German svastika

[ergRTC]

and we might as well just finish it....

Slavery provided black people with a quality of existence Calhoun believed they were incapable of obtaining for themselves. To his mind, despite all the progress the race had supposedly made in America, to free the slaves and place them in situations where they would have to compete with white people on an equal basis would only result in catastrophe. The freed slave’s inherent inferiority would place him at such a disadvantage that he would not be able to achieve the quality of life he enjoyed as a slave, Calhoun insisted.

Calhoun noted that slave-owners provided for their slaves from birth to infirmity. He urged critics of slavery to "look at the sick, and the old and infirm slave, on one hand, in the midst of his family and friends, under the kind superintending care of his master and mistress, and compare it with the forlorn and wretched condition of the pauper in the poor house" in Europe and the North. In support of his argument, he cited census figures indicating that free blacks were much more likely to suffer mental or physical disabilities than were slaves.

In the long run, Calhoun believed, regardless of what happened with slavery, the progress of civilization would in time doom the inferior African race to extinction. Until that time, he asserted, slavery at least gave black people security and made them useful.

When confronted with the argument that slavery was an exploitative labor system, Calhoun replied that in every civilization a propertied class emerged and exploited the labor of the others. This enabled the master class to pursue intellectual and cultural endeavors that advanced the progress of civilization. "Slavery is indispensable to a republican government," he proclaimed.

In the South it was inevitable, Calhoun argued, that the African race would be the exploited class. The South merely institutionalized this into a system that benefited both master and servant. The master got his labor and the slave received a standard of living far above what he could achieve on his own.

While Calhoun was defending slavery, he extended his argument to indict the North and industrial capitalism. He asserted that the slave system was actually superior to the "wage slavery" of the North. He believed that slavery, by intertwining the economic interests of master and slave, eliminated the unavoidable conflict that existed between labor and capital under the wage system. The amount of money a master invested in his slaves made it economically unfeasible to mistreat them or ignore their working and living conditions. In the North, the free laborer was as much a slave to his employer as was the black man in the South, Calhoun argued, but he lacked the protection the black slave enjoyed from a paternalistic master.

With or without Calhoun, the Southern institution of slavery would have disappeared, but it will always remain a black mark on the history of the United States and on Calhoun’s reputation. Still, Calhoun deserves a prominent place in the history of American political thought—if only for this irony: while he fought to protect the Southern minority’s rights and interests from the Northern majority, he felt free to subordinate the rights of the African American minority to the interests of the South’s white majority.

After Calhoun’s death on March 31, 1850, one of his greatest foes, U.S. Senator Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri, sternly rebuked an associate who suggested that he honor Calhoun with a eulogy in Congress. "He is not dead, sir—he is not dead," remarked Benton, a staunch Unionist. "There may be no vitality in his body, but there is in his doctrines." A decade later, a bloody civil war would prove Benton was right.

[cajun]

Thats interesting,
However not all of the southerners were like Calhoun, and not all northerners were as they say.
I have'nt studied that much on civil war, I'm much more into anceint history stuff and medieval, but I've seen/heard from other historians enough that I believe the war was about the econemy, how much the north misstreated the south, of course you will not hear that in the history books as I stated above "History is written by the winners."  Which sometimes makes the truth on things like this hard to find..

My father spoke with an old lady a while who actuelly knew someone from the civil war, I think it was my (I forget how many greats) grandfather who was in the civil war or his wife I can't remember which one!

I doubt I worded all that right and prolly have 20 typos I'm kinda half asleep right now

[ergRTC]

You are right about who writes history, but that is why I choose the references I did.   Cal was dead 12 years before the war started, and Tocqueville published his massive volume (really a good read, and I do suggest anyone grab it) 30 years before.   If you read tocqueville, or some of the other lit from that time you get a better idea of the attitudes that may have led to the war.  

Separating slaves and the economy of pre-war, or even after-war, south is not realistic.  This was not a matter of moonshiners in the appalacia refusing to pay a tax, this is government at the state level (national level at this time in american history) deciding to leave the union.  Now, the reasons they may use to convince the poor ignorant masses to follow them (remember, the south is very very about aristocracy and land ownership at this time in history) are a different story.  If I wanted you to attack canada, or mexico, I am sure I could find something that you would find threatening.  Look at the irish in new york,  the latinos in america now, or the jews in germany.  It is not difficult to convince large numbers of people that it is in there best interest to keep somebody down.

