Let’s not spin the Civil War

[Buckskin]

So again I will ask. What do you want to happen?  An appolgy from the decendants of Lincoln? The history books re-written?  The south to be allowed to succeed
History books re-written and restoration of constitutional authority in this country. The Federal government is trashing our constitution and states rights. This Federal government has become a tyranical operation.

Well good luck on the re-writing history, not gonna happen.  The last part, I couldn't agree more.

Again, I will state that even if Lincoln was in the wrong, the war would have happened eventually anyway and probably would have been a lot bloodier.  There is no way two newly started nations could have existed peacefully next to each other with most of the land yet to be claimed.

[Pass Lake]

Please notice there are no question marks at the end of my statements. I made statements.  I didn't ask a question. 

 You stated, "the federal government had no right to use the sword against its own citizens." Quite obviously, President Washington, a Virginian and president of the Consitutional Convention, led an act of aggression into the northern state of Pennsylvania. He was quite prepared to use force to enforce an unfair Federal tax law against the citizenry of Pennsylvania.  Only the  Pennsylvanians backing down on their rebellion caused violence to be avoided.

[Ga.windbreak]

So again I will ask. What do you want to happen?  An appolgy from the decendants of Lincoln? The history books re-written?  The south to be allowed to succeed
History books re-written and restoration of constitutional authority in this country. The Federal government is trashing our constitution and states rights. This Federal government has become a tyranical operation.

Well good luck on the re-writing history, not gonna happen.  The last part, I couldn't agree more.

Again, I will state that even if Lincoln was in the wrong, the war would have happened eventually anyway and probably would have been a lot bloodier.  There is no way two newly started nations could have existed peacefully next to each other with most of the land yet to be claimed.

I'm sorry but to say what might have been, by you and others, when there are no facts, to back up such a theory. You could just as well say that the South or the North after such a division would see the error of its ways and ask to rejoin the others union. I would also add, just to clear up the Washington move to put down the rebellion while POTUS. the following:

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Militia_Law_of_1792

The Militia Law of 1792 was signed into law by President George Washington in 1792 to give the President authority to call out the National Militia, as at the time under the Articles of Confederation, the ineffective fledgling United States government did not provide for a standing national Army. After Shays' Rebellion, the need for an internal (and external if neccessary) defense structure became quite evident to Washington and the Congress. In 1792, Congress enacted a law giving the President the authority to request the assistance of the states' individual militias, which would eventually become known as the National Guard and State Defense Forces, during an emergency. The law was the very first to give the executive branch any war powers besides confirming a state of war if a declaration was passed by congress. The law was deemed neccessary as the ineffeciency and slow reaction of the Congress when it was not in session as proven during Shays' Rebellion could not be tolerated as any major rebellion was a direct threat to the shaky unity of the various states.

You will take note that this happened before the Constitution was made law thus Washington with not guidance from the Confederation whatsoever did what he felt was right!

A much better answer as well as both common sense and the value of human life of your fellow citizens to this problem was the way President Jackson handled the 1832 crisis:

http://www.tax.org/Museum/1816-1860.htm

1832 In July, Congress passed legislation that lowered tariff rates somewhat, but retained the high 1828 rates on manufactured cloth and iron. In November, South Carolina’s special Nullification Convention declared the Tariffs of 1832 and 1828 unconstitutional [external link], and forbade collection of customs duties within the state.

Democrat Andrew Jackson served as both president and the leader of a national party. That party included pro-tariff states like Pennsylvania that had proffered supported for his candidacy. Jackson had never been as captivated by the tariff issue as most southern, agrarian, states-rights Jacksonians had (particularly South Carolinians), even though they represented his majority constituency. Jackson concerned himself more with defeating the National Bank and Indian removal. In December, he called for a further easing of tariff rates. Simultaneously, however, he declared secession a "revolutionary act" in his Nullification Proclamation [external link], and specifically attacked the idea that secession represented a viable constitutional option.

