Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
Lady Val, Sun Jan 11 2009, 02:39AM

Why did the North want war? Below the reasoned thought of the time gives the answer:

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 country 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 hundred 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 If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next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.




Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
gpthelastrebel, Sun Jan 11 2009, 04:54PM

Thank you Val. This is the type of information SHAPE is trying to locate and post. It is especially needed since place like Gettysburg Battlefield promote the "it was about slavery" idea.

Good job.

GP

Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
Lady Val, Sun Jan 11 2009, 05:26PM

Very shortly, I'm going to sit my large posterior down and write my considered thoughts about Gettysburg - past and present - and make a call for a full boycott by anyone who has any respect at all for Southern heritage and the noble Southern dead. As time goes on, I find myself becoming more and more adamant on this matter.

Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
gator, Sun Jan 11 2009, 10:11PM

i've been that way for a long time. glad i found shape to help with expressing it in a proffesional way. look forward to reading more from you val.

Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
red house, Thu Feb 19 2009, 04:16AM

Q: Why did the South secede?

A: So they could expand and preserve the institution of slavery.



Q: Who started the War?

A: The South, when they fired on their besieged compatriots in Fort Sumter.




^^ Please, correct me if I am mistaken (?)




Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
gpthelastrebel, Thu Feb 19 2009, 06:46AM

Well that won't be hard, but let's move the discussion to the general discussion forum as this is not the proper forum for such a discussion. What say ye???

GP

Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
8milereb, Thu Feb 19 2009, 09:12PM

Standing by to educate...that's what we are here for!

Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
red house, Fri Feb 20 2009, 12:32PM

okay 8 milereb, I am ready to be educated.


Can you tell me why all of the compromise proposals (Crittenden's, Letcher's, Washington Peace Conference etc.) were concerned exclusively with the issue of slavery and made no demands or mention about taxes or tariffs or trade?


*the documents can all be found here --> http://civilwarcauses.org/comptop.htm

Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
gpthelastrebel, Fri Feb 20 2009, 05:44PM

Red House,

Welcome to our website. Please feel free to disagree, all I ask is that you keep your discussions civil and refrain from insults.

If the South left the Union just how was this supposed to expand slavery? As to the preservation of slavery, you could say that was a reason, but the south had at many times tried to free the slaves and the Northern slave traders wouldn't hear of it. Also slavery would only be one of several reasons. Have you ever read the Secession Resolutions? You are aware that only four states had secession documents before Fort Sumter? This is only 1/3 of the Confederacy. Compare the US Constitution to the CSA Constitution and you will see the South went farther in banning slavery than the US.

"their besieged compatriots"
The troops in Fort Sumter were neither the compatriots of the men of the South nor were they besieged, they had been drawing supplies from Charleston. Did the South really start the war?? I believe the US broke a verbal treaty not to move into Fort Sumter. This was a clear violation of an existing treaty and an aggressive move by Major Anderson. Lincoln's supply convoy contained more men and arms to reinforce Sumter, another aggressive act. Are you old enough to remember the Cuban missile crisis? Same thing and enemy force within shooting distance of the citizens of another country. What would you do????

GP


Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
gpthelastrebel, Fri Feb 20 2009, 05:44PM

Lordy, you have asked a question that requires a library as a response, not just a single post. I would suggest that you need to read books by folks not wedded to the Yankee version of history which is simplistic to the extreme. The Fort Sumter business alone is very involved and though I do have a fairly shortened version of what happened, it's too long to be posted here. E-mail me at -email- and I'll send it to you.

As for why the war happened, there are so many books, but the two books by Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo on Lincoln (The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked) will suffice to give you a general foundation of the many different problems that brought the South to secession. DiLorenzo is an economist and therefore unlike many "historians" looks at the matter from that viewpoint. Remember the old adage "follow the money"; it obtains in this matter as well. All wars are founded in economics; the War of Secession is no different.

There are tons of other books that finally provide the facts of the matter including the constitutional legitimacy of secession, the falsity of the claim that the war was fought "to preserve the Union" (a "union" is by its very nature voluntary - "union" at the point of a gun is conquest) or that slavery alone or even primarily was the reason for the war. Yes, slavery was A reason, but only one and not necessarily in the way most folks think.

Hope that this helps.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
gpthelastrebel, Fri Feb 20 2009, 05:46PM



*******************************************************************************

Good one, since you have cherry picked information that only deals with the issue of slavery. These were compromise proposals that regulate the movement of slaves. It is actually unfair and illegal because it is the same as saying you cannot take your car to Kansas. If you read South Carolina or Texas secession documents you will see several more issues addressed.

Also you might note that slavery had nothing to do with the start of the war nor did it have anything to do with the war until Lincoln need to stop England and France from entering the war on the side of the south. Lincoln did not free one slave; in fact Lincoln admitted the last slave state to the Union, West Virginia. This act was a clear violation of the constitution.

Now if the issue was all about slavery and the Crittenden Compromise allowed the slave states to keep their slaves, why didn't they accept this offer?

GP


Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
Lady Val, Fri Feb 20 2009, 08:03PM

First, let me say that I was the one who posted the comment that begins with "Lordy", not my friend gpthelastrebel. I don't know how that mixup occurred, but it did.

Secondly, slavery was very much an issue on two counts: first, since slavery was accepted under the Constitution though not enshrined in that document, it became a matter of "private property". Now the concept of private property is THE most compelling concept in the Republic. Originally, in the Declaration, the three rights mentioned by Jefferson were, "life", "liberty" and "PROPERTY" - not the pursuit of happiness. This was changed when it was believed that it didn't do enough to entice the allegiance of those who did not own property and hence might not feel sufficiently moved to join the revolt. On the other hand, all men are moved by the thought of obtaining happiness. Slaves were property just like your horse or your dog - or your wife! And if they could be forcibly taken from you by government, then what man's property was safe? Hence the very real concern that "freeing the slaves" might eventually mean that the government - as governments did in Europe - might be free to determine who owns what and why.

The second reason that slavery became a cause celeb is that radical abolitionists were coming into the South as "preachers" and "teachers" and were fomenting "servile insurrection" in an attempt to get blacks to rise up and kill their masters as in the Nat Turner slave rebellion. Since Turner and his followers killed over 40 whites, few of whom were actual slave owners and as Congress seemed to have no problems with this murderous strategy, needless to say, Southerners were most put out - and frightened. They demanded that the federal government step in and put a stop to these attempts to bring about violent revolution, but instead the Congress entered one tract calling for "servile insurrection" into the Congressional record. In fact, the most well known of these attempts to bring about bloody revolt was the attack by John Brown on the arsenal at Harper's Ferry. Brown believed that local slaves would join with him and kill their masters, but when no such outpouring of help came, he and his group found themselves outnumbered and they surrendered. But certainly, it was Brown's intention to begin a bloodbath in Virginia.

Yes, slavery was very much an issue at the outset of war - but not for the reasons most folks believe. Indeed, since the federal government wanted money from the South and since that money came from those crops that required slave labor, Lincoln was more than willing to enshrine slavery into the Constitution "in perpetuity" through the Corwin Amendment - as long as the "cash cow" South remained in the Union.

I've attached the testimony of a woman teacher from the North regarding efforts by abolitionists to incite rebellion and murder in the South as well as another interesting piece on the subject.
northern_teachers_account.doc
servile_insurrection.doc

Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
gpthelastrebel, Fri Feb 20 2009, 08:09PM

Val, Excellent post!!!

I believe the mixup came from me moving around the post, they became posted under my name. Learned my lesson won't try to jump forums again.

GP

Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
red house, Fri Feb 20 2009, 09:08PM





Hello, LadyVal.


Madame, I have read your post in full, and I must say that I am very much in agreement with its factual content. But viewing it from the Yankee-Abolitionist perspective, I feel compelled to inquire as to the following;


We all (North & Southern American) know of the original American Declaration of Secession; The "Declaration of Independence" whereby the Founding Fathers (slave-owner & abolitionist alike) who signed the document agreed to the following wording for the opening statement of purpose:



When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...



And indeed, these rights are more than government given – they are God-given.

With this in mind, was it not the right and the responsibility of the enslaved and their abolitionists allies alike - to rebel and revolt against those who kept them in bondage? Was not their cause even more justified and righteous than that of the eleven Confederate States that seceded over their "peculiar institution" - which preserved their republican rights of ownership by depriving the bondsman and women of their God-given unalienable freedoms of liberty and their pursuit of happiness?




Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
red house, Fri Feb 20 2009, 10:03PM





On your first point; No sir, you have my word that I did not cherry-pick anything. All of the Compromise Proposals offered by the Southern states and representatives (Kentucky Sen. John Crittenden, Virginia Gov. John Letcher, The March 1861 Washington Peace Conference of the seven Southern Confederate states, The Proposal of Jefferson Davis', The Proposal of Robert Toombs, etc) - that were submitted just before and in the months following secession; mentioned slavery as their only issues of contention. All of their demands were concerning the following;


• That congress shall pass no law pertaining to the slavery issue without a majority consent of slave-state representatives in congress.

• That the fugitive slave act of 1850 would be upheld by the Northern States (i.e. that the free states agreed to fulfill their Article 4 section 2 obligations to return "fugitives and property" to the slave states).

• That the institution slavery would not be infringed or impeded south of the Missouri compromise line (at the 36th parallel) - from coast-to-coast (California to Virginia), and furthermore that the Nation's capital itself would reintroduce the institution for as long as Maryland remained a slave-state (it was abolished from Washington DC in 1850 as part of the 1850 compromise).


There is no mention or demands made of any kind that pertain to issues of tariffs or taxation (*except in relation to slaves; in the sec 3 of the proposed 13th amendment of the Washington Peace Conference proposal).



On your second point, yes, I must differ with your appraisal. The demands made by the Southern Confederate States and the conditions put forward by their representatives for averting secession and for subsequent reunification (made prior to the war breaking out) are entirely those concerning the expansion and preservation of slavery. And it follows that President Lincoln did not issue orders to mobilize an army until after the federal soldiers were bombarded at Fort Sumter (even tho it was known to everyone on both sides that after a couple of more days the soldiers held up in Fort Sumter would have been starved out on their own accord for lack of food or water).


And lastly, the Crittenden Compromise was submitted on behalf of the Southern States just prior to South Carolina's secession. It was rejected by the federal government because the newly elected Republican representative (like Lincoln) were unwilling to allow for the western expansion of slavery into new states and territories - which was the principle point of disagreement between North and South and the principle demand of Crittenden's ultimatum (at no point however did Lincoln threat to abolish the institution prior to secession).




May I ask, what is current version of among most Southerners for why they seceded? Is it still debated, or is there a generally held view or understanding that, if asked, most people can agree on?

Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
red house, Fri Feb 20 2009, 11:44PM






And my apologies Mr. GP, I forgot to address this point of yours in my last post.


South Carolina, being the first to take the initiative of seceding, issued two separate secession documents; one was addressed to its fellow slave-holding Southern states (that had not yet partitioned themselves from the Republic) - which was published with the hopes of inspiring them to do the same. The other Declaration was drafted at the South Carolina Secession Convention and submitted to the federal government to outline their grievances and their constitutional rights to secede over them.


This first document: http://civilwarcauses.org/rhett.htm

The second: http://civilwarcauses.org/reasons.htm#SouthCarolina


The first was drafted by notorious "fire-eater" Robert Barnwell Rhett who presided over the secessionist movement a decade earlier at the Nashville Convention (and who btw rejected the 1850 slavery compromise that followed, favoring secession instead). In addition to slavery, he included the theme of "taxation w/o due representation" to invoke the Founding Fathers who of course drafted the original Declaration of Independence some 84 years previous.

The other South Carolina Declaration, published and addressed to the Northern States and the federal government, is ironic in that it mentions nothing of North/South disagreements over protectionism and freetrade, taxation or tariffs; but is concerned solely with the issue of slavery - and their right to secede over it, as it had threatened to do a decade earlier (and had drafted legislation to affirm its rights to do so on "26th day of April, A.D., 1852" as is restated in its secession manifesto).


With respect to the Texas declaration; http://civilwarcauses.org/reasons.htm#Texas - like the declarations submitted by Mississippi and South Carolina, it concerns itself entirely with the North/South quarrels and grievances over the issue of slavery. The only other issue mentioned (in passing) is the federal governments failure to adequately protect the citizens of that state from the frontier outlaws and the mexican insurgents south of the border. (*how so little have things changed since then, huh?) ?


I think you may have been thinking of the Georgia declaration, which includes two paragraphs (of thirteen total) to the issues of subsidies that were given to specific enterprises (such as shipping) that at the time existed only in the industrialized North, whilst the South it claimed, was self-sufficient enough on its own and was therefore unfairly made to contribute to the federal treasury.

There is also paragraph at the end of the (unpublished) Florida declaration that more or less reiterates these statements made by Georgia (Florida mentions the federal tariffs on imports), though, like the Georgia declaration - the entirety that precedes it is concerned with one issue of principle grievance, and only one.




Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
Lady Val, Fri Feb 20 2009, 11:59PM

Actually, at that time - and for a considerable time afterward - those words did not refer to people (white or black) who were "indentured servants" or slaves. Remember, there were white slaves. In fact, the Founders were in the main referring to whites and even blacks who were not under any sort of bond whether it was indenture or penal servitude. For instance, felons were not "equal" in the eyes of the law nor are they so even today for felons cannot vote - although that will probably change with this Democrat administration and Congress.

Also remember, that the Declaration was a poetic statement of intent. It was never intended to encompass all the existing situations in the colonies. In fact, I believe that Jefferson included the black slaves but to get a unanimous vote for independence, he had to remove it.

But slavery is an extremely complex issue and certainly the North - as well as the British and the Africans themselves - deserve every bit as much if not more blame for the institution than the South. I suggest at least one book for you to read (again): Complicity: How the North Promoted, Prolonged and Profited from Slavery by Anne Farrow, Joel Lang and Jenifer Frank, 3 journalists from the Hartford (CT) Courant. I am also enclosing some articles of interest for you to look over.