[CurtissP-6EHawk]

Was the war of the sixties fought over the issue of slavery?

In a letter to Mr. Stephens from Abraham Lincoln dated December 22, 1860, just two days after South Carolina left the Union:

"Do the people of the south really entertain fears that the Republican administration would, directly or indirectly, interfere with their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears."

One year later, the following March, Lincoln became president.

Quote from his inaugural address:

"I declare that I have no intention, directly or indirectly, to interfere with slavery in the states where it exists."

In 1862 when the war had been active for more than a year, Republican senators urged him to take action to free the slaves. He answered:

"Gentleman, I cant do it...but I'll tell you what I can do; I can resign in favor of Mr. Hamlin. Perhaps Mr. Hamlin could do it."

Was Mr. Lincoln, then, in favor of slavery? No, he was not. He believed it to be wrong, as did many Southerners, however, Mr.Lincoln was opposed to allowing it to expand to the new states; but had no right to interfere where it already existed.

Can you be a Racist but be against slavery?

Mr. Lincoln's, "Words of Wisdom", in a meeting (Aug 14, 1862) with a group of free Negroes.

".....but even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race....not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of ours"

This meeting was held five months before the Emancipation Proclamation (Jan 1, 1863).

....also Mr.Lincoln's Father-in-law was a slave holder. Mrs. Lincoln's share of her father's estate was partly derived from the proceeds of the sale of slaves!

Why did it seem Mr. Lincoln was changing his mind about the slavery issue?

Dates to Remember;

Dec. 22, 1860

In 1862 when the war had been active for more than a year.

Aug 14, 1862

Jan 1, 1863

July 1, 2, 3 and 4, 1863



Now lets talk about the controversy itself.

Who started it and why! (not a question)

1. Rise of Industrialism

2. Tariffs

3. Slavery

4. Independence/Power

5. Secession



Rise of Industrialism

Slavery was not band in the north. It was basically phased out. Industry was on the rise and the north had the population to work the factories. Many of the slaves no longer needed were SOLD to the south, not just freed!!

In the south, agriculture was on the rise and rose to 80% while the north's declined from 70% to 40%. The south's biggest buyer was England itself!!!!! The south did not have the population it needed to meet the demands so slavery was an alternative, so to speak.

Tariffs

The north needed additional help to become independent from the industries of England. These tariffs were passed to discourage buying from overseas. America could not produce products as cheep as England and other countries. (seems still true today huh?) However, these tariffs would help the north, but it hindered the south. This was not a punishment from the north but a bittersweet need to continue to grow as a nation for the north as well as the western states.

Slavery

As already stated above, slavery was a must for the south to survive in its state of not being very populated. Slaves at one point made up nearly 50% of the South's population. The plantations were the biggest use for the slaves but other demanded agriculture's as well as tobacco were needed to supply the northern and western states, as well as their own states and overseas.

Independence/Power

The northern states needed the south's resources. The south however, was independent and did not really need any of the industries from the north. This led to the disputes of economics(don't forget Lincoln's letters in the beginning of this post) between the north and the south.

The north, or Union, simply wanted, or decided it wanted, to control all the states by its government basically for its own interests at the expense of the south. You know, they wanted the cake but they wanted to eat it too!

Secession

Smothered with many problems including the issues here, the south decided to exercise it's States' Right to secede.

Lets go back to some more of Mr.Lincoln's Quotes:

On the floor of Congress in 1847, Lincoln said;

"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world"

This was just thirteen years before the south was to secede! Did they forget their words? I guess we can relate these words with the treaties with the American Indians huh? The government does not lie, it just changes its' mind a lot?

I tell ya, if that ain't ballsy enough for ya, how about this quote from Senator Pickering from Massachusetts:

"I rather anticipate a new Confederacy exempt from the south......There will be separation.....The British provinces (of Canada), even with the consent of Great Britain, will become members of the Northern Confederacy." There ya have it...a " Northern Confederacy"

Did you know that New England threatened to secede three times? First in 1803, again in 1814, and still again in 1845!

*********************continued***********************

[CurtissP-6EHawk]

The South simply just followed and example of the right to secede, but actually acted out that right.

Can anyone see the resemblance to George Washington and the War of Independence of 1776? The heavy burden of the Stamp Act Tax and the harsh unfairness of a sectional tariff, the original Thirteen States seceded from Great Britain.

In Washington's time, talk of American Independence was treason, In Lee's time, talk of the South's Independence was considered sedition!

