Author Topic: The real reasons!! (Read 3837 times)

Ga.windbreak · « **on:** July 07, 2009, 07:44:26 AM »

Why did the North want a war?

http://www.geocities.com/confederate_cause/Quotes.htm

Read below the reasoned thought of the time...

Quote

The predicament in which both the Government and the commerce of the country are placed, through the non-enforcement of our revenue laws, is now thoroughly understood the world over....If the manufacturer at Manchester [England] can send his goods into the Western States through New Orleans at less cost than through New York, he is a fool for not availing himself of his advantage...If the importations of the counrty are made through Southern ports, its exports will go through the same channel. The produce of the West, instead of coming to our own port by millions of tons, to be transported abroad by the same ships through which we received our importations, will seek other routes and other outlets. With the lost of our foreign trade, what is to become of our public works, conducted at the cost of many huindred millions of dollars, to turn into our harbor the products of the interior? They share in the common ruin. So do our manufacturers...Once at New Orleans, goods may be distributed over the whole country duty-free. The process is perfectly simple... The commercial bearing of the question has acted upon the North...We now see clearly whither we are tending, and the policy we must adopt. With us it is no longer an abstract question---one of Constitutional construction, or of the reserved or delegated powers of the State or Federal government, but of material existence and moral position both at home and abroad.....We were divided and confused till our pockets were touched. ---New York Times March 30, 1861

The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing....It is very clear that the South gains by this process, and we lose. No---we MUST NOT "let the South go." ----Union Democrat , Manchester, NH, February 19, 1861

From a story entitled: "What shall be done for a revenue?"

That either revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the ports must be closed to importations from abroad....If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe.....Allow rail road iron to be entered at Savannah with the low duty of ten per cent, which is all that the Southern Confederacy think of laying on imported goods, and not an ounce more would be imported at New York; the railroads would be supplied from the southern ports. ---New York Evening Post March 12, 1861, recorded in Northern Editorials on Secession, Howard C. Perkins, ed., 1965, pp. 598-599.

What comes out of their mouths is what is in their hearts!!

subdjoe · « **Reply #1 on:** July 07, 2009, 09:27:26 AM »

No, no, that can't be right. That is just neo-confederate propoganda. We all know that the War Against Southern Independence was only about slavery. Just look at any history textbook.

SouthernByGrace · « **Reply #2 on:** July 07, 2009, 02:35:49 PM »

That's right, Joe. Just ask ironfoot!

He'll tell you in a heartbeat that slavery was the Only issue!

I'm with you, I read it in a textbook so it Has to be the absolute truth...

Oh God, I think I'm gonna throw up! Even saying that stuff as a joke turns my stomach!

Great point Joe.

Ga.windbreak, you hit the nail on the head with those quotes. All we have to do is let history speak for itself! I'm perfectly willing to hold up a bullhorn so it can be heard loud and clear! How 'bout y'all?

SBG
DEO VINDICE

Dee · « **Reply #3 on:** July 07, 2009, 05:01:31 PM »

Hell I'm ready to do it again, and they can blame it on anything they want to. I just want Texas to secede again so them DAMN YANKEES can clean up their on mess up there. I'm tired of footin the bill for something I don't agree with, and had nothin to do with in the first place.

Ga.windbreak · « **Reply #4 on:** July 07, 2009, 08:36:20 PM »

Quote from: Dee on July 07, 2009, 05:01:31 PM

Hell I'm ready to do it again, and they can blame it on anything they want to. I just want Texas to secede again so them DAMN YANKEES can clean up their on mess up there. I'm tired of footin the bill for something I don't agree with, and had nothin to do with in the first place.

Here, here, well said!!!

subdjoe · « **Reply #5 on:** July 08, 2009, 06:49:48 AM »

More and more states seem to (finally) be seeing the Tenth Amendment. "Hey! Look at this! Gee, I didn't know that was in there. Hmmm...."The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Wow, that looks like it says that if the Constitution doesn't say the feds have the power to do something, they are not supposed to do it! Wow, what a concept! Limited FEDERAL power."

For how many years have all, or most, of us been saying that? Of course, the feds taking more power than they are allowed is nothing new:

I see...with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic...aided by a little sophistry on the words ‘general welfare,’ a right to do, not only the acts to effect that, which are specifically enumerated and permitted, but whatsoever they shall think, or pretend will be for the general welfare.

JEFFERSON, THOMAS, Letter to W. B. Giles, 1825

Gary G · « **Reply #6 on:** July 08, 2009, 10:49:08 AM »

Great post Joe!!!!!