 
1833 Jackson responded to the nullification controversy with an olive branch and a sword. The Tariff of 1833, or Compromise Tariff, instituted automatic reductions in duties between 1833 and 1842. The corresponding Force Bill authorized the president to use arms to collect Customs duties. Henry Clay, known as the Great Compromiser, negotiated the Compromise Tariff directly with Calhoun. He feared the possibility of civil war, and wanted to preserve the tariff principle. Jackson desired to preserve the principle of national supremacy while mitigating the high tariffs that had triggered conflict in the first place.

One can suppose themselves to death, it is easier to not think but just react and go to war, the results are there for all to see if they really care about the truth and the Constitution. Lincoln had a map in front of him and he also had an angry radical mob behind him. He chose the mob mentality over the health of the citizens he was sworn to protect and defend. He chose blood and killing over common sense and the value of human life to solve this huge problem. But make no mistake he did have a choice. You can blame SC all you want but THE PRESIDENT of THE UNITED STATES is supposed to remain cool under fire and chose the best answer for all of the citizens to preserve our country not just the ones who raise hell, be they the anti-slaver, the abortion radicals, the Bunny Huggers, or any other group that might rise up to bring this country down. LINCOLN BLEW IT!

[Ga.windbreak]

Please notice there are no question marks at the end of my statements. I made statements.  I didn't ask a question. 

 You stated, "the federal government had no right to use the sword against its own citizens." Quite obviously, President Washington, a Virginian and president of the Consitutional Convention, led an act of aggression into the northern state of Pennsylvania. He was quite prepared to use force to enforce an unfair Federal tax law against the citizenry of Pennsylvania.  Only the  Pennsylvanians backing down on their rebellion caused violence to be avoided.

I quoted the law and backed it up with quotes from the Father of the Constitution while Washington acted, as he should have, because he had no guidence from the law, it was yet to be emplimented. Plus he shed no blood, as any great and loving leader would do. He has lost no love from this citizen and still stands first in the hearts of his countrymen!

You have yet to answer my questions, therefore I gather you have none!

[Pass Lake]

The Constitution in Article 2 makes the President Commander in Chief of the military.  Congress has the power to suppress insurrections according to Article 1 section 9.  In my opinion, the shots fired at a federal installation by a state militia would be an armed insurrection. And a very tragic war resulted.

In 1838, President Jackson, a Tennessean,  sent an army of 7,000 led by Winfield Scott instructed to use military force against Georgia citizens of Cherokee ancestory to make them leave the state.  Another example of the federal government using military force in a state.

[Cabin4]

There is a significant difference between insurrection and secession. No one was trying to take over Washington or any state. In fact the secession was an orderly and legal process that the states agreed upon to take individually. The States joined the union upon their own free will. They simply wanted to leave the Union at their own free will. There was no insurrection.

[Pass Lake]

The nation was created by the states voting to approve the Constitution and become THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA.  It established governmental law for our nation.  Did the seceding states go to Congress to have a vote on their desire to secede?  After all, when you vote to create something logic says you would need to vote to abolish something.  Did they go to the Supreme Court to argue their Constitutional right to leave?  I can't even leave my wife legally without going to court. It was like me running off abandoning my wife without getting a divorce.  I am still legally married even if I am living with someone else.  The seceding states didn't follow the rule of law when they sought to abandon the nation. 
 

[Casull]

PL, what is the rule of law regarding secession?  What were the States to do and how?  BTW, if you leave your wife, is she, or the court, allowed to shoot you for not following the rules?   

[Pass Lake]

She would shoot me if she caught me with another woman, and unfortunately, I taught her how to shoot.

To the best of my knowledge there isn't anything in the Constitution, but they could have petitioned Congress or gone to SCOTUS. 

[Cabin4]

The nation was created by the states voting to approve the Constitution and become THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA.  It established governmental law for our nation.  Did the seceding states go to Congress to have a vote on their desire to secede?  After all, when you vote to create something logic says you would need to vote to abolish something.  Did they go to the Supreme Court to argue their Constitutional right to leave?  I can't even leave my wife legally without going to court. It was like me running off abandoning my wife without getting a divorce.  I am still legally married even if I am living with someone else.  The seceding states didn't follow the rule of law when they sought to abandon the nation. 
 

