator for those that control the social order to maintain it. As far as the vast majority of soldiers not owning slaves, through out history the vast majority of soldiers have not been property owners or at least not affluent property owners. Considering that South Carolina seceded following the election of a President from a party formed by abolitionists, there is little doubt as to why South Carolina seceded ( for additional proof read DECLARATION OF THE IMMEDIATE CAUSES WHICH INDUCE AND JUSTIFY THE SECESSION OF SOUTH CAROLINA FROM THE FEDERAL UNION. http://facweb.furman.edu/~benson/docs/decl-sc.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. South Carolina seceded mainly to preserve its peculiar institution. However, and it may be semantics but I don’t think so and to the extent that secession can be separated from the war, the south fought the war for independence. One can argue the rights and wrongs of independence, but there seems to be little evidence that the main reason the north fought the war was to free the slaves. It did become part of the policy in the latter years of the war and once again you can argue whether it was policy or propaganda, but in the end the slaves were freed.

I will agree with Death Dealer, that secession was a stupid act on the part of South Carolina, but the question that remains is considering the loss of 500,000 citizens, the continued de facto slavery that existed in all states for another 100 years that only ended during the civil rights movement, the dire poverty that existed in the south for 100+ years and a myriad of other facts I won’t list, was the war worth the fight or should the north have allowed the split to occur?

Less than 1% of the population owned slaves. Additionally, the rule of thumb is, the further from the coast you went, the less and less you would encounter slave plantations. Once you got into the mountains, it was rare. Most mountainous areas were extremely Pro-Union. This has been brought up ad nasuem by myself and others. Some people, like dback, could careless about hte facts and stats. They hold onto the Slavery position without fully understand this socio-economic turmoil and make up of a slave state in the Southern section of the USA.

There's a good book (I cannot remember the author) called "Bushwhackers and [something else, can't remember]: The Civil War in Western NC". It is a very good account of the bitter Unionist-Secessionist feuds in the western part of NC, particularly in and around Wautauga and Avery counties, as well as further south into the Smoky Mts.

The book is out of UNC Press, I highly recommend it. The book "Cold Mountain" (and subsequent movie) touches on some of what was going on up there, particularly with the Home Guard.

[AppMan]

The South went to war over slavery.

Shameful that normally sane and smart people try to gloss over that.


Shameful to celebrate it.

What is truly shameful is how little most Americans know about the subject. All they can fall back on is slavery because that is what they have been taught. Thanks to the liberal northeastern press who prints the vast majority of school text books. They distorted the causes of the war and began a 100 year indoctrination our nation's students. I'm willing to bet you've never heard of the Morrill Tariff. It was one of the most reprehensible political crimes in US history, yet it doesn't even receive a mention in modern day revisionist history books. Most serious historians realize had it not been for this act there very well may have never been a war. I am amused how Lincoln is elevated to an almost god like status, yet the facts show, in relationship to the Constitution, his administration was one of the most corrupt, evil, and vicious in American history.

[Skjellyfetti]

What is truly shameful is how little most Americans know about the subject. All they can fall back on is slavery because that is what they have been taught. Thanks to the liberal northeastern press who prints the vast majority of school text books. They distorted the causes of the war and began a 100 year indoctrination our nation's students

So sad that people believe this crap.

Read the reasons given by the states when they seceded. They explicitly list slavery... and in truly gut churning language. How can you defend it?

Mississippi:

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union

In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

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

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

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

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.
The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

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

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

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

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

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

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/mississi ... ration.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Texas:

...in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states....

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#Texas" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

South Carolina:

...A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reason ... 20Carolina" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Alexander H. Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy
March 21, 1861

The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew." Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth...

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/libr ... ntprint=76" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;




Sorry that, as a history major at Appalachian State, my liberal professors taught me to consult primary sources.

[Grizalltheway]

AppMan: take a breather, have a go with your Jeff Davis blowup doll, and try again in the morning.