INTERMISSION YOU DWEEB TARDS!! :-) forgot you were reading an Aces High UBB post didn't ya?

Lets move on to the War itself and what started it.

Who started it?

This gets tricky but here we go! Got your joystick calibrated?

Who Fired The First Shot?

After South Carolina exercised it's right to secede, Fort Sumter at Charleston was manned by a Union garrison. The state demanded possession of the fort and offered to pay for it. The Secretary of State of the United States solemnly promised that the garrison would be removed, however, his government failed to give the order...hmmm wonder why! The Carolinians could have taken the fort by force but resisted the temptation and gave warning that no reinforcements would be tolerated.

So why did the government fail to give the order to abandon the fort? Could it be because..............Under the pretext that he (Lincoln) was sending "provisions" to the garrison, which at that very moment was being supplied by South Carolina with fresh meat, groceries, and vegetables, Lincoln assembled a fleet of war vessels carrying supplies, guns and ammunition, and ordered it to Charleston.

So who started the war? Lincoln did by ordering...well here it is........On April 4, 1861, when his reinforcement squadron was ready to sail, Lincoln drafted a "confidential letter" for Simon Carmeron to send to Anderson (Union Commander of Fort Sumter). It notified the Commander that "the expedition will go forward." This referred to the reinforcing fleet of war vessels. On April 7th, Anderson replied in disbelief stating ".....,though I frankly say that my heart is not in the war which I see is thus to be commenced"

Mr. Lincoln was not stupid, he knew the Carolinians would fire the first shot to prevent the resupply (WAR) ships from reaching their destination. With Mr.Lincoln now having the support of the Northerns for the South so called, Firing the First shots on the Flag, Lincoln had his war!

The War

I must elect to cut this really short so I will do my best.

The South ruled the war for two years pushing the Union solders back to Gettysburg.

Here is were you need to reread my opening quotes from Lincoln.

The war has been going on for two years and Lincoln's Army has been pushed, so to speak, all the way to Gettysburg Pennsylvania. Lincoln during this time, he can see that the south is strong. He needs a new, or an additional war plan so he comes up with the Emancipation Proclamation, after meeting with freed Negroes five months before the passing of the Proclamation, Lincoln is getting his plan together. This is were he starts using slavery as a "war plan" against the south. He still has not changed his mind on how he feels about the black race. Now the blacks will be used as a moral weapon to fuel a war spirit fire in the north.

The Emancipation Proclamation

Please study it for yourself!

It says in so many words that it is a "fit and necessary war measure for surppressing said rebellion." Meaning that Lincoln designed it to make it easier to subjugate the South. It undertook to free the slaves only in States and "parts of States" which were then in possession of the Confederate Government. Now you have to ask yourself, why would Lincoln try to pass some sort of law to free slaves that are now governed by the Confederate Government, not the Union Government? How can he/they free something that they no longer/ever did have control over? That is the beauty of the scam. Lincoln along with the already abuse from the "abolitionist with such items as "Uncle Tom's Cabin, hopefully fueled the slaves as well as it fired a war spirit in the north. So why didn't Lincoln include the lands that the Union Armies regained control? Their slaves were not effected, why? Thirteen parishes in Louisiana, West Virginia, and seven named counties in Virginia. Why did he exclude the Slave issue in these areas? He already regained Power and Control. Slaves were still slaves in these areas and he did not care. Lincoln had hoped that the proclamation would fuel the slaves, in the Confederate Controlled Sates only, into rebelling against their owners.

The facts are that Lincoln didn't end slavery, as so stated by the modern day news papers, with the Emancipation Proclamation. It was a war measure to create a servile insurrection through the South to force the Confederate soldiers to return home to protect their families.

So what happened?

These insurrections never came, so Lincoln had to continue the war for about another two years after his January 1, 1863 scam failed by being forced to raise another 1,000,000 foreign northern soldiers from Nevada's State ship efforts.

The official end to slavery didn't come until the "Reconstruction States" were forced to accept the 13th Amendment.

Thus along with the Union controlled Thirteen parishes in Louisiana, West Virginia, and seven named counties in Virginia were slavery was controlled by Lincoln himself...........;

The London (England) Spectator reported on Lincoln's "Emancipation" the Union government liberates the enemy's slaves as it would the enemy's cattle, simply to weaken them in conflict. The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States.



Thus we conclude that slavery was not the reason for the war, power was the reason, but only a cheep weapon by Lincoln, to try and end the war sooner than it did.