Your own words above "The States voted". That is 100% correct. The States ratified the US constitution individually and they decided to become part of the Union. They did not ratify away their rights as states. In fact, they ratified their rights as individual states in the Union. So if they joined upon free will, their own vote, why can't vote to secede? There is no mandate in the constitution that says when a state joins it can never leave. You can’t have it both ways. Why would NC have to go before Congress or SCOTUS to depart from a relationship it was not compelled by law to part of to begin with? Why did not Lincoln go before SCOTUS to seek mandate of some form? The States took state level legal, orderly  & peaceful action to secede. Unlike the federal government under Lincoln who ordered the slaughter of men, women and children.

Implicit in the Constitution are States rights. Our Federal government was usurping (and still is) the constitution. The federal government was in breach of the constitution. Technically the Federal government seceded from the Union it constructed which is/was the basis for drawing the states into a Union!  These States seceded because of the breech by the federal government.

[Pass Lake]

And what was that so called "breech"by the federal government?  The election of A. Lincoln as POTUS by the United States?    Seven states declared they were leaving the union and a provisional government of the CSA was established in early February, 1861.  Lincoln wasn't inaugurated until March, 1861.  This happened before he was even sworn in as President!  Lincoln hadn't done anything.  Do states just break away because they don't like the candidate who has been elected?   I know there is a prior history, but leaving because Lincoln's  being elected POTUS was a irrational reaction.

[Buckskin]

Well as far as I can tell the only way out of this mess is for the south to secede again.... 

[mechanic]

And what was that so called "breech"by the federal government?  The election of A. Lincoln as POTUS by the United States?    Seven states declared they were leaving the union and a provisional government of the CSA was established in early February, 1861.  Lincoln wasn't inaugurated until March, 1861.  This happened before he was even sworn in as President!  Lincoln hadn't done anything.  Do states just break away because they don't like the candidate who has been elected?   I know there is a prior history, but leaving because Lincoln's  being elected POTUS was a irrational reaction.

Lincoln was not even on the ballot in the Southern States.......

[Cabin4]

And what was that so called "breech"by the federal government?  The election of A. Lincoln as POTUS by the United States?    Seven states declared they were leaving the union and a provisional government of the CSA was established in early February, 1861.  Lincoln wasn't inaugurated until March, 1861.  This happened before he was even sworn in as President!  Lincoln hadn't done anything.  Do states just break away because they don't like the candidate who has been elected?   I know there is a prior history, but leaving because Lincoln's  being elected POTUS was a irrational reaction.

I never said the southern states seceded because Lincoln was elected. Please state what post# I wrote that in?

They seceded because their Rights as individual states had been infringed upon. That is the breach and it started before Lincoln came into office. Lincoln was the one that decided to wage the war against the south and the blood of the hundreds of thousands are on his hand. Lincolns historical role in the civil war is therefore pretty significant…don’t you think???

[ironfoot]

Ironfoot, let me see if I have your take on the WONA right.  Summarized from your posts on various threads on this forum.

Slavery only ever existed in the southern states of the US.  

No one in the north ever had anything to do with slavery at all.

The only reason any southern state left the Union was to preserve slavery, there were no other reasons.

All northerners were, and are, benevolent and wanted only freedom for Blacks, and for Blacks and Whites to live side by side in peace and harmony.

Lincoln was a saint who saw the only way to end slavery was to force the southern states back into the Union so he could, by executive fiat, abolish it at bayonet point.

The end justifies the means.  As slavery is the ultimate evil, Lincoln was justified in everything he did to hold the Union together in order to end slavery.

That is what I get from all your posts.  There were no other issues besides slavery and that Lincoln was never wrong in anything he did.  There is nothing else that needs to be, or can be, learned about the Civil War.  And, more importantly, that no one should ever try to learn anything else about it. 