Slavery has been used as a club against the South, but frankly, that is not only supremely simplistic, it is extremely disingenuous. The North only got rid of slavery because the Northern business interests were better served by the use of hundreds of thousands (millions?) of poor immigrants who filled the factories and mines of Northern commercial interests. They were "throw away" labor. They didn't have to be fed, housed, cared for and clothed as did slaves. If they died, they were easily replaced by the thousands that continued to flock to the ports of the North. Slavery was too expensive for Northern industrialists so they sold their slaves South instead! Note that they did not free them; they got what they could in money for them so let's quit the "b.s." regarding Northern moral superiority, shall we?



more_on_the_north__slavery.doc
more_on_the_north__slavery.doc
a.johnson_-_first_slave_owner.doc
the_north__the_negro.doc
black_kings_retort.doc

Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
red house, Sat Feb 21 2009, 06:34AM

I'm glad there are people such as yourself, Lady Val, who are aware enough to inform yourself of the obvious, and candid enough acknowledge the painful truths of the past. I sincerely commend you for this. However, you will not be surprised to know that I can find no sympathy for your grievances or for the plight of your people and their culture.


I know of no one who would contend that the North is sinless or free from fault and error, but the fact remains that the South regarded the preservation and the expansion of their "peculiar institution" as something that was more sacrosanct than the preservation of our Glorious Republic and the principle it was founded upon; freedom. Our Republic was founded on the freedoms of religion and speech - so that each of us could have the freedom to espouse our own ideas and express our convictions.

The abolitionist "agitators" were simply expressing and exercising these ideals on which our republic was founded, they were endeavoring to help this nation live up to the idea that we are all entitled to the opportunities that liberty affords everyone. And as we well know, Lincoln was not the one who tore this nation asunder, nor did he impose any dictates on the Southern way of life, he simply refused to capitulate to the South's demands that their institution be included into our nation's capital and be expanded westward to the Pacific ocean.


If there is one thing that history teaches us over and over again; it is the futility of appeasing tyranny and despotism. The South was appeased over its "peculiar institution" time and again - first with the Missouri Compromise of 1820, and then with the Compromise of 1850, and again with the Kansas-Nebraska act. Each time the institution that encroached on freedom itself was appeased and allowed expand, and to what end? Let's not kid ourselves, if the South had not started the war at Fort Sumter - then we would have certainly gone to war over the fate of the remainder of the continent that had yet to be settled, and then over the regions that already had.

Free societies and oppressive regimes can not coexist, sooner or later they will clash - there is not room enough on the planet to accommodate them both. We were reminded of this recently when we left the taleban and alQaeda to their own devises on the opposite side of planet - and they came and attacked our soil and assaulted our freedoms and values. Neville Chamberlain made the same mistake when he appeased Hitler, and less than one year later; look what happened. We left the Imperial Japanese alone to pillage and enslave Indochina, and on December 7, 1941; look what happened.

No, we could not have coexisted, or to put it more bluntly; the South could not have coexisted with a free-republic. They made that very clear with their demands, and the North understood this, and appeased no further. And as an American who enjoys the freedoms that they fought and died for, I owe them a debt of gratitude and I think they should be commended for their terrible sacrifice.



America is the Greatest Nation on earth - and it would not have been if not for the leadership of Abraham Lincoln and his refusal to appease the demands of tyrants. America is a Nation of Liberty and United-States thanks to our Generals and the soldiers that were willing to resort to the only language that dictators and despots understand; the language of overwhelming force. You do not appease the demands of tyranny, Israel knows this, George W. Bush knew this, and it's something that the other great Republican President; Abraham Lincoln understood as well.

God bless America, the freest country on earth. And God bless our men and women who have fought and died to preserve and protect it.





Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
Lady Val, Sat Feb 21 2009, 03:19PM

Your argument - while it seems good - is false and disingenuous. You make claims without proof and then present them as "reasons" for the North to act as it did.

First, the South wanted to protect its people. Your vaunted abolitionists did not want what you seem to believe that they wanted. Indeed, they certainly did not want the Negroes among them. Like modern liberals, their sympathy was to a concept, not to people. Most Northern states had "black codes" which forbid Negroes from immigrating into those states, among them Lincoln's Illinois. In fact, the State of Massachusetts had the office of Negro Whipper; when a Negro did not leave the state after a period of time, he or she was flogged until he did. So the belief that somehow the North "cared" for the Negro is preposterous. Furthermore, even if that had been the case, what excuse can you give for trying to bring about a bloodbath that would kill innocent children and end in the deaths of the very people that you are supposed to be "helping"? Suppose agitators from the South had come among the Northern "wage slaves" and tried to entice them to rise up against their "masters" and the civil authority as happened in the infamous New York draft riots? What would you say about such people, that they "cared" for the downtrodden poor of the North? Hardly! Yet, this is what happened in the South. Again, I have sent - or if I failed to include the information, will send information about the South's own efforts to end slavery. It is also a fact that the efforts of radical abolitionists in the North destroyed the South's own abolition movement and forced many who were against slavery to join with those who defended the institution for the purpose of self preservation.

Secondly, though there could be legitimate disagreement about the constitutionality of secession, the simple fact is this: there is NOTHING in the Constitution which gives the Federal Government or the President the right to wage war on the sovereign states and the People of the United States! Abraham Lincoln was a war criminal. He desired and initiated war against the people of this country without reason and certainly with no constitutional right to do so. He suspended the right of habeas corpus which had existed since the Magna Carta. He arrested thousands of NORTHERN citizens who disagreed with his unjust and unconstitutional war and kept them in prison, some never to return to their families. He destroyed the First Amendment freedoms of speech, expression and the press. He used the typical tyrant's tool of getting people to inform against their neighbors and then forced people to sign an unconstitutional "oath" or be imprisoned without any charge save "disloyalty". He oversaw the deliberate murder of tens of thousands of Confederate prisoners of war in such hell holes as Forts Douglas and Merton, Point Lookout and Elmira to name a few. Unlike Andersonville where prisoners and guards ate the same food and where the efforts of the Commandant Henry Wirtz to get food and medicine from the North for his suffering charges was denied by Ulysses Grant, men starved to death in the above Northern Dachaus able to see fruit trees laden with their bounty and food a plenty which was denied to them because they were "rebels". Lincoln perverted the elections in the North in 1864, in one instance sending "Beast" Butler to New York to assure his "victory" in that state. This perversion of the election process by Lincoln and the Republicans is well documented.

You sir, know nothing at all about the cause you espouse. You speak about the "glorious Union". First, a "union" by its very nature is voluntary! "Union" at the point of a gun is called "conquest". And what was "glorious" about a corrupt government involved with supporting with Southern tax monies Northern commercial interests to the benefit of the politicians - like Lincoln - who bestowed their stolen largesse? What is "glorious" about a nation that wages war in so barbaric a manner that the nations of Europe - no strangers to war - were appalled? Think of Sherman the genocide who wanted to murder every man, woman and child who would not bow down at the altar of the Federal Government or a man like Sheridan who burned the farming implements of the civilians in Virginia at war's end so that they would continue to starve even after "peace" was established? In a better world sir, Lincoln, Sherman, Sheridan, Butler and a lot more "Yankees" would have been hanged for the criminals and monsters that they were. I spare Grant because he was a good man who kept his word - but fought for the wrong side. In fact, as far as slavery goes, Grant is quoted as saying that if he had thought that the war was to free the slaves, he would have offered his sword to the South! So much for the argument that most of the men of the North fought to free the slaves!

The States of the South did not want to "conquer" the nation - they wanted to leave a nation that they considered no longer protective of the interests of their people and becoming increasingly hostile to their culture; the South was right and that fact is proven time and again right to today. In fact, Virginia three times rejected the call for secession and only left the Union when Lincoln demanded troops from the Old Dominion to assail the Carolinas and told the Governor that the Federal armies would go through his state to invade the states that had seceded. When faced with a choice of honor or tyranny, Virginia chose to leave what was no longer a Republic, but a tyrannous Empire. But the "Yankees" still aren't satisfied - and won't be - until every last vestige of Southern heritage and history have been exterminated and replaced by a spurious version of history that is better suited to fiction than fact. I rather believe that your understanding of the matter can be found in their fantasies as posited by Lincoln's false claim to some sort of "eternal Union" that predated the Constitution - which was plain nonsense.

It is the South, sir, that maintained the principles of the Founders while the North became poisoned by foreign ideologies brought from Europe especially in the 1840s. Fascism, socialism and even communism - were rife in "the Union" while Lincoln was a Hamilton-Clay mercantilist who wanted a supreme central power from which the States and the People would be granted such crumbs of freedom as Washington saw fit to bestow (and those crumbs grow ever smaller with each passing year!). If you are looking for the heroes of 1776, you are looking in the wrong place.

I, too, used to be proud of "my" country but I have come to see that it is not "my" country. Washington is in the hands of the special interests and an ideology that is diametric not only to all that I hold dear but that the Founders of the Republic also believed and promulgated. Indeed, after a great deal of study, I realize that the Republic died when the Union died - in 1861 - and what has transpired since that time merely utilized our history and patriotic rhetoric to hide this fact. The Constitution sir, is dead. It died when Abraham Lincoln and those in the North for reasons of "patriotism" or "profit" or "power" determined that they could not have their fascist-socialist Empire while republican tenets held sway. They won their "war" at a cost that all our other wars put together have not exceeded. But even that wasn't enough. A dispassionate and objective study of history will show that most of the wars fought by "The Union" since the War of Secession were wars of empire, often initiated by mendacious deceits like Fort Sumter which were used to bring an ignorant public into line with the desire of the Federal beast to make war. Believe me, at 67, I have found these truths to be very disheartening, but they are still truths for all of that.

Finally, let me say this. I was born in the borough of Queens, in the City of New York and have lived within 35 miles of New York City my whole life save for two years when I lived in Hartford, Connecticut after my marriage; my husband is a second generation Greek from Astoria, Queens. My family has as its ancestors such men as John Adams and John Glover (whose lobstermen ferried Washington across the Delaware on Christmas Eve). I don't believe that I have one Southerner in my family tree, so it's no use talking about "my people and their culture". "My people" are of the North and so, alas, "my culture" is a part of the crime against the People of the South.
southerners_righting_slavery.doc

Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
8milereb, Sat Feb 21 2009, 05:10PM

Red Horse, please provide me with the Ships name, payload, date entered any port, OF ANY CSS vessel carrying slaves into the USA. I am waiting for your answer.

Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
8milereb, Sat Feb 21 2009, 05:15PM

Red Horse, thanks for the professional exchange, its really healthy for all of us. Take a look at this when you have a few moments and get back to us. Please if you will try to distinguish the intent of Abe Lincoln, his TRUE feelings about slavery, and the political forces that was driving his ever changing positions on slavery. http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/1inaug.htm

Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
gpthelastrebel, Sat Feb 21 2009, 06:18PM

Yes sir you are cherry picking. The fact that you stated the South was all about the slavery issue and then you propose only documents that support that stance is nothing more than posting select information to support this stance. Now I put this point to you again – The Crittenden Resolution offered the seceded states a chance to return to the Union and keep their slaves. Surely if slavery was the only issue, the states would have taken the offer, return to the Union and saved all of those lives. This is your source not mine.


“put forward by their representatives for averting secession and for subsequent reunification (made prior to the war breaking out) are entirely those concerning the expansion and preservation of slavery” I would suggest you read the Secession Resolutions posted at http://www.civilwar.org/historyclassroom/hc_decofcauses.htm & http://www.civilwarhome.com/cherokeecauses.htm A person can make quite a list of causes that is not related to expanding the institution of slavery.

In regards to Fort Sumter, Major Anderson violated a treaty that prohibited the movement of his men from Moultrie to Sumter. This was a clear aggressive act by a military force. The men were not starving as they were drawing rations from Charleston. Lincoln refused to negotiate peace and his response to the crisis in South Carolina was to send an armed armada to Sumter. This was not simply a supply mission and the action brought on war.

My current version, (I cannot speak for most) of why the South seceded is found in the Declaration of Causes and the Secession resolutions. In these documents slavery is listed as an issue, so is taxes, the enforcement of the constitution and taxes. The war for Southern Independence and secession are two different events, you are trying to combine them into one event. The war had nothing to do with slavery. Slavery is an issue that is being pushed as the cause to justify the invasion of the South.

Now what is the current version among most Yankees as to why the south seceded or the war was fought? Are you here to tell me that it was nothing more than to free the slaves?


GP




Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
gpthelastrebel, Sat Feb 21 2009, 06:29PM




Well said Mark. An exchange without insults and snide remarks is indeed scarce item these days. Let's hope it continues.

GP

Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
red house, Sun Feb 22 2009, 08:43AM





Are we reading from the same historical script?

"I realized that the Republic died when the Union died - in 1861..." (?)

The Union may have "died" in 1861 - but I assure you, it was revived at great sacrifice, and it has remained alive and well since the centennial of Appomattox. In 1965 our Union was restored by the authority of President Lyndon Johnson who revived the 15th amendment with the Voting Rights Act and reaffirmed the constitutional rights of dignity and liberty for all men - by sending federal troops to the state of Alabama to protect the civil rights activists who had been demanding their rights for 100 years after the surrender of the South.

The same words that you use to describe Abraham Lincoln, are the same accusations that have been leveled against our last President who was, like Lincoln, made to wage war against the forces of tyranny and in support of democracy and western freedoms. The Iraq war and the war for Afghanistan have each been costly in blood and treasure - but they have both been waged against existential threats to the civilized world, and furthermore - they were both inevitable. What struck me the most about September 11th - was not only the scale of death and destruction, but the arrogance of the unprovoked aggressions against my country. Americans (yes, Yankees included) are on the whole - a peace-loving people. In both world wars we tended toward isolationism - until, we were attacked - at which point we spared no expense to exterminate and humble the perpetrators. I make no apologies for Nagasaki or Hiroshima, I feel no guilt whatsoever for Dresden, nor Berlin, nor do I have any regrets about General Sherman's scorched earth campaigns or the properties that the federal army confiscated and liberated from the confederate states. Such is war, a war which the South started - upon its own countrymen. The arrogance of it. Then, as now; we were stronger, the North had the Industry and the man-power; the United-States had the war-machine, and still, the South not only seceded from it - they attacked it. I will not apologize to the Japanese, to the Germans, to the Arab or Afghan mujihadeen, nor to the Southerners - for the consequences of their reckless hubris against our noble republic. They attacked the virtues and values of freedom with the very institution that they seceded over - and then they attacked the Republic itself, the arrogance. Peace is neither desirable nor possible with such backwards aggressors, and all of recorded history is my witness.



Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
red house, Sun Feb 22 2009, 09:02AM





The Crittenden Compromise was submitted on behalf of the South. It was rejected because the Republicans were unwilling to compromise on the expansion of slavery - both westward and into the District of Columbia. In accordance with the settlers wishes, the state of California was admitted as a free state, and in accordance with the Compromise of 1850 - the slave-trade was abolished forever from the nation's capital. The South demanded that all states and territories south of the 36°30' parallel and westward to the Pacific be made slave-states - regardless of the wishes of the settlers of states themselves, and furthermore - they dictated that the District of Columbia must relegalize the slave-trade as well for them to reconsider secession. Lincoln and the congress rejected their demands, and then five months later the South fired four-thousand shells on the federal troops in Fort Sumter, and the civil discord became a Civil War.

Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
Lady Val, Sun Feb 22 2009, 09:52AM

Alas sir, you cannot be reached. That's too bad. I, too, believed as you do but now I know better. The UNION died and the Republic and the Constitution or we certainly would not now have the monstrosity that continues to hide itself under the name of the United States. This didn't happen in a day or a week or a year or a decade. The "War of Secession" destroyed the Constitution, made the 10th Amendment a "dead letter", made the Supreme Court into an adjunct of the Presidency, ended the concept of sovereign states and inalienable rights of the People bestowed by God. Now our rights are what the government in Washington says they are or have you not heard of laws regarding "hate speech"?

Lincoln was a war criminal. Killing by presidential dictum with the cooperation of an unconstitutional military over a million Americans North and South (a whole lot more people died than soldiers) seems to indicate a departure from the Constitution that cannot be ignored, excused or explained. As for Johnson, he was just one more socialist Hamiltonian despot who championed the federal government as the only game in town and trampled any pretense of legitimacy guided by the belief that the ends justify the means. Johnson, like Lincoln, also fought a war that further entrenched Washington's tyranny. Johnson's war was supposedly against poverty whereas Lincoln's was against the remnants of the Republic on this continent. Unlike Lincoln, however, in Johnson's case, poverty won. But in the end, the strategy paid off since the unconstitutional concept of using the People's money to buy politicians their place in office in perpetuity which had been warned of by Franklin, was enshrined as public policy. Yessir, we have the best government money can buy.

Frankly, it won't matter what historical facts and proofs I present to you. You are wedded to the Yankee version of history and, unlike the government you worship, I believe that you have a right to your viewpoint however erroneous. I just wish that you and your government extended that same courtesy to those with whom you disagree. But it is obvious as this present and perhaps final tyranny continues, those who don't "toe the Washington line" are about to discover just how dead the Constitution really is.

Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
8milereb, Sun Feb 22 2009, 05:27PM

THE PROBLEMS THAT LED TO THE CIVIL WAR are the same problems today ---- big, intrusive government. The reason we don't face the specter of another Civil War is because today's Americans don't have yesteryear's spirit of liberty and constitutional respect, and political statesmanship is in short supply.

Actually, the war of 1861 was not a civil war. A civil war is a conflict between two or more factions trying to take over a government. In 1861, Confederate President Jefferson Davis was no more interested in taking over Washington than George Washington was interested in taking over England in 1776. Like Washington, Davis was seeking independence. Therefore, the war of 1861 should be called "The War Between the States" or the "War for Southern Independence." The more bitter southerner might call it the "War of Northern Aggression."



History books have misled today's Americans to believe the war was fought to free slaves.

Statements from the time suggest otherwise. In President Lincoln's first inaugural address, he said, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so."

During the war, in an 1862 letter to the New York Daily Tribune editor Horace Greeley, Lincoln said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery." A recent article by Baltimore's Loyola College Professor Thomas DiLorenzo titled "The Great Centralizer," in The Independent Review (Fall 1998), cites quotation after quotation of similar northern sentiment about slavery.

Lincoln's intentions, as well as that of many northern politicians, were summarized by Stephen Douglas during the presidential debates. Douglas accused Lincoln of wanting to "impose on the nation a uniformity of local laws and institutions and a moral homogeneity dictated by the central government" that "place at defiance the intentions of the republic's founders." SOUND FAMILIAR TODAY? Douglas was right, and Lincoln's vision for our nation has now been accomplished beyond anything he could have possibly dreamed.

A precursor for a War Between the States came in 1832, when South Carolina called a convention to nullify tariff acts of 1828 and 1832, referred to as the "Tariffs of Abominations." A compromise lowering the tariff was reached, averting secession and possibly war. The North favored protective tariffs for their manufacturing industry. The South, which exported agricultural products to and imported manufactured goods from Europe, favored free trade and was hurt by the tariffs. Plus, a northern-dominated Congress enacted laws similar to Britain's Navigation Acts to protect northern shipping interests.

Shortly after Lincoln's election, Congress passed the highly protectionist Morrill tariffs.

That's when the South seceded, setting up a new government. Their constitution was nearly identical to the U.S. Constitution except that it outlawed protectionist tariffs, business handouts and mandated a two-thirds majority vote for all spending measures.

The only good coming from the War Between the States was the abolition of slavery. The great principle enunciated in the Declaration of Independence that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" was overturned by force of arms. By destroying the states' right to secession, Abraham Lincoln opened the door to the kind of unconstrained, despotic, arrogant government we have today, something the framers of the Constitution could not have possibly imagined.

States should again challenge Washington's unconstitutional acts through nullification. But you tell me where we can find leaders with the love, courage and respect for our Constitution like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John C. Calhoun.


Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
red house, Sun Feb 22 2009, 06:55PM







I'm sorry, but I really don't know where you're coming from. At least we can both agree that America is an empire. Yes, of course it is the last remaining super-power on earth, and I believe that the free-world is a better and safer place because of that fact. But I simply don't understand how anyone could believe that the slave-states and the free states could ever co-exist. It was the failure of the free-states to comply with the fugitive slave act that brought the secession crisis to a head, and whether there were two nations—one free, one slave; or one nation—half-free, half-slave—there would always have been Abolitionist agitators provoking one of them, and there would always be bounty hunters intruding upon the other. And if the South had seceded peacefully and confined itself to the 13 stars of its confederate flag - instead of expanding westward, can you even begin to fathom the consequences of that? Do you know what became of the French in Haiti? Do you know what would have become of the South - had the slave population continued to expand within the 13 Southern states already reserved for the institution? Two words: Ethnic. Cleansing. In another generation or two there would have been killing fields that would have rivaled Rwanda and Cambodia combined. You think Harper Ferry was ugly? If you think Harpers Ferry was madness or think the Southampton Insurrection was unpleasant: take a look at some of the engravings of what took place on the island of Saint-Domingue. Nat Turner was only the beginning: the South should thank God that the Northern Armies liberated them before a Toussaint L'Overture did. General Sherman's men behaved as model citizens and gentlemen compared to the alternative of what could-have-been. Did you know that in the final month of the war - that the South was actually considering arming some its slave population? Up to that point slaves had mainly served only as cooks and orderlies, and they were about to issue them weapons... my God ??


The North not only saved the Republic, they saved the South - from the very institution that they revolted over.


And LadyVal: What is this talk of "hate speech"? America is the only nation on earth where we have absolute freedom of speech. There are no "hate speech" laws here. Unlike Canada, europe and the UK - our freedoms of expression are fully protected by the First Amendment - or at the very least they have been since 1967 - the year in which that right was last challenged by a government authority.

Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
8milereb, Sun Feb 22 2009, 07:26PM

In his new book, Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream, black American author, Lerone Bennett, presents historic evidence supporting the theory that Abraham Lincoln was, in fact, a devoted racist harboring a life-long desire to see all black Americans deported to Africa, citing Lincolns comments about former slaves not being able to assimilate in a civilized society

Bennett writes (non fiction) that as a young politician in Illinois, Lincoln regularly used racial slurs in speeches, told racial jokes to his black servants, and vocally opposed any new laws that would have bettered the lives of black Americans.

Key to Bennett's thesis is the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation which, Bennett argues, Lincoln was forced into issuing by the powerful abolitionist wing of his own party. Bennett asserts that Lincoln carefully worded the document to apply only to the rebel Southern states, which were not under Union control at the time, thus resulting in an Emancipation Proclamation that did not in itself free a single slave.

At one point, Bennett quotes William Henry Seward, Lincoln's secretary of state, who referred to the proclamation as a hollow, meaningless document showing no more than, "our sympathy with the slaves by emancipating the slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."

Sponsored Links
Abraham Lincoln Biography
A Detailed Life History 122 Pages of Biographical Content
BookRags.com

Johannesburg Flights
Don't waste time! Low Fares from dozens of popular airlines.
Johannesburg.OneTime.com

Apartheid Research
Online books, journals for academic research, plus bibliography tools.
www.Questia.com/Apartheid

Henry Clay Whitney, a close friend of Lincoln, is quoted by Bennett as saying the proclamation was "not the end designed by him (Lincoln), but only the means to the end, the end being the deportation of the slaves and the payment for them to their masters - at least to those who were loyal."

Bennett asserts that Lincoln often put forth plans for deporting the slaves to Africa both before and during his presidency.

The tone of Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream is decidedly angry, as if Bennett feels betrayed by what he calls the "myth" of Abraham Lincoln.

"No other American story is so enduring. No other American story is so comforting. No other American story is so false." -- Lerone Bennett, Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream.



Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
red house, Sun Feb 22 2009, 07:32PM





Yes, the theory put forward by the libertarian economics professor Thomas J. DiLorenzo regarding the Morrill Tariff - is interesting from the point of view of what may have motivated Lincoln, but the fact that this tariff was not mentioned in any of the secession documents is more interesting still - and the fact that nothing was mentioned of taxes or tariffs in the demands of every one of the compromise proposals put forward by the South just prior and in the months following secession, leaves no doubts as to what motivated them to secede in the first place. It is worth noting also that the Morrill Tariff did not approach the largesse of the "Tax of Abominations" (which had led to the Nullification Crisis 30 years previous) - until after the war had started as a necessary means to fund the war effort, at which point it was only applicable to the goods imported by the North (naturally).

However I would never contend that the war was prosecuted for the sole purposes of freeing the slaves. Lincoln was obviously opposed to the institution, however his commitment to keeping the Republic intact outweighed any considerations of preemptive emancipation or abolitionist demands of mandatory manumission. In fact, he never once threatened to do this until after the war had begun - at which point it became clear that not only was emancipation vital to the war effort - but that there would always be the risk of secession if the institution was allowed to persist if and when the South was defeated. Lincoln was clearly not an abolitionist in the literal sense, he was only militantly opposed to slavery's expansion - but not its existence per se. As the South's compromise proposals make clear, he could have averted the secession and achieved reunification prior to the outbreak of war - had he acquiesced to the South's demands that slavery be allowed to expand westward to the Pacific and southward from the line of the missouri-compromise (at the 36th parallel).

Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
Lady Val, Mon Feb 23 2009, 02:59PM

My dear sir, I don't know what country you are living in, but we certainly do NOT have freedom of speech or expression or even the press (the "Fairness Doctrine" has been revived which intends to shut down the only avenues for conservative thought - talk radio and the internet). You cannot mention "God" in schools or show any of our founding principles that mention Him in the public square. Political correctness is a way of life and there are "hate crimes" and "hate speech" laws on the books that are being prosecuted by the government. Yes, YOU have "freedom of speech" because you agree with the Empire. On the other hand, I do not, because I disagree. I cannot speak out against abortion (hate speech). I cannot defend traditional marriage (hate speech). I cannot criticize "black leaders" (hate speech) - and so on.

Again, I am not going to do this dance with you. You believe what is not true and that's your right. You are, however, in error; the facts do not agree with you. Sherman was no different than Adolf Eichmann except in degree and target group and I sincerely hope that he and Eichmann are sharing the same place in eternity along with Lincoln and all those who believed that they had the right to do evil in order to bring about "good" or "change" or whatever they (and you) wish to call it.

As for me, I'm 67 and I haven't the time or the desire to continue to produce facts that are ignored or responded to with the same old tired and false "history". Enjoy what is left of your vaunted "free country" while it lasts - which given the present state of affairs will not be very long unless, perhaps, some states decide the their only hope is in secession - just as thirteen other states did long ago.

Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
gpthelastrebel, Mon Feb 23 2009, 07:43PM

[



The Crittenden Compromise was submitted on behalf of the South. It was rejected because the Republicans were unwilling to compromise on the expansion of slavery - both westward and into the District of Columbia. In accordance with the settlers wishes, the state of California was admitted as a free state, and in accordance with the Compromise of 1850 - the slave-trade was abolished forever from the nation's capital. The South demanded that all states and territories south of the 36°30' parallel and westward to the Pacific be made slave-states - regardless of the wishes of the settlers of states themselves, and furthermore - they dictated that the District of Columbia must relegalize the slave-trade as well for them to reconsider secession. Lincoln and the congress rejected their demands, and then five months later the South fired four-thousand shells on the federal troops in Fort Sumter, and the civil discord became a Civil War.
[/quote1235417279]

The Crittenden Compromise was submitted as a compromise not on behalf of the South but as compromise to avoid secession. I know the compromise was rejected by both the house and senate which tells me that either the North had the majority of votes cast against this compromise or at least some of the Southern representatives voted against the compromise. The compromise would have also have kept the balance of power between the Free states and slaves states equal. It can also be said that with the Black codes that existed in the North, the whole idea of these “free’ states was also not to keep out slaves but to keep at both slave and free black.

At any rate the bill did not pass, the south seceded giving up all of the new land to be had, and you still want to tell me this was all about expanding slavery. How is the south supposed to expand slavery when they set the boundaries themselves? To my way of thinking this is more a constitutional right than the issue of slavery -- if we can regulate your property what else can we regulate?

GP


Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
gpthelastrebel, Mon Feb 23 2009, 07:52PM


The same words that you use to describe Abraham Lincoln, are the same accusations that have been leveled against our last President who was, like Lincoln, made to wage war against the forces of tyranny and in support of democracy and western freedoms.
[/quote1235418406]


Red House you have your facts all wrong. Lincoln was the tyrant. He provoked a war that cost the lives of more Americans that any man in history. He is the one who had anyone who spoke out against him arrested and place in jail. Lincoln, Sherman and Buttler should have been tried for war crimes against unarmed citizens of another country.