[BlueHen86]

I'm no expert on the subject (besides my education was courtesy of the "liberal northeastern press" ), but as I recall from about 1812 until the war, there was a lot of effort put forth by both sides to maintain the balance of "slave" and "free" states.

While the "liberal northeastern press" may not be telling the whole story, it seems disingenuous to try and argue that slavery wasn't a major contributor to the cause of war.

[OL FU]

What is truly shameful is how little most Americans know about the subject. All they can fall back on is slavery because that is what they have been taught. Thanks to the liberal northeastern press who prints the vast majority of school text books. They distorted the causes of the war and began a 100 year indoctrination our nation's students

So sad that people believe this crap.

Read the reasons given by the states when they seceded. They explicitly list slavery... and in truly gut churning language. How can you defend it?

Mississippi:

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union

In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

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

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

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

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.
The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

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

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

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

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

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

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/mississi ... ration.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Texas:

...in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states....

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#Texas" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

South Carolina:

...A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reason ... 20Carolina" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Alexander H. Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy
March 21, 1861

The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew." Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth...

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/libr ... ntprint=76" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;




Sorry that, as a history major at Appalachian State, my liberal professors taught me to consult primary sources.

That has been my point when I started on these boards and we have these discussions. Anyone who wants to know why the states seceded only has to read the words from the leaders of those states in the secession documents. Lays it out pretty clearly.

I think most of the "north east liberal" publishing houses have the cause of southern secession dead on, they just miss many times why the north fought the war

BTW, the other question I always ask and did above is was the war worth it considering that while slavery ended, a different form of slavery existed for another 100+years, the south was decimated, 500,000 people died, etc. Don't think anyone has ever expressed an opinion on that one. Mine - yes. With the south and north as two different countries there would have been a war eventually or a series of wars. Many of the issues involved in the conflict would not have been resolved by the seperation. The fight would have occurred at some point.

[houndawg]

I'm sure you have been following the events so far. The 150th Commeration will be going on until 2015. I think it is a great way to truly educate the public on historically significant events that shaped the country and particulary the south. The south didn't rebound from Reconstruction until the 1940's and 1950's. This is not a celebration of slavery. Slavery was not only a human rights issue, but an economic and financial issue that impacted the southern economy(but that is a seperate thread/issue). The facts are that the abolition movement was very small, but had wealthy backers, slavery was on its way out and that the war was not started with secession of the states, but the actions of Lincoln as Commander in Chief, a man who admittedly disliked Blacks and wanted them out of the USA altogether.

Of course he didn't like blacks, he was a Republican. It's always been one of the biggest planks in their platform.

[death dealer]

I'm sure you have been following the events so far. The 150th Commeration will be going on until 2015. I think it is a great way to truly educate the public on historically significant events that shaped the country and particulary the south. The south didn't rebound from Reconstruction until the 1940's and 1950's. This is not a celebration of slavery. Slavery was not only a human rights issue, but an economic and financial issue that impacted the southern economy(but that is a seperate thread/issue). The facts are that the abolition movement was very small, but had wealthy backers, slavery was on its way out and that the war was not started with secession of the states, but the actions of Lincoln as Commander in Chief, a man who admittedly disliked Blacks and wanted them out of the USA altogether.

Of course he didn't like blacks, he was a Republican. It's always been one of the biggest planks in their platform.

[Appaholic]

What is truly shameful is how little most Americans know about the subject. All they can fall back on is slavery because that is what they have been taught. Thanks to the liberal northeastern press who prints the vast majority of school text books. They distorted the causes of the war and began a 100 year indoctrination our nation's students

So sad that people believe this crap.

Read the reasons given by the states when they seceded. They explicitly list slavery... and in truly gut churning language. How can you defend it?

Mississippi:

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union

In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

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

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

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

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.
The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

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

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

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

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

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

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/mississi ... ration.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Texas:

...in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states....

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#Texas" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

South Carolina:

...A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reason ... 20Carolina" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Alexander H. Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy
March 21, 1861

The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew." Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth...