The states used to bring the Fed back in line from time to time, but for over a hundred years, they have run roughshod over the constitution, the states, and the people, as they have expanded in both power and size. When do we take it back?

Ga.windbreak · « **Reply #7 on:** July 08, 2009, 08:13:11 PM »

JMHO Gary G, we tried and lost in 1865 and its been down hill ever since. We really picked up speed in 1913 and IMHO are only living in a dream world now. All of our industrail base is gone, over seas, and we've become a consumer nation. We all go to our Coliseum, the TV, which supplys us with the latest junk (aka MJ, pro FB, Ms. Calif, or whatever) so that we don't give thought to our lost liberty and slave status.

I had to come back and add a qualifer: The internet just might be the thing that could save us. The truth is out there and sooner or later, once people "get it" you could see all of the power brokers get thrown out on their kisters. Once people have knowledge it is impossible to hold them back!

Dee · « **Reply #8 on:** July 09, 2009, 04:11:12 AM »

Ga.windbreak, a perfect example of what you have just said, is California. It has become a "bedroom state"! It's state "eco laws" have driven industry out of the state, and it has like many communities become, as I stated a "bedroom state". All houses, no industry tax base.

Gary G · « **Reply #9 on:** July 09, 2009, 06:27:04 AM »

Ga.W, I still think the south would have won the war if they had never fired a shot (sort of MLK style). Anyway, Gerald Celente thinks civil unrest is near: http://www.trendsresearch.com/forecast.html

Secession is already in peoples minds:
http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/wolfe97.html

Myself, I think everything the government is doing is exacerbating our economic downfall and it won't be but a couple of years until the blind will see it. A stimulus is only a redistribution where wealth is taken form the productive and given to friends of government. It might create temporary and unproductive jobs, but at the expense of productive jobs, thus no net job gain, but loss of gainful production to the economy. As I have said before, this is the last experiment of Keynesian (socialist) economics. Zimbabwe showed us the way.

Dee · « **Reply #10 on:** July 09, 2009, 10:28:50 AM »

To date the president's (that's president with a small p) stimulus package has produced NOTHING BUT "NOTHING".
He is a failure, just as most of his countrymen were (Kenyans).

Ga.windbreak · « **Reply #11 on:** July 09, 2009, 10:46:08 PM »

Quote from: Gary G on July 09, 2009, 06:27:04 AM

Ga.W, I still think the south would have won the war if they had never fired a shot (sort of MLK style). Anyway, Gerald Celente thinks civil unrest is near: http://www.trendsresearch.com/forecast.html

Secession is already in peoples minds:
http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/wolfe97.html

Myself, I think everything the government is doing is exacerbating our economic downfall and it won't be but a couple of years until the blind will see it. A stimulus is only a redistribution where wealth is taken form the productive and given to friends of government. It might create temporary and unproductive jobs, but at the expense of productive jobs, thus no net job gain, but loss of gainful production to the economy. As I have said before, this is the last experiment of Keynesian (socialist) economics. Zimbabwe showed us the way.

I agree that when people have nothing else to loose bad things can, and almost always, do happen. I must say though that at this moment most americans are like sheep and are hoping that Obama is the answer. IMHO we have lost our way, as a country, because we have forgotten our history lessons while chasing tha almighty dollar!

The funny thing is that we have the raw product to be able to dig our way out of this mess if we will take back our government plus quit listening to the fear mongers. The Go Green, and the climate warmers. We have enought Oil to pay off ALL of our debt while putting our people back to work in something other than hamburger type jobs. Yes, search for altertive fuels, yes, build Nuke plants but also rebuild our Oil base and our refinery base. We have GOT to build on what God has given us. The truth is in our face and all we have to do is open our eyes and quit listening to those who would keep us slaves.

If we don't the only person to blame is us. WE have to realize that we still have control, we just have to have the courage to turn the key. JMHO.

norman · « **Reply #12 on:** July 23, 2009, 08:02:08 AM »

Quote from: Dee on July 07, 2009, 05:01:31 PM

Hell I'm ready to do it again, and they can blame it on anything they want to. I just want Texas to secede again so them DAMN YANKEES can clean up their on mess up there. I'm tired of footin the bill for something I don't agree with, and had nothin to do with in the first place.

Dee, this is one "Yankee" that is in complete agreement. You might be surprised at the number of yankee's that are as tired of it as you. I want to get 5 acres of "heaven" but every year I would have to pay (increasing taxes) on it. If I want to put up a chicken coop I would have to get a "permit to build" and then have to pay more taxes cause I "impoved" MY land. If and when Texas secedes I sure as hell hope Florida does to. Just this "Damn Yankee" thoughts on it and I may not be southern by birth but am turning that way daily. God bless the stars and bars and also the stars and stripes.
Norman

SouthernByGrace · « **Reply #13 on:** July 23, 2009, 01:00:30 PM »

Now that's funny right there!