GP



Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
gpthelastrebel, Mon Feb 23 2009, 08:41PM







I'm sorry, but I really don't know where you're coming from. At least we can both agree that America is an empire. Yes, of course it is the last remaining super-power on earth, and I believe that the free-world is a better and safer place because of that fact. But I simply don't understand how anyone could believe that the slave-states and the free states could ever co-exist. It was the failure of the free-states to comply with the fugitive slave act that brought the secession crisis to a head, and whether there were two nations—one free, one slave; or one nation—half-free, half-slave—there would always have been Abolitionist agitators provoking one of them, and there would always be bounty hunters intruding upon the other. And if the South had seceded peacefully and confined itself to the 13 stars of its confederate flag - instead of expanding westward, can you even begin to fathom the consequences of that? Do you know what became of the French in Haiti? Do you know what would have become of the South - had the slave population continued to expand within the 13 Southern states already reserved for the institution? Two words: Ethnic. Cleansing. In another generation or two there would have been killing fields that would have rivaled Rwanda and Cambodia combined. You think Harper Ferry was ugly? If you think Harpers Ferry was madness or think the Southampton Insurrection was unpleasant: take a look at some of the engravings of what took place on the island of Saint-Domingue. Nat Turner was only the beginning: the South should thank God that the Northern Armies liberated them before a Toussaint L'Overture did. General Sherman's men behaved as model citizens and gentlemen compared to the alternative of what could-have-been. Did you know that in the final month of the war - that the South was actually considering arming some its slave population? Up to that point slaves had mainly served only as cooks and orderlies, and they were about to issue them weapons... my God ??


The North not only saved the Republic, they saved the South - from the very institution that they revolted over.


And LadyVal: What is this talk of "hate speech"? America is the only nation on earth where we have absolute freedom of speech. There are no "hate speech" laws here. Unlike Canada, europe and the UK - our freedoms of expression are fully protected by the First Amendment - or at the very least they have been since 1967 - the year in which that right was last challenged by a government authority.
[/quote1235418997]


Red House,

WE are not a nation of free speech. Kids here in the south are banned from schools, dances and other events for displaying the Confederate flag, bands can no longer play Dixie, teachers are monitored as to what they can teach, prayer is being banned so is the 10 commandments, right now today talk radio and religious programs are coming under attack, newspapers are biased in their reporting and in their opinions. With all of this and more going on you tell us about free speech?

At the time of the War for Southern Independence there was no such thing as a free state. Slavery was legal in the United States – all states. The real problem was the failure to enforce the laws regarding the fugitives. Another fact you seem to overlook is Southern states since the beginning of this nation was against slavery, the northern slave traders refuse to give up this profitable trade and fought to maintain the institution of slavery. Something else you may not be ware of is abolitionist groups and members were greater in the South than in the North in 1860. Now you go on about these rights and ethic cleansing so for and so on, that is just smoke and mirrors, you have no proof that any of these things would have taken place. In fact I believe riots as you described have happened mostly in the border states and the north or Union states rather than in the South. I am correct?

Slavery in itself would have died a natural death with the new inventions such as the tractor, baler and so forth. It would not have been profitable to have slaves and all of the care and maintenance that goes along with them with these new machines.

So you are telling us that rape, murder and pillaging, torture is better done by a white man than a black man? What is the difference you have been violated just the same? What kind of thinking is this? I simply cannot comprehend it. Yes it is proven that many blacks did fight for the South! Do you doubt that fact? I can give you the address of a man who is an expert on minorities fighting for the South should you wish to learn more. The South did not have to buy slaves and demand they fight for us. They fought under their own free will right beside men of other race, creeds and color. To say otherwise is an out right distortion of the truth. It is also well known that Jews, Mexicans, Native Americans and Asians fought for the South also --- My gosh!!!!

BTW you should know by now the south did not revolt over the institution of slavery, in fact the war had nothing to do with slavery. Nothing at all.


GP


Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
Lady Val, Tue Feb 24 2009, 12:52AM

GP, I've got to disagree with you here. It certainly did have to do with slavery, but not as is depicted by the Yankee historians. Let's take it a bit at a time:

1. Slaves (like your horse or your WIFE) were property; they had been bought and paid for which is why the Fugitive Slave Act was the law of the land. If your horse ran off, your neighbor or the guy two counties away couldn't keep it; it was YOUR horse.

2. Private property was a seminal condition of a free society. If the government or certain classes of people own everything, then who is free? Jefferson wrote in the Declaration that men had the right to life, liberty and PROPERTY which was later changed to the "pursuit (not the capture) of happiness".

3. Radical abolitionists (and there were abolitionists in the South as well) decided upon a course of encouraging servile insurrection among the slaves in the manner of Nat Turner's murderous revolt. When Southern representatives in Congress demanded that Northern states act against people who were advocating murder, the majority in the Congress either did not act or, in fact, supported the abolitionists. Needless to say, this got the Southern representatives more than a bit angry and made the issue of slavery into a very important one in the Congress.

4. Most people agreed that the institution of black slavery was dying despite the need for slaves in the deep South for the production of the South's cash crops, cotton, sugar, rice and tobacco. However, as the federal government wanted the tax monies from the tariffs imposed upon the South's importation of goods from Europe (which were superior and cheaper than similar goods from the North), the government promised to keep slavery legal so as to entice the South to remain in the Union. Needless to say, it didn't work. The South could see the handwriting on the wall. The states coming into the Union were for the most part voting to forbid slavery within their borders. Of course, they also for the most part forbid blacks from moving into those states as well! Many such votes were the result of New England states sending men into states like Kansas to act as "citizens" and to vote for the state to be a "free state". Most of those "change agents" from New England settled in a town named Lawrence. If you remember, Confederate partisan William Quantrill in response to atrocities committed against Southern sympathizers in Missouri and Kansas, struck Lawrence in retaliation. Unlike the Yankees, however, he limited his killing to men old enough to take up arms. Women, children and the old were spared. Can't say the same for what the redlegs and jayhawkers did to peaceful Southern farmers.

No, slavery was very much at the heart of the controversy that led to war, but certainly the matter could have been settled without war and absolutely the federal government had no right - constitutional, ethical or moral - to wage war on the people who wished to be freed from the old Union. Anyone who says differently is obviously one who holds no belief in a government of laws, but gives allegiance to a government of men.

Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
gpthelastrebel, Tue Feb 24 2009, 04:46PM

Lady Val,

Slavery was one issue of secession. Secession only led to the war as disputes rose over the ownership of Federal property and the breaking of an existing treaty. I am speaking of the actual beginning of the war at Fort Sumter. Major Anderson's move did not free any slave, Genl. Beauregard's action did not imprison any slave since he was only protecting Charleston from and aggressive force. Slavery was not an issue until Lincoln issued the EP. It has been said that a person could go back to the magna carter or the birth of Christ and connect any event to the war they chose to. I would suppose that is correct since our nation was formed partly on the Magna Carter and the bible.

GP


Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
Lady Val, Tue Feb 24 2009, 08:33PM

Ah, you were speaking of the "first shot" scenario which was orchestrated by Lincoln and, actually, before him by Winfield Scott while Buchanan was still in office.

I was speaking of the general causes of secession of which slavery was but one - but an important one for all of that.

Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
Lady Val, Tue Feb 24 2009, 08:36PM

Forgot the danged attachments! If I had a brain, I'd be dangerous as my mother used to say!
lincoln__fort_sumter.doc
fort_moultrie.doc

Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
gpthelastrebel, Tue Feb 24 2009, 08:53PM



Now we are on the same page. LOL LOL LOL

Everyone wants to say slavery was the cause and try to connect all of the little dots to make it so. Few realize the answer is right in front of their face.

BTW someplace I have other documents that verify what you posted as attachments. Also to be noted is Genl. Alexendar Porters "Fighting For The Confederacy" in which he states Anderson and crew were drawing supplies from Charleston. I did not see that in your notes, did I over look it?

GP


Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
Lady Val, Wed Feb 25 2009, 01:22AM

I'm not too sure. I remember that in one place on SOME piece I had it mentioned that Lincoln's lie about the men in Sumter "starving" was nonsense since they were regularly supplied by the merchants of Charleston, but I don't know if it was in either of the pieces I gave you. It was a piece of propaganda, of course, used to drum up support for the war the Lincoln would have no matter what.

Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
Lady Val, Wed Feb 25 2009, 01:25AM

It was in the piece I gave you about Lincoln & Sumter:

In a strategy later used by the propagandists of such notaries as Stalin and Hitler, Lincoln then began leaking stories to supportive Northern newspapers that the Federal troops at Fort Sumter were near starvation and in desperate need of provisions. This, of course, was an outright lie and is refuted by the communications and records of Major Anderson himself. Additionally, the records reveal that the merchants in Charleston were daily selling foodstuffs to the garrison at Fort Sumter. Nonetheless, Lincoln's ploy worked and there was outrage in the North over the mistreatment by South Carolina of the troops at Fort Sumter. The President knew he would need Northern public opinion behind him to engage in a war with the South but that the prevailing opinion of the time had shown to be just the opposite. So, in point of fact, Lincoln needed a cause celeb, a perceived “criminal act” committed by the South against the Union to outrage the public and change the prevailing opinion. Therefore, he ordered a force of three warships to Charleston to reinforce Sumter with an estimated date of arrival of April 15th. This action left President Jefferson Davis in a quandary. Through reports from his own people he was aware of all this activity by Lincoln and he wanted to avoid being goaded into a position where the South fired the first shot which, of course, was exactly what Lincoln wanted.

Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
gpthelastrebel, Wed Feb 25 2009, 12:40PM

I found it!! Thanks I read it it just didn't register. Now this fact is at least verified bytwo sources in this thread.

GP

Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
gpthelastrebel, Wed Feb 25 2009, 12:54PM

Val,

I noticed in the article that 3 ships of war were dispatched to Charleston. My good friend David Upton provided me with a list of all the ships in the armada sent to Charleston. It is plain to see these was no re-supply fleet.


GP
*************************************************

The following list embraces the names, with armaments and troops, of Lincoln's supply fleet dispatched from New York and Washington to Charleston harbor, for the relief of Fort Sumter:-

Vessels of War
Steam sloop-of-war Pawnee, Captain S. C. Rowan, 10 guns and 200 men. The Pawnee sailed from Washington, with sealed orders, on the morning of Saturday, April 6.
Steam sloop-of-war Powhatan, Captain E. D. Porter, 11 guns and 275 men. The Powhatan sailed from the Brookyln Navy Yard on Saturday afternoon April 6.
Revenue cutter Harriet Lane, Captain J. Faunce, 5 guns and 96 men. On Saturday, April 6, the Harriet Lane exchanged her revenue flag for the United States navy flag, denoting her transfer to the Government naval service, and sailed suddenly on last Monday morning, with sealed orders.

The Steam Transports
Atlantic, 358 troops, composed of Companies A and M of the Second artillery, Companies C and H of the Second infantry, and Company A of sappers and miners from West Point. The Atlantic sailed from the steam at 5 o'clock on Sunday morning last, April 7.
Baltic, 160 troops, composed of Companies C and D, recruits, from Governor's and Bedloe's islands. The Baltic sailed from Quarantine at 7o'clock on Tuesday morning last, April 9.
Illinois, 300 troops, composed of Companies B, E, F, G and H, and a detachment from Company D, all recruits from Governor's and Bedloe's Islands, together with two companies of the Second infantry, from Fort Hamilton. The Illinois sailed from Quarantine on Tuesday morning at 6 o'clock.

The Steamtugs
Two steamtugs, with a Government official on each, bearing sealed dispatches, were also sent. The Yankee left New York on Monday evening, 8th, and the Uncle Ben on Tuesday night.

The Launches
Nearly thirty of these boats-whose services are most useful in effecting a landing of troops over shoal water, and for attacking a discharging battery when covered with sand and gunny bags- have been taken out by the Powhatan and by the steam transports Atlantic, Baltic and Illinois.

Recapitulation
Vessels Guns Men
Sloop-of-war Pawnee 10 200
Sloop-of-war Powhatan 11 275
Cutter Harriet Lane 5 96
Steam Transport Atlantic 353
Steam Transport Baltic 160
Steam Transport Illinois 300
Steamtug Yankee Ordinary Crew
Steamtug Uncle Ben Ordinary Crew
Total number of vessels 8
Total number of guns (for marine service) 26
Total number of men and troops 1,380

It is understood that several transports are soon to be chartered, and dispatched to Charleston with troops and supplies.
________________________
Those ships that were assigned specifically to Charleston.
The ships assigned were the steam sloop-of-war USS Pawnee, steam sloop-of-war USS Powhatan, transporting motorized launches and about 300 sailors (secretly removed from the Charleston fleet to join in the forced reenforcement of Fort Pickens, Pensacola, Fla.), armed screw steamer USS Pochaontas, Revenue Cutter USS Harriet Lane, steamer Baltic transporting about 200 troops, composed of companies C and D of the 2nd U.S. Artillery, and three hired tug boats. The rest of the ships listed in the New York paper went to Pensacola.


(Research by David Upton)

Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
Lady Val, Wed Feb 25 2009, 08:04PM

I am not familiar with this information, though I'm sure that it has been "vetted". What I find fascinating is that General Winfield Scott sent "The Star of the West" to Sumter WHILE BUCHANAN WAS STILL PRESIDENT. In other words, Buchanan's administration had an accord with South Carolina which his own top general saw fit to dismiss. I don't remember when this happened (I'll have to find the book), but I seem to recall that it happened after Lincoln's election and that there might have been an agreement between Scott and the President elect. If that is true, then the matter is even more egregious since until Lincoln's inauguration, Buchanan remained the President of the United States with all that that entails.

Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
red house, Thu Feb 26 2009, 10:40AM

Assuming that you people here speak on behalf of the general sentiment and beliefs of the South and after reading your responses, Mr. GPthelastrebel, Ms. Lady Val, and Mr. 8milereb - I am left with the feeling that the Civil War (or "War Between the States" or "War for Southern Independence) - whatever you prefer, is one that has not come to any resolution, nor agreeable conclusion. In fact, anyone acquainted in the slightest with the historical account from either side knows that it continued well after Appomatox - and persisted well beyond the 12 years of military occupation that followed.


