PDA

View Full Version : To be like Lincoln



Richard Halstead
02-11-2009, 02:52 PM
Lincoln was able to interject his love of story telling with his humor. His rivals he defeated during the election were better educated than he was with his occasional schooling which had been enhanced by his love of reading. The men he defeated were appointed to cabinet positions to take advantage of their strengths and to keep an eye on them.

When asked why he put all of his rivals for the Republican presidential campaign -- those he surprisingly defeated -- into his cabinet, Lincoln said that they were the best men, and the nation was in peril and needed them. Lyndon Johnson described the situation with a favorite saying: "It's better to have your enemies inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in."

tpaschal30
02-12-2009, 06:40 PM
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, locking up 130,000 citizens. He shut down newspapers that did not agree with him. I guess implementing the Fairness Doctrine would make Obama Lincoln like.

YardleyLabs
02-12-2009, 08:19 PM
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, locking up 130,000 citizens. He shut down newspapers that did not agree with him. I guess implementing the Fairness Doctrine would make Obama Lincoln like.

Lincoln actually acted based on Article 1, Section 9 on the Constitution which states:

"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

The Supreme Court actually overturned his actions and Lincoln chose to ignore their ruling.

Steve
02-12-2009, 08:26 PM
Didn't the south legally secede per the Constitution and Lincoln chose to ignore it.

tpaschal30
02-13-2009, 05:19 AM
Targeting Civilians: Lincoln as War Criminal




" by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

One hundred thirty-six years after General Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox, Americans are still fascinated with the War for Southern Independence. The larger bookstores devote an inordinate amount of shelf space to books about the events and personalities of the war; Ken Burns's "Civil War" television series and the movie "Gettysburg" were blockbuster hits; dozens of new books on the war are still published every year; and a monthly newspaper, Civil War News, lists literally hundreds of seminars, conferences, reenactments, and memorial events related to the war in all 50 states and the District of Columbia all year long. Indeed, many Northerners are "still fighting the war" in that they organize a political mob whenever anyone attempts to display a Confederate heritage symbol in any public place.

Americans are still fascinated by the war because many of us recognize it as the defining event in American history. Lincoln's war established myriad precedents that have shaped the course of American government and society ever since: the centralization of governmental power, central banking, income taxation, protectionism, military conscription, the suspension of constitutional liberties, the "rewriting" of the Constitution by federal judges, "total war," the quest for a worldwide empire, and the notion that government is one big "problem solver."

Perhaps the most hideous precedent established by Lincoln's war, however, was the intentional targeting of defenseless civilians. Human beings did not always engage in such barbaric acts as we have all watched in horror in recent days. Targeting civilians has been a common practice ever since World War II, but its roots lie in Lincoln's war.

In 1863 there was an international convention in Geneva, Switzerland, that sought to codify international law with regard to the conduct of war. What the convention sought to do was to take the principles of "civilized" warfare that had evolved over the previous century, and declare them to be a part of international law that should be obeyed by all civilized societies. Essentially, the convention concluded that it should be considered to be a war crime, punishable by imprisonment or death, for armies to attack defenseless citizens and towns; plunder civilian property; or take from the civilian population more than what was necessary to feed and sustain an occupying army.

The Swiss jurist Emmerich de Vattel (1714-67, author of The Law of Nations, was the world's expert on the proper conduct of war at the time. "The people, the peasants, the citizens, take no part in it, and generally have nothing to fear from the sword of the enemy," Vattel wrote. As long as they refrain from hostilities themselves they "live in as perfect safety as if they were friends." Occupying soldiers who would destroy private property should be regard as "savage barbarians."

In 1861 the leading American expert in international law as it relates to the proper conduct of war was the San Francisco attorney Henry Halleck, a former army officer and West Point instructor whom Abraham Lincoln appointed General-in-Chief of the federal armies in July of 1862. Halleck was the author of the book, International Law, which was used as a text at West Point and essentially echoed Vattel's writing.