Great post, norman. I'm certainly with y'all!

Come on, let's do it again!

SBG

ironfoot · « **Reply #14 on:** August 22, 2009, 08:58:53 AM »

Quote from: SouthernByGrace on July 07, 2009, 02:35:49 PM

That's right, Joe. Just ask ironfoot!
He'll tell you in a heartbeat that slavery was the Only issue!
I'm with you, I read it in a textbook so it Has to be the absolute truth...

Oh God, I think I'm gonna throw up! Even saying that stuff as a joke turns my stomach!

Great point Joe.

Ga.windbreak, you hit the nail on the head with those quotes. All we have to do is let history speak for itself! I'm perfectly willing to hold up a bullhorn so it can be heard loud and clear! How 'bout y'all?

SBG
DEO VINDICE

You don't really want a talk site where you guys just sit around agreeing with each other, do you? {;-)
I don't think slavery was the only issue in the Rebellion to Preserve Slavery.
What I think is that:

1. when a northerner was elected president on a Republican platform which was against the expansion of slavery,

http://www.cprr.org/Museum/Ephemera/Republican_Platform_1860.html

2. the core southern slave states seceded in order to preserve slavery, and pretty much said so,

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

3. if a section of the country is allowed to secede because it does not like the results of an election, then a representative democracy cannot last. Lincoln talked about that in the Gettysburg Address.

http://blueandgraytrail.com/event/Gettysburg_Address_%5BFull_Text%5D

Cabin4 · « **Reply #15 on:** August 25, 2009, 04:32:09 PM »

None of the peripheral issues that people like to throw around mean anything as it relates to the civil war. The bottom line is the south had every right to leave the union. Lincolns war actions against the south under the pretext of preserving the union are unconstitutional. Some would say that the north was attacked first by the south. The fact is the northern troops were an occupying force on what became foreign soil (The Confederate States) and they refused to leave. The Confederate states had every right to try and expel the foreign invaders. The confederate states only objective was to repel the northern troops out of their country. The north was the aggressor trying to invade and take over.

This is the war in a net shell. All the other issues that the liberals love to throw at this to provide “cover” for Lincoln & the north’s illegal actions are meaningless. The core issue can never change. The south had the constitutional right to leave the union and the unconstitutional and illegal actions by Lincoln can never take precedence over this core fact.

SouthernByGrace · « **Reply #16 on:** August 26, 2009, 01:05:28 PM »

Well said, Cabin4.
Welcome to the forum. On behalf of my co-moderator, Ga.windbreak, and myself, I hope you'll stick around. It's always good to have new company come to visit. It's always better when they stay for a while.

ironfoot, you stick around, too. A good ole argument ain't worth having if it ain't got two sides to it.

In a big way, it boils down to interpretation. For those of us who were (and still are) directly affected by this war, we are more than aware of its illegality, just as Cab said. As for myself, I'm only 3 generations removed from the war, so the stories and journals are still fresh. I know what my ancestors thought of slavery and how those slaves were treated, and what they thought of (and still think) of my ancestors. The fact that 90% of them stayed on the place after the war speaks volumes to that affect. In fact, more blacks moved there after the war. And a portion of the land was deeded to several of the families, which still live there to this day. I see them and speak to them often. I know them, personally. They are some of the finest people I know. If I were to break down on the side of the road, I wouldn't hesitate to call on any one of them for help, and they would give it graciously.

One has to keep in perspective when talking about the war. The states didn't say in so many words that they were trying to preserve slavery. They said they were trying to preserve their RIGHTS to their PROPERTY, which was guaranteed them in the Constitution. And when you put it into perspective that 98% of every white person in America (North & South) believed in the Exact Same Thing, the preservation of slavery theory dissolves right in front of your eyes.

Hypocrisy also plays a huge role in that interpretation, in that, while those few from the North were crying foul, they held slaves at the same time. It's always funny to me how Northerners just simply... forget that. Those same hypocrites also forget that 8 Northern states passed laws to prevent free blacks from not only living in those states, they couldn't even enter them. Not one Southern state ever passed such a law before, during, or after the war.

About 95% of the points brought up in this forum are not even arguable because they are so well documented. If you'll notice, the Northerners are usually pretty quick to clam up when we show that documentation. That's because they can't argue with the Truth.