The Civil War persists to this day. I believe it is a war that is now being fought over the truth of our nation's historical narrative. And, as a PATRIOT – I promise to fight as tenaciously and stubbornly to preserve the facts and historical integrity of our Nation's documented story – as I will for the historical freedoms and opportunities that our nation offers us in our present day—to each and every-one of its people—of any and every religious or irreligious sect, and of course to any person of caucasian or of color.

Provided someone is willing to salute—without approbation or qualification—the United-Stars and Stripes that symbolize our collective rights of absolute freedom of expression—the right that our nation, and only our nation preserves... and—trusting that every thinking American man and woman acknowledges that, with our absolute First Amendment freedoms, comes a commitment to the tolerance of absolute-free expression... and—last but not least important; affirming that with this comes a responsibility to contribute a fully considerate rebuttal - or reaffirmation - of whatever ideas are expressed in the public discourse—with these few necessary conditions; I will welcome any and all of the above to our American discourse—and each and every contributor should also understand that I will not hesitate to exercise my own Constitutional Right to defend or disagree with the ideas of any who wish also to exercise their rights of expression.



And accordingly so; while I respect your rights to express your views—I will not silently abide by them and permit you all the last word on these matters of outstanding disagreement.

I have read (from LadyVal's 'lincoln__fort_sumter.doc' and from GPthelastrebels accts) of how President Lincoln apparently goaded the South into starting the war – by bombarding our countrymen held up at Fort Sumter with over 4000 shells fired on the besieged compound—(albeit to force surrender before reinforcements could arrive). I do not know the intricacies of the actual History of this event well enough to dispute these versions put forward by you all—AND—I must state that; neither do these details matter to me in the slightest—because to me, the fact no-less remains; that the Southern army of the 'confederate states' undertook the preemptive decision to FIRE UPON, if not—their-own—than those of; OUR–OWN COUNTRYMEN. One thing that was apparently absent from either LadyVal or 8milereb accounts, was that the commander of Fort Sumter, Maj. Robert Anderson, was a member of the United States Army – and, was in fact, a Southerner himself – he was a Kentucky planter whose sympathies clearly lay with the South—but whose loyalties and duty lay with the UNITED States of America—of which forces he Honorably served. He made this clear to his Southern 'confederate' countrymen, he appealed to his fellow Southerner's sense of honor and comradery – but all to little if any avail. As LadyVal's document says of Pearl Harbor; that "these attacks against the American flag were not as simple and straightforward as was believed by the public at the time"... it does not matter. Whatever the context of December 7, 1941—it does not matter to Americans anywhere. What matters is that we were attacked by a tyrannical power, and what matters is that we were stronger – and that we would stop at NOTHING to CRUSH THEM—completely and without apprehension. Similarly, it does not matter that American forces were based on the Islamic "holy-lands" of Saudi-Arabia or that we were enforcing a no-fly-zone over Northern and Southern Iraq or that the USA supported the Israelis as they occupied Palestinian territories and fought against Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon... none of that mattered one-bit – when alQaeda attacked NYC and the Pentagon and caused the plane full of AMERICANS to crash into cornfield in Pennsylvania. What mattered was that we wanted justice—and we demanded blood... and rightfully so. They not only attacked America—they attacked American-symbols, American-values, and American Citizens on American SOIL. The alQaeda Islamic holy-warriors just decided to disregard the entire history of our involvement in World War II, they ignored and dismissed the charred ruins of Nagasaki and Hiroshima and the incinerated remains of the once-prized industrialized Tokyo. And now, in this present day; we will never leave Afghanistan—not until; the Arab/alQaeda mujihadeen are ex⋅ter⋅mi⋅nated, and not until their once-proud taleban guardians are made humble and are submissive to our demands. We will continue to make them fear us us—just as we have made the once boastful fascist arab nationalists of Iraq cower in front of us – after they plotted an assassination of a former US head-of-state, and after they starved their own people under Int'l embargo instead of disarming before the US and the International community.

Saddam, and alQaeda, and Japan and Germany, and Spain, etc. etc – all failed to learn the lesson that Lincoln laid out before them. Once attacked—we assembled an army of millions—and willingly sacrificed over 360,000 Federal fightingmen to exact revenge for an attack against our countrymen—an act of betrayal against our Republic—that was brought about over the preservation of slavery. Slav⋅er⋅y—not 'state's rights', nor tariffs; but slavery. As Lady Val (who appears to know the history as well as I or any other) will – and has attested; it was slavery that divided the states, and it was the "insult" to 'Southern honor'—that made them protest and threaten secession if-or-when California was admitted as a 'free-state' (with its "illegally" drafted and agreed upon state constitution). It was the South that not only objected to the Wilmot Proviso—but which even rallied against the principle of 'popular-sovereignty' (aka; "squatter sovereignty")—insisting instead that any–and–all states that lay south of the 36°30' Missouri-Compromise line be admitted to the Union only as slave-states. In fact, everyone who knows the History knows that the 1850 Compromises most likely would not have appeased the South—if not for the eminently timely death of President Zachary Taylor—(who against the South's wishes – favored the state's-rights principle of 'popular sovereignty')—and the ascendancy of Millard Fillmore – who helped delay the secession of Southern states by promising stronger commitments in upholding the 1850 fugitive-slave return statute, and by supporting the admittance of New Mexico and Utah as states one the condition that slavery would not be proscribed from them.



Madame Val; whilst I trace most of my roots to my New England Scots-Irish immigrant heritage—which predates our Seven-Years war with France, my Grandfather (of three prior generations/grates) – was nonetheless a man of Southern Heritages. Tho (to my knowledge) he was not from Kansas or Missouri—but rather from Louisiana; born of one-quarter Seminole-American Indian/one-quarter Yoruba African/and one-half Dutch – he was – like his northern kin; 100 percent AMERICAN, and a Patriot. My Grandmother referred to him fondly as a 'Jay-Hawk' and on top his dresser cabinet my father proudly displays his 11-inch "tennessee-toothpick" – that was used to sever the ears off of many a CSA east-tennessean – who took up arms to preserve an archaic–aristocratic order which kept enslaved over four million human-beings and in doing so deprived the common free-man of waged-labor or upward economic mobility.

Now, someday that bowie-knife will be mine; but until then—I am happy to wave my Flag and defend my freedoms and purpose—with knowledge and common sense (and with force of arms if need be).



God bless the land of much media bias and of much more free-speech for all. God bless the land where we can wave or burn our most sacred of symbols—including the; Star-&-Stripes and/or the Stars-&-Bars. God keep our Separation of State and Church strong and healthy—keep our land free of monarchy and free of any official-Nat'l "Church-of-State" and may Providence keep our prisons and courts free of 'hate-speech' criminals - who dare to question the Nazi–'Holocaust' or dispute the "Armenian genocide" – AND I pray we remain the land where our jails and detention halls are kept 'free' of those who disrespectfully salute the St. Andrews cross studded with her 13 stars—rather than, or in addition to—our Nation's Glorious Etats-Unis of Fifty of the freest, most industrious and enlightened—and most United–States of any Republic on this Earth.




God-bless y'all... and Amen.



(I deem the caption on the photo not appropriate for either the photo or this website.)

George Purvis
Website Admin.

Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
gpthelastrebel, Thu Feb 26 2009, 02:12PM



I can ask David what is exact source is. I do know that he often uses the Ors (Official Records) for his research, in fact he is the best person I know doing lookups in the Ors.

GP


Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
gpthelastrebel, Thu Feb 26 2009, 04:25PM

Red House I am going to address your remarks one at a time you will see what you wrote and my response in bold.





Assuming that you people here speak on behalf of the general sentiment and beliefs of the South and after reading your responses, Mr. GPthelastrebel, Ms. Lady Val, and Mr. 8milereb - I am left with the feeling that the Civil War (or "War Between the States" or "War for Southern Independence) - whatever you prefer, is one that has not come to any resolution, nor agreeable conclusion. In fact, anyone acquainted in the slightest with the historical account from either side knows that it continued well after Appomattox - and persisted well beyond the 12 years of military occupation that followed.

First of all we are not “you people” we have extended every courtesy to you and we only asked that you be civil with no snide remarks. You are failing that simple task. You can either address us by name, SHAPE members, or Sirs and Madam or anything in an appropriate manner. In addition I believe that each and everyone of us is quite familiar with the War For Southern independence, this should be evident to you by the facts we have been posting. This war is still going on today as the South and our culture is under constant attack, as evident by your posts.

The Civil War persists to this day. I believe it is a war that is now being fought over the truth of our nation's historical narrative. And, as a PATRIOT – I promise to fight as tenaciously and stubbornly to preserve the facts and historical integrity of our Nation's documented story – as I will for the historical freedoms and opportunities that our nation offers us in our present day—to each and every-one of its people—of any and every religious or irreligious sect, and of course to any person of Caucasian or of color.

If that is your stance, quit ranting and post some facts. We welcome all civil and factual exchanges. Why bring race into the discussion?I think we all know there are many people of different races, creeds and colors here in the United States.

Provided someone is willing to salute—without approbation or qualification—the United-Stars and Stripes that symbolize our collective rights of absolute freedom of expression—the right that our nation, and only our nation preserves... and—trusting that every thinking American man and woman acknowledges that, with our absolute First Amendment freedoms, comes a commitment to the tolerance of absolute-free expression... and—last but not least important; affirming that with this comes a responsibility to contribute a fully considerate rebuttal - or reaffirmation - of whatever ideas are expressed in the public discourse—with these few necessary conditions; I will welcome any and all of the above to our American discourse—and each and every contributor should also understand that I will not hesitate to exercise my own Constitutional Right to defend or disagree with the ideas of any who wish also to exercise their rights of expression.

We do not have absolute freedom of expression, why do you think we do? I gave you some examples of how our freedom is speech is regulated yet you persist in this line of discussion. Here are a couple of links that prove my point –

http://www.whnt.com/news/sns-ap-al--mayor-comments,0,483009.story

http://www.georgiaheritagecouncil.org/site2/commentary/dean-hatebills022509.phtml

http://www.dcexaminer.com/local/Maryland-state-song-may--lose-the-Northern-scum-40003982.html

These are just 3 quick samples of how our freedom of speech is regulated. Also you may or may not remember Howard Cosell was fired because of his comments so was Inmus. You can also add to this list the TV shows Amos and Andy, Buckwheat of the “Little Rascals’” the movie “Song of the South”, Dixie, and I also understand Suwanee River the state song of Florida is under attack, as well as the Florida SCV being denied a SCV tag. It actually seems to me that is this category you actually have no idea what you are talking about. And what about the cartoon in New York Post??

And accordingly so; while I respect your rights to express your views—I will not silently abide by them and permit you all the last word on these matters of outstanding disagreement.

Let me put this in the proper perspective for you -- We really do not care if you respect our rights or not. As to getting the last word, that sounds like a threat to me and rest assured that depends on the facts you post and your attitude. We extended our hospitality to you, you want to abuse the privilege and take advantage of this extended courtesy. We can just as easily take away this hospitality and your welcome and have the last word in the matter . It is up to you. What you will do is you will not come here rant and rave, disrupt this board, use snide remarks and insult our intelligence. You are welcome to post your opinions which disagree with us if they are backed by fact. I have a good idea who you are and how you got here, it is obvious you didn’t just discover this board by running a goggle search. If needed I can cross reference IP addresses and be certain. THIS IS THE ONLY WARNING YOU WILL GET.

I have read (from LadyVal's 'lincoln__fort_sumter.doc' and from GPthelastrebels accts) of how President Lincoln apparently goaded the South into starting the war – by bombarding our countrymen held up at Fort Sumter with over 4000 shells fired on the besieged compound—(albeit to force surrender before reinforcements could arrive). I do not know the intricacies of the actual History of this event well enough to dispute these versions put forward by you all—AND—I must state that; neither do these details matter to me in the slightest—because to me, the fact no-less remains; that the Southern army of the 'confederate states' undertook the preemptive decision to FIRE UPON, if not—their-own—than those of; OUR–OWN COUNTRYMEN. One thing that was apparently absent from either LadyVal or 8milereb accounts, was that the commander of Fort Sumter, Maj. Robert Anderson, was a member of the United States Army – and, was in fact, a Southerner himself – he was a Kentucky planter whose sympathies clearly lay with the South—but whose loyalties and duty lay with the UNITED States of America—of which forces he Honorably served. He made this clear to his Southern 'confederate' countrymen, he appealed to his fellow Southerner's sense of honor and comradery – but all to little if any avail. As LadyVal's document says of Pearl Harbor ; that "these attacks against the American flag were not as simple and straightforward as was believed by the public at the time"... it does not matter. Whatever the context of December 7, 1941—it does not matter to Americans anywhere. What matters is that we were attacked by a tyrannical power, and what matters is that we were stronger – and that we would stop at NOTHING to CRUSH THEM—completely and without apprehension. Similarly, it does not matter that American forces were based on the Islamic "holy-lands" of Saudi-Arabia or that we were enforcing a no-fly-zone over Northern and Southern Iraq or that the USA supported the Israelis as they occupied Palestinian territories and fought against Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon... none of that mattered one-bit – when alQaeda attacked NYC and the Pentagon and caused the plane full of AMERICANS to crash into cornfield in Pennsylvania. What mattered was that we wanted justice—and we demanded blood... and rightfully so. They not only attacked America —they attacked American-symbols, American-values, and American Citizens on American SOIL. The alQaeda Islamic holy-warriors just decided to disregard the entire history of our involvement in World War II, they ignored and dismissed the charred ruins of Nagasaki and Hiroshima and the incinerated remains of the once-prized industrialized Tokyo . And now, in this present day; we will never leave Afghanistan —not until; the Arab/alQaeda mujihadeen are ex⋅ter⋅mi⋅nated, and not until their once-proud taleban guardians are made humble and are submissive to our demands. We will continue to make them fear us us—just as we have made the once boastful fascist arab nationalists of Iraq cower in front of us – after they plotted an assassination of a former US head-of-state, and after they starved their own people under Int'l embargo instead of disarming before the US and the International community.