No subdjoe, I never said any of those things. Please stop trying to put words in my mouth. You can read what I wrote. In my opinion, the south seceded because Lincoln was elected on a platform to prevent expansion of slavery into the territories. It was a rebellion to preserve slavery. Southerners find it hard to accept the truth.

[Ga.windbreak]

The Constitution in Article 2 makes the President Commander in Chief of the military.  Congress has the power to suppress insurrections according to Article 1 section 9.  In my opinion, the shots fired at a federal installation by a state militia would be an armed insurrection. And a very tragic war resulted.

In my opinion your opinion is one of a strawman seeking a way out of the box he put himself into. Ok, so Lincoln was CIC, just how does that tie into him legally killing 2 million of his fellow citizens when you yourself show that it is Congress and not CIC who has the power to do what Lincoln took on himself?

You keep giving examples of things Presidents have done to excuse Lincoln breaking the law. They may have broken the law too, I'll give you a hint, thats what lawbreakers do, Break the law!

I will grant you this your response of a SCOTUS move or a move in congress has merit. The bottom line is that Lincoln let loose the Dogs of War against his own citizens, not just one group in one state, but in 1/3rd of the whole country when there were alternatives he did not even try to seek. The criminal mess by the ATF and FBI under Slick Willie in Wako Texas just another example on a much smaller scale which could have been better handled by one Texas Ranger with his set of hand cuffs. But No, stupidity reigned over common sense thus 80 women and children died!

Therefore as I've said before Lincoln's Stupidity reigned over his common sense and Oath of office!

[Ga.windbreak]

In my opinion, the south seceded because Lincoln was elected on a platform to prevent expansion of slavery into the territories. It was a rebellion to preserve slavery. Southerners find it hard to accept the truth.

How does the act of preventing the expansion of Slavery have anything to do with preserving Slavery (Which BTW was already the law of the land, Lincoln knew it and said so many times .... It was also widely reported thru out the Southern states). No, your opinion only serves notice that our history is Seriously lacking the whole truth to give the winning side the appearance of legality and the high ground of morality! The blood of 2 + million american souls; black, white, man, woman, child, North, and South alike cry out for truth and justice!

And I might add giving Lincoln, the butcher, the cloak of savior!

[ironfoot]

If slavery was expanded to the territories, then slave states would continue to have parity, or maybe even outnumber, free states.

This is from the first posting in this thread:

Our greatest contemporary histori­an of the Civil War, James McPherson, has noted that Confederate President Jefferson Davis, a major slaveholder, “ justified secession in 1861 as an act of self­defense against the incoming Lincoln administration.” Abraham Lincoln’s policy of excluding slavery from the territories, Davis said, would make “property in slaves so insecure as to be comparatively worthless ... thereby annihilating in effect property worth thousands of millions of dollars.”

If the number of free states continued to expand, and the number of slave states did not expand, the free states would outnumber slave states and the free states could eventually vote to change the Constitution to explicitly outlaw slavery. Southerners who had a lot of their wealth tied up in slaves would lose much of their wealth. Even Lincoln Republican statements that slavery was wrong and should not be extended to the territories was threatening to slaveholders, because if it became universally accepted that slavery was wrong, then it would be expected that slavery should end.

[subdjoe]

Ironfoot, let me see if I have your take on the WONA right.  Summarized from your posts on various threads on this forum.

Slavery only ever existed in the southern states of the US.  

No one in the north ever had anything to do with slavery at all.

The only reason any southern state left the Union was to preserve slavery, there were no other reasons.

All northerners were, and are, benevolent and wanted only freedom for Blacks, and for Blacks and Whites to live side by side in peace and harmony.

Lincoln was a saint who saw the only way to end slavery was to force the southern states back into the Union so he could, by executive fiat, abolish it at bayonet point.

The end justifies the means.  As slavery is the ultimate evil, Lincoln was justified in everything he did to hold the Union together in order to end slavery.

That is what I get from all your posts.  There were no other issues besides slavery and that Lincoln was never wrong in anything he did.  There is nothing else that needs to be, or can be, learned about the Civil War.  And, more importantly, that no one should ever try to learn anything else about it. 