On April 24, 1863, the Lincoln administration seemed to adopt the precepts of international law as expressed by the Geneva Convention, Vattel, and Halleck, when it issued General Order No. 100, known as the "Lieber Code." The Code's author was the German legal scholar Francis Leiber, an advisor to Otto von Bismarck and a staunch advocate of centralized governmental power. In his writings Lieber denounced the federal system of government created by the American founding fathers as having created "confederacies of petty sovereigns" and dismissed the Jeffersonian philosophy of government as a collection of "obsolete ideas." In Germany he was arrested several times for subversive activities. He was a perfect ideological fit with Lincoln's own political philosophy and was just the man Lincoln wanted to outline the rules of war for his administration.

The Lieber Code paid lip service to the notion that civilians should not be targeted in war, but it contained a giant loophole: Federal commanders were permitted to completely ignore the Code if, "in their discretion," the events of the war would warrant that they do so. In other words, the Lieber Code was purely propaganda.

The fact is, the Lincoln government intentionally targeted civilians from the very beginning of the war. The administration's battle plan was known as the "Anaconda Plan" because it sought to blockade all Southern ports and inland waterways and starving the Southern civilian economy. Even drugs and medicines were on the government's list of items that were to be kept out of the hands of Southerners, as far as possible.

As early as the first major battle of the war, the Battle of First Manassas in July of 1861, federal soldiers were plundering and burning private homes in the Northern Virginia countryside. Such behavior quickly became so pervasive that on June 20, 1862 - one year into the war - General George McClellan, the commanding general of the Army of the Potomac, wrote Lincoln a letter imploring him to see to it that the war was conducted according to "the highest principles known to Christian civilization" and to avoid targeting the civilian population to the extent that that was possible. Lincoln replaced McClellan a few months later and ignored his letter.

Most Americans are familiar with General William Tecumseh Sherman's "march to the sea" in which his army pillaged, plundered, raped, and murdered civilians as it marched through Georgia in the face of scant military opposition. But such atrocities had been occurring for the duration of the war; Sherman's March was nothing new.

In 1862 Sherman was having difficulty subduing Confederate sharpshooters who were harassing federal gunboats on the Mississippi River near Memphis. He then adopted the theory of "collective responsibility" to "justify" attacking innocent civilians in retaliation for such attacks. He burned the entire town of Randolph, Tennessee, to the ground. He also began taking civilian hostages and either trading them for federal prisoners of war or executing them.

Jackson and Meridian, Mississippi, were also burned to the ground by Sherman's troops even though there was no Confederate army there to oppose them. After the burnings his soldiers sacked the town, stealing anything of value and destroying the rest. As Sherman biographer John Marzalek writes, his soldiers "entered residences, appropriating whatever appeared to be of value . . . those articles which they could not carry they broke."

After the destruction of Meridian Sherman boasted that "for five days, ten thousand of our men worked hard and with a will, in that work of destruction, with axes, sledges, crowbars, clawbars, and with fire.... Meridian no longer exists."

In The Hard Hand of War historian Mark Grimsley argues that Sherman has been unfairly criticized as the "father" of waging war on civilians because he "pursued a policy quite in keeping with that of other Union commanders from Missouri to Virginia." Fair enough. Why blame just Sherman when such practices were an essential part of Lincoln's entire war plan and were routinely practiced by all federal commanders? Sherman was just the most zealous of all federal commanders in targeting Southern civilians, which is apparently why he became one of Lincoln's favorite generals.

In his First Inaugural Address Jefferson said that any secessionists should be allowed to "stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." But by 1864 Sherman would announce that "to the petulant and persistent secessionists, why, death is mercy." In 1862 Sherman wrote his wife that his purpose in the war would be "extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least of the trouble, but the people" of the South. His loving and gentle wife wrote back that her wish was for "a war of extermination and that all [Southerners] would be driven like swine into the sea. May we carry fire and sword into their states till not one habitation is left standing."

The Geneva Convention of 1863 condemned the bombardment of cities occupied by civilians, but Lincoln ignored all such restrictions on his behavior. The bombardment of Atlanta destroyed 90 percent of the city, after which the remaining civilian residents were forced to depopulate the city just as winter was approaching and the Georgia countryside had been stripped of food by the federal army. In his memoirs Sherman boasted that his army destroyed more than $100 million in private property and carried home $20 million more during his "march to the sea."