SBG
DEO VINDICE

Cabin4 · « **Reply #17 on:** August 26, 2009, 04:26:26 PM »

SBG,

Thanks for the kind words and personal historical perspective. I have always lived in the north and find these discussions very interesting. The history books are fraught with half the truth & lies on this issue. I'm amazed looking back on high school history lessons just how one sided the teachings are when it came to this subject. High school was a while back for me (I'm 47 now) but it certainly left the impression in my mind that the south was illegal in its actions and that Lincoln went to war to end slavery. I later learned just how false these teaching are.

About 12 years ago I went to Gettysburg for a few days and had the opportunity to go on a battle field tour given by a well schooled civil war historian. I learned more in those 4 hours and days then you could imagine. It completely changed my perspective and it caused me to research the war deeper. My follow up research on this subject completely changed my entire perspective and I realized just how large the lies & half truths we were taught in school about the civil war.

It’s really is a clear case that the history books are written by the victors. I have come to enjoy argueing about this conflict. It deserves discussion and an opportunity for the real and complete truth to emerge.

C4

southernutah · « **Reply #18 on:** August 26, 2009, 09:53:48 PM »

I've been on GB for a few years and just happened to see the Civil War forum. Don't know how i missed it or how long it has been here. i think that more and more folks from all over the country are fed up with the lies we get every day. The history books play on the slavery idea to side step the real reasons for the war. They use the lies today to pass all the special interest and equal right agendas. I really don't think the gov wants us to live in a peaceful country and they keep the civil right fires going so they can give away some more free stuff to get more votes to keep themselves in office. Gota stop before i type something i'll have to come back and edit.

ironfoot · « **Reply #19 on:** August 27, 2009, 06:37:14 PM »

Quote from: Cabin4 on August 25, 2009, 04:32:09 PM

None of the peripheral issues that people like to throw around mean anything as it relates to the civil war. The bottom line is the south had every right to leave the union. Lincolns war actions against the south under the pretext of preserving the union are unconstitutional. Some would say that the north was attacked first by the south. The fact is the northern troops were an occupying force on what became foreign soil (The Confederate States) and they refused to leave. The Confederate states had every right to try and expel the foreign invaders. The confederate states only objective was to repel the northern troops out of their country. The north was the aggressor trying to invade and take over.

This is the war in a net shell. All the other issues that the liberals love to throw at this to provide “cover” for Lincoln & the north’s illegal actions are meaningless. The core issue can never change. The south had the constitutional right to leave the union and the unconstitutional and illegal actions by Lincoln can never take precedence over this core fact.

Once the South seceded, how could it claim rights under the Constitution? The Confederate States' objective in seceding was to preserve slavery after Lincoln was elected on an anti slavery Republican platform. The North fought to preserve the Union. If the losers in an election can take their ball and go home, democracy cannot exist.

ironfoot · « **Reply #20 on:** August 27, 2009, 06:47:26 PM »

SouthernBy Grace
I don't believe I ever claimed the North was without sin, or that the South was evil. Your ancestors may have been wonderful people. Southerners, black and white, were raised in a society where slavery was the accepted state of affairs. Many wanted to keep it that way. They did not appreciate it when a northerner, who was an avowed critic of slavery as demonstrated by the Lincoln/Douglas debates and Lincoln's Coopers Union speech, was elected president.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #21 on:** August 27, 2009, 07:25:51 PM »

Quote from: ironfoot on August 27, 2009, 06:37:14 PM

Quote from: Cabin4 on August 25, 2009, 04:32:09 PM
None of the peripheral issues that people like to throw around mean anything as it relates to the civil war. The bottom line is the south had every right to leave the union. Lincolns war actions against the south under the pretext of preserving the union are unconstitutional. Some would say that the north was attacked first by the south. The fact is the northern troops were an occupying force on what became foreign soil (The Confederate States) and they refused to leave. The Confederate states had every right to try and expel the foreign invaders. The confederate states only objective was to repel the northern troops out of their country. The north was the aggressor trying to invade and take over.

This is the war in a net shell. All the other issues that the liberals love to throw at this to provide “cover” for Lincoln & the north’s illegal actions are meaningless. The core issue can never change. The south had the constitutional right to leave the union and the unconstitutional and illegal actions by Lincoln can never take precedence over this core fact.

Once the South seceded, how could it claim rights under the Constitution? The Confederate States' objective in seceding was to preserve slavery after Lincoln was elected on an anti slavery Republican platform. The North fought to preserve the Union. If the losers in an election can take their ball and go home, democracy cannot exist.