[ergRTC]

As long as we are tossing propaganda, most people know that republicans were not about to nominate someone that was anti slavery.  Lincoln came very very late to the slavery issue.  That does not mean anything relating to how the war started.  Lincoln did not start the war, the south did.  The reason the south 'fought' the war was over issues that stirred the soul.  

Few of the issues you mention stir the soul.  Do you really think people would still be so heated about it otherwise?  I am tired, but I will read your post more closely tomorrow morning and get back to you with more elitist northern propaganda.

[CurtissP-6EHawk]

ergRTC do what you want.
nothing has changed but Lincolns plan in 1863. The black race finally arose in the 1950s-60s nearly 100 years after after his plan initialy failed.

The black race is an "equal human" in my book. I am not aginst slavery (from a religiuos aspect) but I do not agree with it, there is a difference.

Lets face it bud propaganda is propaganda, and Lincoln used it well then just as we can spit it uselessly back and forth at each other now.

Also the United States can be a big lier as I stated in my post. The government will lie to make you believe what they want you to believe. When they want something, as they did the Indians' land, they will stoop low to get it. They did this with the Black race (slaves) and they did it to the Nevadaians just to get 1,000,000 more troops.

I am not mad because the south lost the war, frankly I think we are all better off the South lost, however, this doenst make what they, the Northern Government, did right. They lied to the American Indians, they lied to the Conferderate States of America, they lied to the Black Race (used them then left them "out in the rain" after the war), and even lied to the Northerner's. They lied about WWII and the other wars, and they are liing now about the Gulf Region.

I am proud to be an American and a part of the Northern conection with these United States. I am proud of the Black race fighting for equal rights and I sure as hell am proud of my forefathers for fighting for their Independance.

In Memory of My Great Great Grandfather;

Albert Holman Auston
Pvt. Co. E 15th Regt. Ala Inf.
Conferderate States Army
Captured: Gettysburg, July 1, 1863
Released: June 14, 1865
Died: June 18, 1916
Buried: Daleville, Ala

Sons of Confederate Veterans
"Haritage of Honor"

[HiJack]

Salute Hawk, my mother has found that we had in lour family the famous brother against brother, cousin against cousin during the civil war, 3 of them for the south 4 for the north, 2 died 1 north and 1 south and 1 captured, a northerner held at Andersonville till the end of the war.  They were in different armies and in different areas but just the thought of meeting a relative on the battlfield is unamaginable, it was a terrible time for all and shows the fortitude and will of Americans North and South, and in my opinion the best fighting men in the world!

[ergRTC]

The black race is an "equal human" in my book. I am not aginst slavery (from a religiuos aspect) but I do not agree with it, there is a difference.


what on earth does that mean?

[ergRTC]

Hawk, I have read through your well written post, but I am afraid you are ignoring one important thing that most people trying to defend the south fail to address.  

Lincoln as I stated earlier could have cared less about slavery in the south, until he realized what a help it would be in the fight.  His attitudes are irrelevant, as the 'war' started long before his election.

The 'govmnt' the south was fighting was their own.  The way the founding fathers decided to set up our form of a republic basically means we are at the mercy of the majority.  This power of the majority is bounded by the constitution and the bill of rights.  The judicial branch is in charge of helping people defend those constitutional rights from an overzealous majority.  

What the south did was to say, just as shane and lasz love to say "I want to play my way, fly the plane I want, and when I want, and you can go diddly yourself".  This is fine for children on a playground, but as for a young nation, that is not the way to resolve issues.  The fact that they did not use the appropriate channels (their own legit gov.) only weakens their cause.

For a modern example.  Minnesota was the only state in the union to not vote for reagen in the 84 election.  We all hated his politics, his brainless approach to economics, and his pandering to the rich.  The rest of the nation thought reagan was best thing since freeze dried sanka.   Should we have left the union?  When the federal government started drafting people for vietnam, why didnt good liberal states like minnesota or new york secede?  When the government stopped helping farmers in the midwest under the republicans 'sink or swim' farm bill, why didnt we secede?  Cause that 'govment' is ours.  We elected it.

They elected it too,  and the attitude that they represent is abhorrent.  If you had friends that behaved like that, they wouldnt be your friends for long.  Its called playing by the rules until you dont want to.   Particularly interesting considering virginians wrote most of those rules.