Well there is your problem you do not care about the historical fact—thank you for making that clear. You are free to wallow in your own ignorance or prove us wrong. Either way doesn’t matter to me you have just put on public display the sentiment of most Northern supporters who would argue the start of the war. Good job. Just to show you how ignorant of facts you are you suggest we should fire own our own. How absurd, we are not the army of the North killing our own people such as was done at “The Crater>” Don’t tell me about firing on ”our countrymen” when in another post you were defending the actions of war criminals like Sherman and Butler . Good effort in trying to twist the fact that the United States made the first aggressive move. The Confederate states did the right thing and defended their homes against an invader who actions are no more honorable than those who have fought in later wars against us. Now you want to rant and rave about the military, I suggest you do a little research and you will find the United States military is rationally made up mostly of Southerners.

Saddam, and alQaeda, and Japan and Germany , and Spain , etc. etc – all failed to learn the lesson that Lincoln laid out before them. Once attacked—we assembled an army of millions—and willingly sacrificed over 360,000 Federal fightingmen to exact revenge for an attack against our countrymen—an act of betrayal against our Republic—that was brought about over the preservation of slavery. Slav⋅er⋅y—not 'state's rights', nor tariffs; but slavery. As Lady Val (who appears to know the history as well as I or any other) will – and has attested; it was slavery that divided the states, and it was the "insult" to 'Southern honor'—that made them protest and threaten secession if-or-when California was admitted as a 'free-state' (with its "illegally" drafted and agreed upon state constitution). It was the South that not only objected to the Wilmot Proviso—but which even rallied against the principle of 'popular-sovereignty' (aka; "squatter sovereignty")—insisting instead that any–and–all states that lay south of the 36°30' Missouri-Compromise line be admitted to the Union only as slave-states. In fact, everyone who knows the History knows that the 1850 Compromises most likely would not have appeased the South—if not for the eminently timely death of President Zachary Taylor—(who against the South's wishes – favored the state's-rights principle of 'popular sovereignty')—and the ascendancy of Millard Fillmore – who helped delay the secession of Southern states by promising stronger commitments in upholding the 1850 fugitive-slave return statute, and by supporting the admittance of New Mexico and Utah as states one the condition that slavery would not be proscribed from them.


I read farther down this post and I see why you are so set to prove that everything thing was about slavery and why you are so against. the South, your opinions are race based. Not only does your argument lack the basis of fact, you are determined to twist the truth and force misinformation on the casual reader. First of all slavery was a reason for secession, not the whole cause of the war or every wrong that has happened since. Val and I have provided documents to attests to the fact, second the Crittenden Resolution says the war was not about slavery, third no Union state declared slavery as a cause for going to war, fourth West Virginia was admitted as a slave state, and fifth slavery as the cause of the war was not admitted as part of the language of the recent slavery apology by the House of representatives. The war was fought solely over the aggressive actions of Major Anderson and Lincoln. Bring some actual fact to the table to prove me wrong.

Madame Val; whilst I trace most of my roots to my New England Scots-Irish immigrant heritage—which predates our Seven-Years war with France, my Grandfather (of three prior generations/grates) – was nonetheless a man of Southern Heritages. Tho (to my knowledge) he was not from Kansas or Missouri—but rather from Louisiana; born of one-quarter Seminole-American Indian/one-quarter Yoruba African/and one-half Dutch – he was – like his northern kin; 100 percent AMERICAN, and a Patriot. My Grandmother referred to him fondly as a 'Jay-Hawk' and on top his dresser cabinet my father proudly displays his 11-inch "tennessee-toothpick" – that was used to sever the ears off of many a CSA east-tennessean – who took up arms to preserve an archaic–aristocratic order which kept enslaved over four million human-beings and in doing so deprived the common free-man of waged-labor or upward economic mobility.

So your folks came over here before the 7 Years War!! Mine were here before Bacon’s Rebellion and in fact took part in that rebellion!! You can brag about what you grandfather did but facts are more Union men were killed by the vastly outnumbered Southerners and it is also a fact that more Union men deserted their posts. I do believe the Union holds the record for more civilian men, women and children killed, more pillaging, and more men dieing in the concentration camps of the North. The same army you think was fighting to free the slaves are also responsible for the massacre of thousands of Native Americans. Oh yes you forgot to mention poverty is still in existence today, look around at the projects and tell me it is not. Tell me we are not a near welfare state. A slave had everything given to him; it was equal compensation for work performed. That in itself is more security than most people enjoy today.

Now, someday that bowie-knife will be mine; but until then—I am happy to wave my Flag and defend my freedoms and purpose—with knowledge and common sense (and with force of arms if need be).

God bless the land of much media bias and of much more free-speech for all. God bless the land where we can wave or burn our most sacred of symbols—including the; Star-&-Stripes and/or the Stars-&-Bars. God keep our Separation of State and Church strong and healthy—keep our land free of monarchy and free of any official-Nat'l "Church-of-State" and may Providence keep our prisons and courts free of 'hate-speech' criminals - who dare to question the Nazi–'Holocaust' or dispute the "Armenian genocide" – AND I pray we remain the land where our jails and detention halls are kept 'free' of those who disrespectfully salute the St. Andrews cross studded with her 13 stars—rather than, or in addition to—our Nation's Glorious Etats-Unis of Fifty of the freest, most industrious and enlightened—and most United–States of any Republic on this Earth.

Can you describe The Stars and Bars for me?

I have seen this tactic many time, you are not the first to use it, you are hiding behind the cloak of patriotism to disguise you own biased opinion, your racism and your one sided views. I’ll give you credit you may know a good bit about history, but your try totwist and turn the facts to match you own views and agenda while offering no historical facts as in your argument. In fact I remind you said you didn’t care about fact.


I have taken the time to address each and every point you made. I will say again, and do be very careful how you respond -- You may disagree with us in a factual response if you chose, however I WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY RANTS AND RAVES ON THIS WEBSITE. One more time and you will be banned.


God-bless y'all... and Amen.

Have a Dixie Day.

George Purvis
Site Admin.

Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
Lady Val, Thu Feb 26 2009, 09:51PM

In the 19th Century, Americans developed a particular viewpoint called "American exceptionalism", the belief that somehow Americans were morally superior to other people. This invidious and malignant ideology originated in the North and eventually led that section of the nation to believe that it's moral superiority gave it the right to destroy the South and its people when they apparently refused to accept Yankee rule. The genocide Sherman pointed this out clearly in a letter to his friend Sawyer in which he said:

"The War which now prevails in our land is essentially a war of Races(*). The Southern People entered into a clear Compact of Government with us of the North, but still maintained through State organizations a species of separate existence with separate interests, history and prejudices. These latter became stronger and stronger till at last they have led to war, . . . We of the North are beyond all question right in our cause but we are not bound to ignore the fact that the people of the South have prejudices which form a part of their nature, and which they cannot throw off without an effort of reason, or by the slower process of natural change. The question then arises Should we treat as absolute enemies all in the South who differ from us in opinion or prejudice, kill or banish them, or should we give them time to think and gradually change their conduct, so as to conform to the new order of things which is slowly & gradually creeping into their country?" (*by "race", Sherman meant the difference between the philosophy of those in the North and South, not differences in color; the people of the North were one "race", the people of the South, another.)

Sherman was an ideologue who worshiped the US Government and the Yankee nation. He would welcome back into the fold all who submitted and burned incense at the altar of the Union, but he was prepared to murder every man, woman and child who refused to bow the knee to Washington! And that is the prevailing sentiment that exists today, the only difference being that the Washington of today - a tyranny of centralized power at the expense of our God-granted liberties - is the natural result of the Washington Sherman worshiped.

By all means let us pick up the banner of freedom once again (and that banner is the Stars and Bars, not the Stars and Stripes) while a few precious moments remain for us to do so. The shroud of slavery descends upon us all - white, black and all others as well. I will pledge my allegiance to the last Republic that existed on these shores - the Confederate States of America. For though it was overcome by the might of a despotic "Union" and forcibly returned to live under a government its people totally rejected, the Confederacy never surrendered! The undercurrent of its people's desire for freedom was never wholly extinguished and as the times grow more tyrannous, it begins to rise, like a phoenix, from the ashes of defeat - as Jefferson Davis once predicted would be the case. Deo Vindice.

Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
red house, Thu Feb 26 2009, 10:10PM

gpthelastrebel:

Red House I am going to address your remarks one at a time you will see what you wrote and my response in bold.


Thank you.




First of all we are not “you people” we have extended every courtesy to you and we only asked that you be civil with no snide remarks. You are failing that simple task. You can either address us by name, SHAPE members, or Sirs and Madam or anything in an appropriate manner. In addition I believe that each and everyone of us is quite familiar with the War For Southern independence, this should be evident to you by the facts we have been posting. This war is still going on today as the South and our culture is under constant attack, as evident by your posts


My genuine apologies for that remark - if the grammar of what I said was taken in a crude or crass manner. You are right, I would have been better to type 'the people here' (rather than "you people...")


And yes sir, as to your second point, we are very much in agreement—and unapologetically so.

The manner you currently feel about your 'culture and heritage' coming under attack, is probably indistinguishable from the manner I feel that my country's historical narrative is being mishandled by way of misrepresentation and false accusations—to the detriment of the integrity of the people who shaped it to give rise to our shared realities of the present day. One can not be a Patriot or appreciate their Nation for what it is—without some understanding of its story. I feel it is a knowledge that is shared by too few—and so of course I resent and will defend that precious knowledge against any whom I feel is doing it an injustice. (Just as you would, and just as you are presently doing vis-a-vis your own understanding of it).





If that is your stance, quit ranting and post some facts. We welcome all civil and factual exchanges. Why bring race into the discussion? I think we all know there are many people of different races, creeds and colors here in the United States.


It was not my intent to bring my race (or my religion for that matter) into the discussion, and nor was it my intent to avoid any mention of it either. This is the internet after all, I reserve (or try to at least) my filter of political-correctness and self-censorship for my tyrades and discussions within the work-place, and of course, I try to remove all pretense of it when engaged in any serious discourse in a public forum (such as this one).







We do not have absolute freedom of expression, why do you think we do? I gave you some examples of how our freedom is speech is regulated yet you persist in this line of discussion. Here are a couple of links that prove my point –



http://www.whnt.com/news/sns-ap-al--mayor-comments,0,483009.story


With freedom – comes responsibility. This man had every 'right' to say what he did—and there is no law to prevent him from doing so, as did the protesters that took offense to his sentiments. He was an 'elected' official—perhaps he should have been more politically astute to the opinions of his constituents and held his tongue—or maybe his cause was best served by him becoming a 'martyr'. Either way, that we have certain absolute freedoms – does not mean that there are not going to consequences for how we exercise them. Just ask the Imus-in-the-Morning guy; he freely spoke a few ill-advised utterances, and many of his sponsors and commercial backers just as freely dropped him or refused to extend their contract.



http://www.georgiaheritagecouncil.org/site2/commentary/dean-hatebills022509.phtml

**@ 1:00–2:00 minutes into the video:

"...the David Ray Hate Crimes Convention Act of 2009 HR 256:

[provision] a. Whoever commits an offense against the United States, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable, as a principle.

What does this really mean? A talk show host, writer, Pastor, or even person on the street, can go to prison—if he repeats the Bible's counsel—that homosexuality is "AN ABOMINATION" to God. If an unstable person hears that counsel, and then attacks a homosexual, the Pastor or talk-show host can be tried as a federal 'HATE CRIMINAL'."


Is the above statement not a rather incredible leap of logic? The principle of free-speech obviously does not extend to coercive threats or acts of intimidation—precisely because threats of violence and intimidation are intended to forcefully stifle and oppress free expression (just ask novelist Salman Rushdie – the man who was on the receiving end of Khomeini's death fatwa, and who was forced to disappear from the public life and go "underground" for over a decade as a consequence).


Contrary to what that man said, we are not Canada. Yes, w have "hate crime" laws that proscribe and punish acts of violence—or a clear and direct incitement thereof; but unlike Canada and all of europe and the UK—we do not have laws to proscribe acts of "hate speech" – and the very concept of a "hate-speech crime" is alien to our political and national culture. We are the only nation on earth where our First-Amendment rights are enshrined above all others. The First Amendment is our national-religion, and the moment that any law maker or Supreme court Judge attempts to legislate away that freedom—I and many others like me will take to the streets and demand, debate, and delegitimize them until they've resigned from office (at which point they can take all the time they need to 'reconsider' of their own priorities).



http://www.dcexaminer.com/local/Maryland-state-song-may--lose-the-Northern-scum-40003982.html

Del. Jolene Ivey, D-Prince George’s, a co-sponsor of the bill, said she “understand[s] the role that the Confederacy played in the history of Maryland, [but] it’s time to no longer glorify that in our state song.”


I agree with this congressman's opinion that such overtly partisan themes should not be 'glorified' at taxpayer expense within Publicly funded institutions (like Public schools). However, I would strongly take issue with any public official who wished to omit the song or white-wash its historical context from the educational curriculum. Their past is theirs to own and learn from, and that should apply to both the proud aspects as well as the unpleasant parts.


These are just 3 quick sample s of how our freedom of speech is regulated. Also you may or may not remember Howard Cosell was fired because of his comments so was Inmus. You can also add to this list the TV shows Amos and Andy, Buckwheat of the “Little Rascals’” the movie “Song of the South”, Dixie, and I also understand Suwanee River the state song of Florida is under attack, as well as the Florida SCV being denied a SCV tag. It actually seems to me that is this category you actually have no idea what you are talking about. And what about the cartoon in New York Post??


Yes, there are federally enforced "decency standards" on language and gratuitous violence and sexuality for our publicly received broadcasts of the prime-time networks. There are laws governing certain channels of our AM and FM, UHF and VHF broadcasts—and without this coordination these modes of communication would be rendered nearly useless by all the interference of competing broadcasts along the same or similar frequencies. However anyone is free to purchase time on their own private-access station (i.e. cable) or transmit freely within a certain wattage (like HAM radio) so long as it does not excessively interfere with commercial broadcasts.

We are however, free to convey and contribute our spoken word, print, or imagery to distribute our ideas and critiques of anyone or anything – in a public forum. Words and ideas will always bring consequences (that
s the idea) - but when conveyed in the public domain, they should not, and in so far as I know – are not restricted by government. We should never confuse American freedoms with those of Iran, or Canada, or Austria or the UK. Unlike the UK, we do not have a national church – nor do we have blasphemy laws to protect it from criticism or slander, and unlike Austria and Canada we are not forbidden from openly disputing historical events like the Holocaust or the Armenian genocide. And we are not prohibited from condemning homosexuality—nor are we prohibited from condemning those who condemn such behaviors. Compared to countries like the Netherlands or Canada, America is crystal clear on the concept and virtues of preserving our freedoms-of-expression, we are not a nanny-state where 'tolerance' is legislated for the "public good"... And until it is otherwise demonstrated—I will continue to reject any assertion to the contrary.