None of that matters. The south clearly had the right to leave the union and the north had no legal or constitutional basis to try and stop them. Preserving a union implies both parties want to preserve it. If one party does not, you have no "Union", so that entire premise is false.

ironfoot · « **Reply #22 on:** August 28, 2009, 08:41:42 AM »

"None of that matters. The south clearly had the right to leave the union and the north had no legal or constitutional basis to try and stop them. Preserving a union implies both parties want to preserve it. If one party does not, you have no "Union", so that entire premise is false."

There was no provision in the Constitution allowing for secession or dissolution. No majority vote of the states or Congress authorized dissolution of the Union. Abiding by the results of a Presidential election is the duty of all members of a democracy. How can a soldier in good faith take an oath to "defend the Constitution", then be part of a secession that sets up a new country that is not bound by that Constitution?

By the way, were the slaves bound by a Constitution that they never voted to ratify?

Casull · « **Reply #23 on:** August 28, 2009, 09:39:21 AM »

Quote

By the way, were the slaves bound by a Constitution that they never voted to ratify?

I'm pretty sure none of the fellows on here voted to ratify the Constitution either, but we are bound by it.

ironfoot · « **Reply #24 on:** August 28, 2009, 11:39:51 AM »

Quote from: Casull on August 28, 2009, 09:39:21 AM

Quote
By the way, were the slaves bound by a Constitution that they never voted to ratify?

I'm pretty sure none of the fellows on here voted to ratify the Constitution either, but we are bound by it.

The revolution was about "no taxation without representation".
Since the slaves were not represented, how could they be bound by the Constitution?

ironfoot · « **Reply #25 on:** August 28, 2009, 11:40:50 AM »

The first oath under the Constitution was approved by Act of Congress 29 September 1789 (Sec. 3, Ch. 25, 1st Congress). It applied to all commissioned officers, noncommissioned officers and privates in the service of the United States. It came in two parts, the first of which read: "I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States." The second part read: "I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully, against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and to observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States of America, and the orders of the officers appointed over me." The next section of that chapter specified that "the said troops shall be governed by the rules and articles of war, which have been established by the United States in Congress assembled, or by such rules and articles of war as may hereafter by law be established."

http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm

Casull · « **Reply #26 on:** August 28, 2009, 11:59:40 AM »

Quote

The revolution was about "no taxation without representation".
Since the slaves were not represented, how could they be bound by the Constitution?

How were women bound by it? The Constitution (and all laws engendered thereunder, or previously) applied to all that lived here, but only white males of voting age voted to ratify it. Those are the facts. Get used to it. A free ride back to Africa was offered to those that would take it. Women had to wait until the early 20th century to vote. That's history. What is your point?

Cabin4 · « **Reply #27 on:** August 28, 2009, 12:54:50 PM »

Quote from: ironfoot on August 28, 2009, 08:41:42 AM

"None of that matters. The south clearly had the right to leave the union and the north had no legal or constitutional basis to try and stop them. Preserving a union implies both parties want to preserve it. If one party does not, you have no "Union", so that entire premise is false."

There was no provision in the Constitution allowing for secession or dissolution. No majority vote of the states or Congress authorized dissolution of the Union. Abiding by the results of a Presidential election is the duty of all members of a democracy. How can a soldier in good faith take an oath to "defend the Constitution", then be part of a secession that sets up a new country that is not bound by that Constitution?

By the way, were the slaves bound by a Constitution that they never voted to ratify?

Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution defines the powers afforded to Congress. Section 8 defines that all other powers are afforded to the States. Article Section 10 defines powers NOT afforded to the States. This is clear, so were some of our most prominent founding fathers and the Declaration of Independence. The states are free to make the ultimate determination.

Secession clearly is a right of the states because it is not prohibited and not in the power of congress to force the Union to continue. Power of the states is higher than that afforded to the federal government therefore the federal government has NO authority to force Union on any state. Further, the states joined the Union voluntarily and many under the contingency that they can leave if they so desire.

The bottom line is, there is no mandate in law to preserve the Union. Preserving the Union was Lincolns fantasy unfounded in law. This makes Lincoln a war criminal.

Oldshooter · « **Reply #28 on:** August 28, 2009, 01:53:59 PM »

Slavery was declared the real reason because the real reason(States rights) made the North look bad, It is still perpetrated as the reason by the left cause it makes them look good!

Cabin4 · « **Reply #29 on:** August 28, 2009, 04:17:39 PM »

Yes, the victors write the history books. The Liberals love war, law violations and murder as long as it serves thier liberal causes.