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/libr ... ntprint=76" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;




Sorry that, as a history major at Appalachian State, my liberal professors taught me to consult primary sources.

Agree. It's a shame that Lincoln used his illegal methods to preserve the Union. But it's a bigger shame the South still tries to use "State's Rights" to justify maintaining a socio-economic system based upon the enslavement of human beings. Call it what you want, but the south wouldn't have gone to war over the State's right to run the Department of Education....

With that said, I wholeheartedly agree with honoring soldiers from both sides. However, I'll reserve my honor of Jeff Davis for someone more deserving....

[Skjellyfetti]

With that said, I wholeheartedly agree with honoring soldiers from both sides.

I agree with that. I have several ancestors that fought for the Confederacy. I've read one of their journals and collection of letters home and have a tremendous amount of respect for him. I don't think he fought for the South because of racist motivations or because he believed so strongly in slavery. His primary motivation was, without a doubt, defending his country from an invasion. Same with the Iraq War, really... I hated the decision to go to war... but, I have an immense amount of respect for the individual soldiers that fought.

[Ibanez]

What is truly shameful is how little most Americans know about the subject. All they can fall back on is slavery because that is what they have been taught. Thanks to the liberal northeastern press who prints the vast majority of school text books. They distorted the causes of the war and began a 100 year indoctrination our nation's students

So sad that people believe this crap.

Read the reasons given by the states when they seceded. They explicitly list slavery... and in truly gut churning language. How can you defend it?

Mississippi:

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union

In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

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

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

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

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.
The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

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

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

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

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

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

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/mississi ... ration.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Texas:

...in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states....

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#Texas" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

South Carolina:

...A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reason ... 20Carolina" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Alexander H. Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy
March 21, 1861

The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew." Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth...

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/libr ... ntprint=76" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;




Sorry that, as a history major at Appalachian State, my liberal professors taught me to consult primary sources.

As a historian myself, you have to look at the the whole picture and the rational given by the USA government, they are the ones that began the war by foolishly sending the Star of the West to Charleston. Lincoln KNEW it would provoke war. Did tehy teach you the economic impact of slavery? if you read primary sources, such as Abe's speeches on the subject of War, there isn't much of a mention of slavery being the issue prior to 1862.


Note: I haven't read every speech he gave from 1860-Sept. 1862.

[Ibanez]

I'm no expert on the subject (besides my education was courtesy of the "liberal northeastern press" ), but as I recall from about 1812 until the war, there was a lot of effort put forth by both sides to maintain the balance of "slave" and "free" states.

While the "liberal northeastern press" may not be telling the whole story, it seems disingenuous to try and argue that slavery wasn't a major contributor to the cause of war.

Nobody is arguing that(at least i'm not) but in the 1800's, Slavery was a States Rights issue.

[youngterrier]

I was under the impression that Lincoln didn't start the war.....he provoked it though. Or is AP US History feeding me false information at the moment?

[Skjellyfetti]

As a historian myself, you have to look at the the whole picture and the rational given by the USA government, they are the ones that began the war by foolishly sending the Star of the West to Charleston. Lincoln KNEW it would provoke war. Did tehy teach you the economic impact of slavery? if you read primary sources, such as Abe's speeches on the subject of War, there isn't much of a mention of slavery being the issue prior to 1862.


Note: I haven't read every speech he gave from 1860-Sept. 1862.

Irrelevant.

Lincoln doesn't have crap to do with this discussion. This thread is about Jefferson Davis and the motivation of the South to leave the Union and start the War (and yes, they did start the war when they fired on a civilian ship and a fort occupied by soldiers of the United States) .

Lincoln's primary motivation in the war was the preservation of the Union, not the abolition of slaves. I agree with you completely. BUT, again, that's not what this thread is about.

[CID1990]

As a historian myself, you have to look at the the whole picture and the rational given by the USA government, they are the ones that began the war by foolishly sending the Star of the West to Charleston. Lincoln KNEW it would provoke war. Did tehy teach you the economic impact of slavery? if you read primary sources, such as Abe's speeches on the subject of War, there isn't much of a mention of slavery being the issue prior to 1862.