Let me put this in the proper perspective for you -- We really do not care if you respect our rights or not. We extended our hospitality to you, you want to abuse the privilege and take advantage of this extended courtesy. We can just as easily take away this hospitality and your welcome...



Good. I do not expect or demand that you "respect" my point-of-view or my convictions, nor would I want to wield that kind of power and authority over you or anyone else to force those upon you. And I do appreciate your hospitality and your willingness to allow me to express them, and I recognize that this is a 'private' forum—and not a public "free-speech zone." I am permitted to participate here on this forum – only to the extent of your willingness to allow me to.

And I also appreciate the opportunity to expose my-self to your views and beliefs, though—I would object in equal measure that I be made to confer a pretentious offer of "respect" or recognition of them as being valid – simply because of the popular consensus and povs that are most commonly shared here. In other words; I will not change my views - simply to suit your own, nor would I ever expect or demand the same from you.






Well there is your problem you do not care about the historical fact—thank you for making that clear. You are free to wallow in your own ignorance or prove us wrong. Either way doesn’t matter to me you have just put on public display the sentiment of most Northern supporters who would argue the start of the war. Good job. Just to show you how ignorant of facts you are you suggest we should fire own our own. How absurd, we are not the army of the North killing our own people such as was done at “The Crater>” Don’t tell me about firing on ”our countrymen” when in another post you were defending the actions of war criminals like Sherman and Butler . Good effort in trying to twist the fact that the United States made the first aggressive move. The Confederate states did the right thing and defended their homes against an invader who actions are no more honorable than those who have fought in later wars against us. Now you want to rant and rave about the military, I suggest you do a little research and you will find the United States military is rationally made up mostly of Southerners.


I acknowledge that thanks to LadyVal's attached documents that she included and the details that you and others have shared—and because of this I now know more of the events leading up to what took place at Fort Sumter, and I am certainly not any worse off for knowing more about these things. However, I have stated already why I am unmoved by them. Where I live – in Cambridge Massachusetts – there are many scholarly "intellectuals" like Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn who time and again—without fail will find some "valid" chain-of-logic that seeks to blame the events of September 11th or December 7th, 1941 on some misguided actions or policies of my country. And I do not dispute the facts or the logic of such people or their claims – because they are simply unmoving to me and unworthy of response – in that they insult both my own world-view and those of my country. To me, it doesn't matter at all what the rational was or is that caused a hostile party to knowingly attack my country—what matters to me is that they acted impudently and aggressively against a much more powerful adversary that time-and-again has shown itself willing and ready to retaliate against any military assault or violent provocation.

I do not regret the actions of FDR or GWB, I feel no need to 'excuse' or justify what took place in Afghanistan or Iraq following the events of September 11—anymore than I do the events of Nagasaki or Dresden during WW2. And I do not harbor any contempt or enmity against the German and Japanese people for what took place in the past—with the sole exception of those among them who try and rewrite or revise what took place in a manner that is disingenuous or unjust and incomplete. The only Germans and Japanese I would take exception with are those who try to dispute the Holocaust or those who would make excuses for the kinds of animalistic behaviors that were perpetrated against the people of Indochina - by the occupying forces of the imperial Japanese. My sentiments are likewise for my Southern Compatriots; I take no issue with any among them who salutes our National ensign without apprehension and who appreciates what the values and sacrifice of what it represents; but you can hopefully at least understand why I take or any other might receive considerable offense at the displays that make tribute to the Confederate battle-flag... Some symbols are just powerful that way, and yes; they can, and obviously do represent different things to different people.




I read farther down this post and I see why you are so set to prove the very thing was about slavery and why you are so against. Not only does your argument lack the basis of fact, you are determined to twist the truth and force misinformation on the casual reader. First of all slavery was a reason for secession, not the whole cause. Val and I have provided documents to attests to the fact, second the Crittenden Resolution says the war was not about slavery, third no Union state declared slavery as a cause for going to war, fourth West Virginia was admitted as a slave state, and fifth slavery as the cause of the war was not admitted as part of the language of the recent slavery apology by the House of representatives. The war was fought solely over the aggressive actions of Major Anderson and Lincoln. Bring some actual fact to the table to prove me wrong.


Well yes, there is obviously much we can disagree on, though; there is also the possibility for some common ground as well. I think we will forever be at loggerheads about who 'started' the war. To me and probably to the majority of people residing outside the former Confederate states in the South, the preemptive shelling of over 4,000 projectiles directed at federal soldiers occupying a federal compound – is for me; an open-enough act of hostility to constitute a flagrant act of war. I understand that many folks in the South maintain that it was their Constitutional 'right' to secede and declare themselves a sovereign and independent republic from the Union—and believe henceforth that Maj. Anderson and his men had no right to occupy that compound after December the 20th when South Carolina declared its own independence. I will concede to you that Maj Anderson and his men may well have been infringing on the sovereignty of a separate and foreign nation at that point; but I do not acknowledge that it was our 'obligation' to respect the autonomy of this newly proclaimed republic nor should we have legitimated its motivations for declaring itself an separate and independent entity. As a nation we are under no obligation to acknowledge any sovereign or foreign power as 'legitimate' - if it is not deemed in our National interests to do so. We undertook no obligation to recognize and legitimize Saddam Hussein's regime, nor Khomeini's Islamic Republic, nor the Vichy government in France, nor Jefferson Davis's government and his authority over the CSA. Likewise, the newly convened CSA saw no need to respect or recognize the autonomy and independence of the states of Kentucky or Missouri – when these two states were 'officially' annexed by the Confederate congress in 1861.


I'm not sure I understand what you have been referring to with regards to the Crittenden Compromise (about it not being about slavery) or its connection to the 'war' that followed. We can both agree (hopefully) that the war was prosecuted by the Federal side first and foremost for the purposes of restoring the Union. And since the issue of slavery was the sole cause of that rupture (as is evident from Stephen's "cornerstone speech", the Crittenden compromise, and the proposals of the 1861 "Washington Peace Conference") – it follows that bringing about its permanent abolition became a necessity for accomplishing the aims of the war effort – and was necessary as well as to prevent any future secession movements from again arising over it.




[censored] you folks came over here before the 7 Years War!! Mine were here before Bacon’s rebellion and in fact took part in that rebellion!! You can brag about what you grandfather did but facts are more Union men were killed by the vastly outnumbered Southerners and it is also a fact that more Union men deserted their posts. I do believe the Union holds the record for more civilian men, women and children killed, more pillaging, and more men dieing in the concentration camps of the North. The same army you think was fighting to free the slaves are also responsible for the massacre of thousands of Native Americans. Oh yes you forgot to mention poverty is still in existence today, look around at the projects and tell me it is not. Tell me we are not a near welfare state. A slave had everything given to him; it was equal compensation for work performed. That in itself is more security than most people enjoy today.


I would rather be a ''wage-slave'' with individual rights and freedoms—than be someone else's property that is literally chained to a plantation or a place of residence, and deprived of any right to privacy by an all-entitled overseer with a bull-whip. I sincerely believe that even the most deprived and exploited "sweat shop" laborers in the developing-third world would also concur with this sentiment.

Just as the illegal trafficking of the women for the sex-trade industry demeans and ultimately devalues the humanity of both prostitute and pimp alike – so too does chattel slavery; it is an institution that degrades the human condition of the slave – and the slave-owner who asserts and presumes total dominion over them.



Can you describe The Stars and Bars for me?


Yes, I was and am referring to the Confederate Battle Ensign: a blue cross of St. Andrew - with 7 stars alining each arm - that are both draped across a backdrop of bright red. We are both referring to the same version of the same thing (I think).






I have seen this tactic many time, you are not the first to use it, you are hiding behind the cloak of patriotism to disguise you own biased opinion, your racism and your one sided views. I’ll give you credit you may know a good bit about history, but your try totwist and turn the facts to match you own views and agenda while offering no historical facts as in your argument. In fact I remind you said you didn’t care about fact.


I have taken the time to address each and every point you made. I will say again, and do be very careful how you respond -- You may disagree with us in a factual response if you chose, however I WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY RANTS AND RAVES ON THIS WEBSITE. One more time and you will be banned.


Have a Dixie Day.

George Purvis
Site Admin.




So noted. And thank you for this site and this discourse. As I mentioned, I have learned some new things from it and have gained some insight because of it.



A good day to you too.

Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
gpthelastrebel, Fri Feb 27 2009, 02:50PM


Val, Here are David's sources on Lincoln's "Supply Fleet. "I haven't went to the links yet, but will do so when time allows. As noted this was published in Northern newspapers. It would be amazing if Davis or no Confederates knew about this fleet. It is a clear intention of hostilities.

GP ********************************************************************************

The armament of each ship comes from the Naval Historical Center. I've posted list of the fleet and troops embarked from newspaper articles from the New York Times.

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9904E0DA1230E134BC4053DFB266838A679FDE

http://digitalnewspapers.libraries.psu.edu/Default/Skins/BasicArch/Client.asp?Skin=BasicArch&&AppName=2&enter=true&BaseHref=RCM/1861/04/08&EntityId=Ar00212

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9403EED81230E134BC4153DFB266838A679FDE http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9B02E0DA1230E134BC4053DFB266838A679FDE The New York Herald had this...

The following list embraces the names, with armaments and troops, of the fleet dispatched from New York and Washington to Charleston harbor, for the relief of Fort Sumter:-

Vessels of War Steam sloop-of-war Pawnee, Captain S. C. Rowan, 10 guns and 200 men. The Pawnee sailed from Washington, with sealed orders, on the morning of Saturday, April 6.

Steam sloop-of-war Powhatan, Captain E. D. Porter, 11 guns and 275 men. The Powhatan sailed from the Brookyln Navy Yard on Saturday afternoon April 6.

Revenue cutter Harriet Lane, Captain J. Faunce, 5 guns and 96 men. On Saturday, April 6, the Harriet Lane exchanged her revenue flag for the United States navy flag, denoting her transfer to the Government naval service, and sailed suddenly on last Monday morning, with sealed orders.

The Steam Transports Atlantic, 358 troops, composed of Companies A and M of the Second artillery, Companies C and H of the Second infantry, and Company A of sappers and miners from West Point. The Atlantic sailed from the steam at 5 o'clock on Sunday morning last, April 7. Baltic, 160 troops, composed of Companies C and D, recruits, from Governor's and Bedloe's islands.

The Baltic sailed from Quarantine at 7o'clock on Tuesday morning last, April 9. Illinois, 300 troops, composed of Companies B, E, F, G and H, and a detachment from Company D, all recruits from Governor's and Bedloe's Islands, together with two companies of the Second infantry, from Fort Hamilton.

The Illinois sailed from Quarantine on Tuesday morning at 6 o'clock. The Steamtugs Two steamtugs, with a Government official on each, bearing sealed dispatches, were also sent.

The Yankee left New York on Monday evening, 8th, and the Uncle Ben on Tuesday night. The Launches Nearly thirty of these boats-whose services are most useful in effecting a landing of troops over shoal water, and for attacking a discharging battery when covered with sand and gunny bags- have been taken out by the Powhatan and by the steam transports Atlantic, Baltic and Illinois.

Recapitulation
Vessels Guns Men Sloop-of-war Pawnee 10 200 Sloop-of-war Powhatan 11 275 Cutter Harriet Lane 5 96 Steam Transport Atlantic 353 Steam Transport Baltic 160 Steam Transport Illinois 300 Steamtug Yankee Ordinary Crew Steamtug Uncle Ben Ordinary Crew Total number of vessels 8 Total number of guns (for marine service) 26 Total number of men and troops 1,380 It is understood that several transports are soon to be chartered, and dispatched to Charleston with troops and supplies. Also, I just found a blurb from a Hartford Connecticut newspaper from early April 1861 that states "Davis telegraphed to Charleston not to fire on any vessels entering the harbor merely for supplying Fort Sumter with provisions", I need to find the whole paper.

David


Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
gpthelastrebel, Fri Feb 27 2009, 03:21PM

Redhouse now that we have the introductions behind us, let's get on with the business of posting historical fact. You are more than welcome to post your opinions based on historical fact, and in the context of history you may discuss any subject as long as it is discussed in an appropriate manner. One point I want to make perfectly clear, it is my obligation to protect you on this board as well everyone else. Also in the future I hope that this site and its contents can be allowed in schools as a historically accurate site. We do have a lot riding on our conduct in these forums.

That being said lets drop some of these subjects we have been brushing over and take one or two issues at a time. The reason the threads are just getting to long and unwieldy for my comfort and ease of replying.

As per your statement admitting that you did not know a lot about the Fort Sumter incident, I have no problem with that. You are at least opened minded enough to read what has been posted and have made comments. Rest assured none of here has any agenda except to promote anything other than the truth. That being said I would like to offer this website to visit and read. I'll admit I do not know who wrote it or for whom, but it will verify what Val and I have been saying. This is not as you would suspect a pro Confederate site, but instead in a National Parks site.

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/fosu/decision.pdf

The only thing I disagree with in this article is the fact they give Lincoln and Davis equal blame for the start of the war. I believe this shows that Davis actually made more effort to avoid war than Lincoln.

Do you read the other forums? We can post info to "General Discussions" if you like since some of these subjects are getting way off topic for this particular thread.

GP


Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
8milereb, Fri Feb 27 2009, 05:42PM

Bottom line here folks is the South wanted just to be left alone, without any war. Lincoln persisted as he knew that although secession was in fact legal as taught at WestPoint, he engaged the USA in an illegal war against another Nation, The C.S.A.

Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
red house, Sat Feb 28 2009, 01:57AM

8milereb wrote ...

Bottom line here folks is the South wanted just to be left alone, without any war. Lincoln persisted as he knew that although secession was in fact legal as taught at WestPoint, he engaged the USA in an illegal war against another Nation, The C.S.A.