[cajun]

"The 'govmnt' the south was fighting was their own. The way the founding fathers decided to set up our form of a republic basically means we are at the mercy of the majority. This power of the majority is bounded by the constitution and the bill of rights. The judicial branch is in charge of helping people defend those constitutional rights from an overzealous majority.

What the south did was to say, just as shane and lasz love to say "I want to play my way, fly the plane I want, and when I want, and you can go diddly yourself". This is fine for children on a playground, but as for a young nation, that is not the way to resolve issues. The fact that they did not use the appropriate channels (their own legit gov.) only weakens their cause.
 "

"Can anyone see the resemblance to George Washington and the War of Independence of 1776? The heavy burden of the Stamp Act Tax and the harsh unfairness of a sectional tariff, the original Thirteen States seceded from Great Britain. "

Hmmmm... Quit a coincidence no?

The south was as Hawk stated, only doing as the union had done before them, and it was the union, not playing by the rules.
So if the majority says "Sorry you must suffer so I can prosper" then it is only understandable to obey?

PS. My I forget how many greats grandfather was in the war, He snuck in at I think about 15-16, was in Artillery (a seargent I think) Cavalery and Infantry, I he survived the war but was captured I think.

[ergRTC]

Yes but the difference is the king was not elected by the states, and the governers of the states were assigned by the king.  Throwing off a dictatorship is not anywhere near throwing off a demcratically elected government just because you dont agree with 3/4 of your fellow americans believe.

[CurtissP-6EHawk]

ergRTC

The 'govmnt' the south was fighting was their own. The way the founding fathers decided to set up our form of a republic basically means we are at the mercy of the majority. This power of the majority is bounded by the constitution and the bill of rights. The judicial branch is in charge of helping people defend those constitutional rights from an overzealous majority.

(ALL of the "Independent" States reserved the right to leave the Union (UNLIKE TODAY!!). Many of the states had it clearly written in their state concessions. For example:

New York voted to accept the constitution giving certain powers to Congress, but it added: "That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness."
  Also, Virginia in its acceptance said: "The powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them, whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression."
Feeling injured and oppressed, Virginia and the other seceding States "resumed" those powers in 1861.

In fact New England, was the first State to seriously consider seceding (twice because they did not want certain states to be added to the Union). They were planning to form a Northern Confederacy with the British Provinces of Canada.

So! When at last the South acted, it followed an example suggested by New England in 1803, 1814 and 1845.


Was Secession Treason?

On the floor of Congress in 1847, Lincoln said;

"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world"

Food for Thought?

The American Revolution was a secession of the Thirteen States from Great Britain. At the end of the American Revolution England made peace with thirteen "Independent" States, not with the "Confederation" (Union Government).

If the Southern States had succeded in forming their own Southern Confederate government, would it have been called the Civil War, OR would the history books of today have noted any difference between the War of Independence of 1776 and the "War of Independence of 1861"?

[ergRTC]

I still see a very large difference.  The gov. in washington was elected by these people.  If they had issues, they should have followed the laws they said they would follow, not give up.  A few northern states refused to send troops to battle the british in the war of 1812 in a fit of 'states rights', but they did not secede.   If I remember correctly, the supreme court upheld their decision not to send troops at the presidents asking.


I believe the problem lies in foresight.  Many of the southerners pushing for seccesion were deathly afraid of losing reps. in the fed gov. because of the suspected loss of the 3/4 a man (or whatever the percentage was) they were getting for the slaves.  They could not see a future for themselves without maintaining the status quo.  Just as the north saw that losing bits and pieces of the union at some passing fancy is not going to strengthen the USA either (at that time, in hind sight.....).  

Seccession was instigated by a group of people in a position that could not be maintained by the direction the country was taking.  Their only choice was to leave or dissappear.  They left, and I guess that gave them a few more decades of abusing share croppers to maintain their positions in society.  After they kicked out the carpet bagger governments of course (one governer of mississipi came from my home town, hehe).

[CurtissP-6EHawk]

ergRTC

....they should have followed the laws they said they would follow.....

What are you refering to when you use the term "Law"?
What "Laws" did the Southern government break?

Dont forget the "America" of the 1700s and 1800s was far different from the "America" of today.

Henry Cabot Lodge, a New Englander held the view that as of the date of the adoption of the Constitution, it was universally regarded as an experiment, entered upon by the States, from which any State "had the right peaceably to withdraw".

The Union government was a loose frame work, the "beginnings" of what would become over a couple hundred years what we know as our modern democracy. You can't use the more rigid and established democracy of today to judge the dynamics of that time period.