Note: I haven't read every speech he gave from 1860-Sept. 1862.

Irrelevant.

Lincoln doesn't have crap to do with this discussion. This thread is about Jefferson Davis and the motivation of the South to leave the Union and start the War (and yes, they did start the war when they fired on a civilian ship and a fort occupied by soldiers of the United States) .

Lincoln's primary motivation in the war was the preservation of the Union, not the abolition of slaves. I agree with you completely. BUT, again, that's not what this thread is about.

Given the Star of the West's mission, it was not a civilian ship. It was acting as a ship of the merchant marine in an attempt to resupply Fort Sumter and therefore fair game. Shots were placed across the bow which encouraged the ship to turn away. AND... Lincoln knew that an attempt to resupply Fort Sumter would cause the fighting to begin, because he had already been advised that any attempt to resupply the fort would be interpreted as a gesture signifying that the north was not going to give up the place. The Star of the West was nothing more than an engineered powder keg.

You really need to read more, SK. Even the most apologetic Yankee authors acknowledge the role of the Star of the West and her mission.

[youngterrier]

Irrelevant.

Lincoln doesn't have crap to do with this discussion. This thread is about Jefferson Davis and the motivation of the South to leave the Union and start the War (and yes, they did start the war when they fired on a civilian ship and a fort occupied by soldiers of the United States) .

Lincoln's primary motivation in the war was the preservation of the Union, not the abolition of slaves. I agree with you completely. BUT, again, that's not what this thread is about.

Given the Star of the West's mission, it was not a civilian ship. It was acting as a ship of the merchant marine in an attempt to resupply Fort Sumter and therefore fair game. Shots were placed across the bow which encouraged the ship to turn away. AND... Lincoln knew that an attempt to resupply Fort Sumter would cause the fighting to begin, because he had already been advised that any attempt to resupply the fort would be interpreted as a gesture signifying that the north was not going to give up the place. The Star of the West was nothing more than an engineered powder keg.

You really need to read more, SK. Even the most apologetic Yankee authors acknowledge the role of the Star of the West and her mission.

Lincoln did notify the south that he was resupplying Fort Sumter beforhand however

[Skjellyfetti]

Shots were placed across the bow which encouraged the ship to turn away. AND... Lincoln knew that an attempt to resupply Fort Sumter would cause the fighting to begin, because he had already been advised that any attempt to resupply the fort would be interpreted as a gesture signifying that the north was not going to give up the place. The Star of the West was nothing more than an engineered powder keg.

I agree with that. It doesn't change the fact that sending a ship to resupply a fort in possession of the United States is NOT an act of war. Firing on said ship and fort IS an act of war. The South fired the first shot of the war. Lincoln may have prodded them. But, the South (more accurately, hotheaded Citadel dbags ) fired the first shot and sealed their fate.

And, again, this has nothing to do with the thread. We've been arguing about whether the South left the Union due to slavery. Now, when presented evidence that they did... y'all spout off about Lincoln, and who started the war, etc.

[CID1990]

Shots were placed across the bow which encouraged the ship to turn away. AND... Lincoln knew that an attempt to resupply Fort Sumter would cause the fighting to begin, because he had already been advised that any attempt to resupply the fort would be interpreted as a gesture signifying that the north was not going to give up the place. The Star of the West was nothing more than an engineered powder keg.

I agree with that. It doesn't change the fact that sending a ship to resupply a fort in possession of the United States is NOT an act of war. Firing on said ship and fort IS an act of war. The South fired the first shot of the war. Lincoln may have prodded them. But, the South (more accurately, hotheaded Citadel dbags ) fired the first shot and sealed their fate.

And, again, this has nothing to do with the thread. We've been arguing about whether the South left the Union due to slavery. Now, when presented evidence that they did... y'all spout off about Lincoln, and who started the war, etc.