No subdjoe, I never said any of those things. Please stop trying to put words in my mouth. You can read what I wrote. In my opinion, the south seceded because Lincoln was elected on a platform to prevent expansion of slavery into the territories. It was a rebellion to preserve slavery. Southerners find it hard to accept the truth.

I didn't say I was quoting you.  That is my summation of your posts over several months.  I think my summation is an accurate reflection of your views. 

[Ga.windbreak]

If slavery was expanded to the territories, then slave states would continue to have parity, or maybe even outnumber, free states.

This is from the first posting in this thread:

Our greatest contemporary histori­an of the Civil War, James McPherson, has noted that Confederate President Jefferson Davis, a major slaveholder, “ justified secession in 1861 as an act of self­defense against the incoming Lincoln administration.” Abraham Lincoln’s policy of excluding slavery from the territories, Davis said, would make “property in slaves so insecure as to be comparatively worthless ... thereby annihilating in effect property worth thousands of millions of dollars.”

If the number of free states continued to expand, and the number of slave states did not expand, the free states would outnumber slave states and the free states could eventually vote to change the Constitution to explicitly outlaw slavery. Southerners who had a lot of their wealth tied up in slaves would lose much of their wealth. Even Lincoln Republican statements that slavery was wrong and should not be extended to the territories was threatening to slaveholders, because if it became universally accepted that slavery was wrong, then it would be expected that slavery should end.

You keep quoting these writers with their soundbite quotes as some fact of the whole truth when clearly it is not. As far as the man being great that is subject to whomever's opinion is being stated at that moment in time. It was pointed out that Shelby Foote, a Southern writer of some note, wrote that he considered Lincoln a genius. Am I expected to fall down on my knees and praise Lincoln because some writer gave his opinion on someone? That imvho would be the heigth of stupidity, with all due respect, I rather like to think for myself and dig for the truth as the facts show them to be.One may continue to quote chapter and verse from whatever popular writer they may chose, I will continue to be unimpressed unless there are facts shown to back up such an opinion.

[Cabin4]

This is what happens with nearly every one of these North/South threads. When the supporters of the Northern position run out of facts, they purposely mis-quote you and bring in opinions of famous writers & historians and present them as final fact. They will attack your information and try and twist what you say in an effort to make it seem like you have factual dates or information wrong. It’s simply an effort to discredit your understanding. The fact is they refuse to learn ALL the facts. Lincoln in their mind is an American hero because that is what they have been told since they were old enough to crawl. A few million dead people is of no meaning to them because the school history books never challenged this issue to the readers on the scales of moral justice.

The sad truth is there are millions and millions of Americans walking around right now that will tell you the death of these hundreds of thousands is totally justified for ending slavery. They just won’t admit it on this forum. They will give you all the BS about the keeping the Union in place and what it would be like if the Union stayed separated, bla bla bla.

[Pass Lake]

And where do our opinions of the past come from except from information that we can glean from people of greater knowledge or people that were alive at the time.  If I want to know about ancient Greece I would read Herodotus or Thucydides, or modern historians who have reseached extensively about the Greeks.  If we discredit the opinions of Shelby Foote and James McPherson who are noted Civil War scholars, than who do we believe- the guy at sitting in the corner bar stool?

 History certainly can be written from differing points of view and there is the southern point of view that they had the right to secede.  I'll give you that.  But much of this is an attempt at revisionist history.  Buchanon didn't have the cajones to keep the country together.  Lincoln did, at an awful price, and America is better because of it.  I suppose you could argue the 30 million killed in WWII weren't worth it to stop Hitler and Tojo too.  The Civil War wasn't just about slavery-it was preserving the union- but it was also  about slavery.  Not all the slaveholding states seceded, but all the seceding states were slaveholding states.  You can blame Lincoln for the war deaths like you can blame FDR.  Southern planters feared the financial loss of cheap slave labor.  They feared western expansion of free states that would vote against southern interests.  Free the slaves, pay a living wage, the south wouldn't have seceded, and 2 million people wouldn't have died.