Well, that's the thing with secessions; one may be constitutionally entitled to divorce and declare their own independence—but once you do; you become a foreign entity, and the question then becomes one of whether you are friend or foe, ally or adversary. And no amount of secessioning—no matter how finalized or complete—was going to remove the Southern States of the CSA from our borders; hence if we were incompatible neighbors – there was certain to be issues, a quarrel was bound to happen sooner, or later. Israel/Palestine; Jews and Arabs; North and South; Wage-labor and Slave-states = recipes for trouble and lots of hurt feelings.


I honestly feel it's best we got through the worst of it – sooner than later.

Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
Lady Val, Sat Feb 28 2009, 03:10AM

Now that is just plain nonsense!

If you read everything from Thomas Jefferson to Horace Greeley, the prevailing opinion of any breakup of the Union on both sides was that there should be good wishes sent to those wishing to depart the old compact and that both the old and new nations should and would live in peace in, perhaps even in the hope of eventual reunion! Indeed, such might well have been the case if the Union had allowed the Southern states to leave peacefully. Many in the South actually believed until the guns began to fire that they would be permitted to depart in peace so sure were they of their constitutional guarantees! Of course, they really had no idea of how obsolete Lincoln and the North considered the Constitution!

There was never a question that the South would be hostile to those states remaining in the Union. To begin with, what would be the point? The Confederate states simply wished to be left alone. It was the Union - and especially its commercial interests - that could not afford to let the South go in peace. For had the South established a separate nation, the Union knew that it would not buy goods from the North and because of mandated low tariffs, cheaper (and better) European goods would flow into the South, thus increasing its power and decreasing the profits made by Northern commercial interests supported by the Federal Government. As usual, if you follow the money, you find the reason for the war! My first post presented such an argument from a Northern source which makes perfectly clear that the North for reasons of money could not permit the South to secede and form its own nation.

To suggest that the Union would not permit secession because it feared a hostile neighbor on its borders smacks of gross ignorance or worse, intentional deceit. There is nothing in the writings of anyone - North or South - at the time that could lead to that conclusion.

And as for any suggestion that, well, it all might have been "for the best" no matter who was to blame and what was done, I think our present situation with an out of control tyranny in Washington clearly demonstrates that it wasn't "all for the best" and that had the South succeeded, maybe we would not only be one nation today without all the racial bitterness arising from Northern actions during reconstruction, but our personal liberties and the power of the sovereign states might still be intact - something which is certainly not the case today!

Oh, and it really would be nice, dear red house, if you addressed Sherman's quote about murdering men, women and children as a means of bringing them to heel at Washington's feet! How you can blithely ignore that seminal comment delineating the motives and actions of the Union in the person of one of its stellar "heroes" astounds me. Even if you said "I didn't know!" - because I sure in hell didn't until somebody presented me with it - I would be satisfied. But to just pretend it was never said and that that particular mindset did not exist in the Yankee North rather disqualifies all of your arguments regarding the "goodness" of the United States, don't you think? Or do you?

I am reminded of that verse in Innes Randolf's song, "I'm a Good Old Rebel" - "I hates the glorious Union, 'tis drippin' with our blood." Yes, it was - and still is because the nation (Union) still refuses to acknowledge the crimes and injustice perpetrated upon the South. In fact, quite the opposite! There remains a continuing effort to make the South and Southerners - then and now - into villains using the ever present "race card". There can be no "forgiveness" where there is no admission of guilt and the Union adamantly refuses to admit any such thing. Those defending the actions of Lincoln and his criminal cohorts simply repeat the same self-righteous and mendacious clap-trap that has been the standard Yankee response since 1861. Thank God it would seem that more and more Southerners are refusing to be made into the Empire's whipping boys.

Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
red house, Sat Feb 28 2009, 05:37AM

Now that is just plain nonsense!

If you read everything from Thomas Jefferson to Horace Greeley, the prevailing opinion of any breakup of the Union on both sides was that there should be good wishes sent to those wishing to depart the old compact and that both the old and new nations should and would live in peace in, perhaps even in the hope of eventual reunion!



Yes, it's funny you should mention Jefferson, as he was the living embodiment of these irreconcilable differences. He was obviously aware and forward thinking enough to recognize the glaring contradictions between the existing institution of chattel slavery and the values of the enlightenment and republican freedoms that are prescribed in our Bill of Rights—and he also knew as well as anybody that slavery was too profitable and culturally entrenched within the southern colonies for them to consider abandoning it (and that was four years before to the invention of the cotton gin).

I believe that the constitutional compact of 1789 was one that should not have been entered into by the Southern colonies to begin with. I think it is obvious in hindsight that New England, Pennsylvania and the Northwest territories were joined in an unnatural and unsustainable union with the agrarian slave colonies of the South. Industrial societies can not coexist well with bourgeois aristocracies that shun competition and entrepreneurialism. Lincoln did not re-unite the Republic—for all intents and purposes the two behaved as separate societies—each with separate identities and values that continued to grow more alien and apart. And the fact that among the South's most contentious grievances with the North—was their failure to fulfill the fugitive slave clause to the satisfaction of the Southerners – convinces me that these two societies could not have coexisted harmoniously or autonomously. The studies of Robert William Fogel have proven that the plantation regime run by chattel slavery was a far more lucrative and "efficient" enterprise than previously assumed, the institution was not likely to go away peacefully—and I don't think it could have ever coexisted peacefully side-by-side with the free and industrial society along its borders.



Indeed, such might well have been the case if the Union had allowed the Southern states to leave peacefully. Many in the South actually believed until the guns began to fire that they would be permitted to depart in peace so sure were they of their constitutional guarantees! Of course, they really had no idea of how obsolete Lincoln and the North considered the Constitution!



That's incredible..


I am not a Constitutional scholar, though I'd like to think that there is an unwritten 'annulment clause' in the Constitution with regards to preemptive military assaults against us. If, in any sense such a thing existed, I would refer to it as the "common-sense clause"... and I'm pretty sure we Yankees knew all about it—even back then. Though—there are obviously many others who have continued to overlook it (usually to their detriment).


Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
red house, Sat Feb 28 2009, 05:46AM

*edit*


My mistake; I overlooked the 'until' part of your last sentence in your previous post LadyVal. I am able to understand you a little bit better now... though, it still raises questions as to why–then did the guns begin to fire to start with (?) ... I have read enough about the Civil War to understand the reasons why the North was able to win it, but I am still unclear as to what convinced the Southerners that they could succeed if it erupted into a military conflict.

Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
gpthelastrebel, Sat Feb 28 2009, 07:56AM

"the glaring contradictions between the existing institution of chattel slavery and the values of the enlightenment and republican freedoms that are prescribed in our Bill of Rights—and he also knew as well as anybody that slavery was too profitable and culturally entrenched within the southern"

Red House,

Wasn't it through the insistence of Jefferson the Northwest Territory was to be slave free? Wasn't it the New England states that held out joining the United States until the institution of slavery was approved? I think you history is somewhat twisted-- that is my opinion and I will do a bit of research on the subject to educate myself.

Now back to the subject at hand, can you plainly see that Lincoln was a least partly to blame for the war due to either his actions or in actions?

To pose an answer to your question "why–then did the guns begin to fire to start with." Lincoln or someone close to Lincoln let word "slip" to the newspapers about the makeup of the fleet headed to Charleston. It is not believable that this information was not supposed to fall into Confederate hands. Davis and Beauregard knew what was coming at them and were fully prepared to meet this aggressive action. Anyone having this sort of information, regardless of the circumstances would do the same.

GP


Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
gpthelastrebel, Sat Feb 28 2009, 09:12AM

RedHouse,

"I am not a Constitutional scholar, though I'd like to think that there is an unwritten 'annulment clause' in the Constitution with regards to preemptive military assaults against us. If, in any sense such a thing existed, I would refer to it as the "common-sense clause"... and I'm pretty sure we Yankees knew all about it—even back then. Though—there are obviously many others who have continued to overlook it (usually to their detriment)."

Why don't you show us something that comes close to proving the above statement? Common Sense clause, come on there is no such thing. The South did not violate the constitution becasue they were a free and peaceful country which was attacked by the US Army and Navy.


GP


Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
red house, Sat Feb 28 2009, 10:48AM

From what I have read about the events preceding the first shots at Fort Sumter, I'm of the impression that President Lincoln played his hand in the only manner that would have placed the onus on the South—as far as how to proceed. He made a point of notifying the governor prior to the arrival of the resupply convoy... and from what I have read—I do not believe that the Northern population was anywhere near polarized to the point that they would have taken up arms over the secession of seven southern states. Also, as LadyVal alluded to—there were prominent voices from the other Southern states (like those in Virginia) that were still on the fence while waiting to see how things played out, as well as some that had already joined the confederate revolt who were demanding that some decisive action be taken to demonstrate their resolve and 'uphold their honor'—and warning that they would be forced to reconsider their position on whether to remain with the confederacy or rejoin with the union if Davis persisted in his inaction.


Lincoln was of course a master politician; if it was to come to blows—he was not such a fool to initiate the hostilities. I am still left wondering however what the people who fired the first shot were thinking... the North had the military-machine and the might to man it, apparently all they were lacking was the resolve, and the South seems to have handed them this on a silver platter with the preemptive bombardment at Fort Sumter (*and seemingly almost gleefully so: 4,000 shells on one fortress = overkill... no?)

Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
gpthelastrebel, Sat Feb 28 2009, 03:34PM

You are right Lincoln played his hand so the blame would be placed on the South. I am sure you and I would have acted the same as Beauregard or Davis if we were put in that same situation. He made a point of notifying Pickens he was going to crisply Fort Sumter, but made a point in notifying the newspapers he was sending and armed armada to Charleston and Pensacola. In short Lincoln was going to have a war one way or the other and if not in Florida then South Carolina

I do not believe that the Northern population was anywhere near polarized to the point that they would have taken up arms over the secession of seven southern states.

Correct again, secession did not matter to most northern people. When Sumter was fired on the call went up to Avenge Sumter and shall we say without casting any slurs toward either side, the rest is history?

Lincoln was indeed a master politician, which is about the only thing I actually admire about him. I will go so far as to say in that respect Lincoln was most likely the best politician this country has ever seen, at least I cannot think of anyone who comes close to him. I think the people of South Carolina were thinking of the chance to throw off a government that they no longer agreed with or a government that no longer cared about them. Remember this was the sons and grandsons of the men who fought in the Revolution and the War of 1812. The ember of freedom and the document in which this freedom was built still burned brightly in their hearts. In short the contract in which they enter to become “the united states” was no longer being honored and they were exercising their right to leave in a peaceful manner. They were no less patriotic than you or I.

Have you ever read the Northern Resolutions for war?



GP



Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
Lady Val, Sat Feb 28 2009, 08:38PM

Last posts:

Jefferson: yes, he realized the problems with slavery but these things were ages old; they didn't begin in North America and they would eventually work out without war since they had done so in other places. Jefferson might not have been thrilled with slavery, but he still kept slaves. At that point in time, it was "the way of things".

Why did the South think it could win? First, it didn't matter whether or not it could win. When people attack your home, you fight or you're a damned coward. The South fought until it was utterly overcome by an enemy many times its strength that had descended into barbarism. In this case, it was a matter of "might makes right". You also might ask why the Jews fought in the Warsaw ghetto or why the partisans in Czechoslovakia or France or Poland or Greece fought the Nazis even though they could not (by themselves) win; they fought because they had to! Tyrants must be resisted even without hope.

Finally, I am still waiting for you to address dear General Sherman. Until you do that, I fear that I must not give your other opinions much respect. But then, Sherman was not alone. Let's look at what happened when the South tried to send Union prisoners back North because the Confederacy could not succor them:

"My government instructs me to waive all formalities and what it considers some of the equities in this matter of exchange. I need not try to conceal from you that we cannot feed and provide for the prisoners in our hands. We cannot half feed or clothe them. You have closed our ports till we cannot get medical stores for them. You will not send us quinine and other needed medicines, even for their exclusive use. They are suffering greatly and the mortality is excessive. I tell you all this plainly, and still you refuse to exchange. What does your government demand? Name your own conditions and I will show you my authority to accept them. You are silent! Great God!, can it be that your people are monsters? If you will not exchange, I will give you your men for nothing. I will deliver ten thousand Union prisoners at Wilmington any day that you will receive them. I will deliver five thousand here on the same terms. Come and get them. If your government is so damnably dishonest to want them for nothing, you shall have them. You can at least feed them and we cannot. You can give us what you please in return for them."

Col. Ould of the Confederate States Army pleading with Gen. Mulford of the United States Army in vain. Lincoln had already shut off prisoner exchanges. This quote is from a book entitled Three Years with Grant by war correspondent Sylvanus Cadwallader and edited in 1955 by Benjamin Thomas. Cadwallader made a point of stating in the book that he had verified this quote with several sources. Thomas frequently corrected historical mistakes in Cadwallader’s writing but said nothing about this.

Now let's talk about "Yankee nobility", shall we? No, we can't because it is a contradiction in terms.


Re: Why Did The North Want War? Lincoln's invasion fleet.
8milereb, Sat Feb 28 2009, 10:00PM

After Ft. Delaware, McCreary was sent to Morris Island, S.C. and was held with others as "human shields" in front of Union artillery emplacements that were shelling the city of Charleston. The Federals were mad that the Confederate government took the Union prisoners from the Georgia POW camps and put them with better conditions in the city of Charleston, which is where the yankees wanted to shell. In attempt to punish the Confederates for this act, Confederate prisoners of war were held as human shields. By an act of God, and the skill of Confederate gunners, no prisoners were hurt or killed by the incoming shells, the only casualties to shells were the Union soldier guards. These were not Union white soldiers but black soldiers of the famed 54th Mass., given this work as no white troops would want to serve under such conditions.



The Confederate casualities on the Island were not from shells but from shots fired by the guards at the prisoners, often with no justified reason. These Confederate POWs were given the title the "Immortal 600". After Morris Island, He was taken to Ft. Pulaski where many Confederates were intentionally starved to a point as close to death as possible. Although Col. McCreary was starved on Morris Island, he was for tunate to be one the last to get an exchange before conditions at Ft. Pulaski became extremely worse. Upon returning to Richmond, Virginia, McCreary testified before the Confederate Congress about the atrocities being committed upon Confederate soldiers i n the POW camps. During 1865, McCreary commanded a battalion under Gen. Breckinridge, composed of Kentuckians and South Carolinians in the Virginia theater.