From the viewpoint of the north, you are correct. However, from the viewpoint of SC, that state was no longer a part of the Union, and had declared Federal properties forfeit. Until the federal government could enforce its interests in a) readmitting SC to the Union, and b) hanging onto the disputed properties, the point was really moot. Depending on your point of view, the resupply AND/OR the firing on the ship were acts of war.

It is an interesting semantic point you make here, and the Civil War was absolutlely full of them. For instance, a lot of the controversy surrounding the Anaconda Plan (especially the blockade) centered on whether or not the COnfederacy was in fact sovereign, therefore making the blockade an act of war, or simply a police action (this primarily applied to other countries wishing to trade with the Confederacy).

Much of the Union's policy during that period was finding ways to justify treating the Confederacy like a belligerent nation while at the same time denying that it had nationhood.

[catamount man]

don't worry sky, I apologize. I guess 150 years of apologizing will never be enough.

[OL FU]

don't worry sky, I apologize. I guess 150 years of apologizing will never be enough.

Oh hell we love the War of Northern Agression down here. It gave us something to talk about for 150 years

[AppMan]

What is truly shameful is how little most Americans know about the subject. All they can fall back on is slavery because that is what they have been taught. Thanks to the liberal northeastern press who prints the vast majority of school text books. They distorted the causes of the war and began a 100 year indoctrination our nation's students

So sad that people believe this crap.

Read the reasons given by the states when they seceded. They explicitly list slavery... and in truly gut churning language. How can you defend it?

Mississippi:

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union

In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

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

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

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

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.
The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

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

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

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

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

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

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/mississi ... ration.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Texas:

...in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states....

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#Texas" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

South Carolina:

...A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reason ... 20Carolina" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Alexander H. Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy
March 21, 1861

The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew." Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth...

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/libr ... ntprint=76" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;




Sorry that, as a history major at Appalachian State, my liberal professors taught me to consult primary sources.

You show documents of four States, what about those of the eight other States that seceeded? Do some research on the first version of the 13th amendment passed by the House on Feb 28, 1861 and the Senate on March 2, 1861. It was supported by Lincoln in his first inaugural address and sent to the States for approval. Had slavery been THE cause for secession this amendment would have stopped it dead in its tracks.

Slavery was a popular rallying cry of Northern abolitionists, but just because it was one of the more common reasons doesn't make it the only, or the primary, reason for secession. Lincoln knew he could not convince the Northern States to give up their sons just to keep the South in the Union for economic reasons, so he seized upon the slavery issue and made the war a moral crusade. Yet, even if slavery had been the primary cause of secession, under the law and the Constitution the North had no right to go to war - either to prevent secession or to abolish slavery - because the right to both was guaranteed by the Founding Fathers. As loathsome as modern society considers the peculiar institution - and liberal historians have certainly exaggerated its loathsomeness - its existence did not justify war, forced conscription, an end to federalism and states' rights, and all the other horrors the North forced upon the South in the name of Unity. Unity at the point of a bayonet is the truest form of tyranny.

[OL FU]

http://www.goupstate.com/article/201101 ... /101091045" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

CHARLESTON HARBOR -- With a thunderous boom and a cloud of smoke quickly whisked away by the breeze Saturday afternoon on Morris Island, a group of Citadel cadets recreated the event that 150 years ago proved to the rest of the world that South Carolina really meant it.

Historians don’t consider the cannons fired on Jan. 9, 1861, at a non-military supply ship attempting to reinforce federal troops on Fort Sumter the first shots of the Civil War.

But it’s hard to imagine any more important actions ever by South Carolina college students — even if plenty of people now think commemorating those actions comes dangerously close to celebrating them.

Their shots forced the Star of the West to abandon its mission and showed Washington that South Carolina — and by extension the other Southern states that joined South Carolina in seceding from the Union in the following weeks — was willing to fight for independence from the Union. After those shots, war seemed nearly inevitable.

cid90, did you make it back to the states to help load the cannon

on a different note, how could historians not consider the firing on the Star of the West as the first shots of the Civil War