[Pass Lake]

Speaking as one strawman to another strawman, Lincoln exceeded the letter of Constitutional authority as did Jefferson with the Louisiana Purchase.  However, Congress(Article 1 sect. had to authorize the money for the Civil War and did

[Pass Lake]

Please tell me what infringements took place against the rights of states that justified their succesion in 1861.

[Ga.windbreak]

If we discredit the opinions of Shelby Foote and James McPherson who are noted Civil War scholars

While I will give you credit for McPherson's background I also note he is a self proclaimed anti-southern politically and continues to this day to play the race card every time a historical date appears that those in the south take note of therefore one I'm very critical of in the telling of history in a dispassionate way. As for Shelby Foote, you mean the guy who was courtmarshalled (An LT.) out of the Army in 1943 but was so intent on getting into the fight waited until 1945 before enlisting into the Marines (I love'em having fought along side as a Navy man but sometimes I question their thinking skills) in get into the fight, hmm. He never saw combat BTW. A fairly good novelist who is not a Historian! Yet you are willing to take his word on anything, are you really so easy to be lead? Pleas tell me that you aren't. Strawman indeed!

[Ga.windbreak]

Speaking as one strawman to another strawman, Lincoln exceeded the letter of Constitutional authority as did Jefferson with the Louisiana Purchase.  However, Congress(Article 1 sect. had to authorize the money for the Civil War and did

See there you go again giving examples to excuse Lincoln's actions.

[Ga.windbreak]

Speaking as one strawman to another strawman, Lincoln exceeded the letter of Constitutional authority as did Jefferson with the Louisiana Purchase.  However, Congress(Article 1 sect. had to authorize the money for the Civil War and did

Well if you were threatened with a visit to the stockade as one congressman was and was later put there by Lincoln (this guy REALLY take the cake don't he?) you just might be willing to vote for giving him the money too.

[Cabin4]

There are historians alive that give the entire truth about the civil war. There are plenty of mistakes on both sides. These historians simply never get the air time because the liberal bias in our public school history books, classrooms and the main stream media. They simply are not given the air time as it is considered non-PC to criticize Lincoln for the war he waged. They are immediately labeled racists and supporters of slavery. How would like to be in the public eye and be labeled like this while you try to make a living?

Comparing the Civil war to an armed conflict overseas is not a good comparison. Our constitution does not apply to people living in another country. However, I do agree the Constitution is critical legal guidance for all branches of our government on the question of foreign conflicts. The most significant points about our civil war conflict are based on our laws of this land and the impacts are within our borders that start & end with the American people and our Constitution. When the federal government is capable of taking armed force against it citizens for legal actions they took, you should fear that government. Secession is not disallowed under our constitution and these states took state level legal & peaceful action to secede in the same manner they took to join.

There can be do dispute about it. Lincoln waged a war against the very people & constitution he took oath to protect. Your mistake in logic is the continuing separation from this fact. If you do not accept this premise, then you must accept that a president today can wage a war against the people in the name of whatever he feels is necessary. You will also never allow yourself to understand the grievance. Secession today still a real viable option for any state. There is good movement in Vermont to secede all though I concede a very long shot. But if it happened, would you support the same actions by a current president as you do Lincoln’s?

[Pass Lake]

You are attempting  discredit Foote character for getting drummed out of the army for taking a jeep to travel a couple of miles to visit his wife/girl friend.  He wrote 3 extensive volumes on the subject.  I will acknowledge McPherson's generally accepted bias. And why should I accept the opinion of a "man who breaks wind" over noted historical researchers?

[Pass Lake]

Are you considering Joy Masoff to be one of those "fair historians" who wrote in 4th grade Virginia history book that thousans of slaves fought for the south? Most historians dispute her facts.

Are people who become citizens of another country protected by our Constitution?  The seceding states declared themselves to be another country.  In doing so, did they give up their Constitutional rights as citizens of the U.S.A?

For Vermont to break away, they should have to go through legal separation.  They would have to be really stupid to do so.  Now California with its fine financial mess could prove to be a real economic drag on the nation........