Sherman was not above randomly executing innocent civilians as part of his (and Lincoln's) terror campaign. In October of 1864 he ordered a subordinate, General Louis Watkins, to go to Fairmount, Georgia, "burn ten or twelve houses" and "kill a few at random," and "let them know that it will be repeated every time a train is fired upon."

Another Sherman biographer, Lee Kennett, found that in Sherman's army "the New York regiments were . . . filled with big city criminals and foreigners fresh from the jails of the Old World." Although it is rarely mentioned by "mainstream" historians, many acts of rape were committed by these federal soldiers. The University of South Carolina's library contains a large collection of thousands diaries and letters of Southern women that mention these unspeakable atrocities.

tpaschal30
02-13-2009, 05:19 AM
continued

"Shermans' band of criminal looters (known as "bummers") sacked the slave cabins as well as the plantation houses. As Grimsley describes it, "With the utter disregard for blacks that was the norm among Union troops, the soldiers ransacked the slave cabins, taking whatever they liked." A routine procedure would be to hang a slave by his neck until he told federal soldiers where the plantation owners' valuables were hidden.

General Philip Sheridan is another celebrated "war hero" who followed in Sherman's footsteps in attacking defenseless civilians. After the Confederate army had finally evacuated the Shenandoah Valley in the autumn of 1864 Sheridan's 35,000 infantry troops essentially burned the entire valley to the ground. As Sheridan described it in a letter to General Grant, in the first few days he "destroyed over 2200 barns . . . over 70 mills . . . have driven in front of the army over 4000 head of stock, and have killed . . . not less than 3000 sheep. . . . Tomorrow I will continue the destruction."

In letters home Sheridan's troops described themselves as "barn burners" and "destroyers of homes." One soldier wrote home that he had personally set 60 private homes on fire and opined that "it was a hard looking sight to see the women and children turned out of doors at this season of the year." A Sergeant William T. Patterson wrote that "the whole country around is wrapped in flames, the heavens are aglow with the light thereof . . . such mourning, such lamentations, such crying and pleading for mercy [by defenseless women]... I never saw or want to see again."

As horrific as the burning of the Shenandoah Valley was, Grimsley concluded that it was actually "one of the more controlled acts of destruction during the war's final year." After it was all over Lincoln personally conveyed to Sheridan "the thanks of the Nation."

Sherman biographer Lee Kennett is among the historians who bend over backwards to downplay the horrors of how Lincoln waged war on civilians. Just recently, he published an article in the Atlanta Constitution arguing that Sherman wasn't such a bad guy after all and should not be reviled by Georgians as much as he is. But even Kennett admitted in his biography of Sherman that:

Had the Confederates somehow won, had their victory put them in position to bring their chief opponents before some sort of tribunal, they would have found themselves justified...in stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command for violations of the laws of war, specifically for waging war against noncombatants.

Sherman himself admitted after the war that he was taught at West Point that he could be hanged for the things he did. But in war the victors always write the history and are never punished for war crimes, no matter how heinous. Only the defeated suffer that fate. That is why very few Americans are aware of the fact that the unspeakable atrocities of war committed against civilians, from the firebombing of Dresden, the rape of Nanking, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to the World Trade Center bombings, had their origins in Lincoln's war. This is yet another reason why Americans will continue their fascination with the War for Southern Independence.

Copyright 2001 LewRockwell.com"

YardleyLabs
02-13-2009, 06:45 AM
About what I would expect from a man (DiLorenzo) whose primary claims to fame are his belief in the correctness of secession and his love for John C. Calhoun, "defender of liberty", who is well know for theory of racial hierarchy based on which CFA VP Alexander Stephens said "the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man," and that "slavery...is his natural and normal condition". Calhoun's other "great" accomplishment, according to DiLorenzo, was his theory in support of the right of secession based on states' rights and a rejection of the so-called natural rights that formed the basis for the declaration of independence. It was essential to reject these natural rights because they lay at the foundation of claims that slavery was immoral.

There was nothing pretty about the Civil War and its basis went beyond slavery alone. As I grew up in the south in 50's, the "war between the states" was a constant topic of discussion. The popular view was that the southern states were simply exercising their natural right of divorce (of course, real divorce at that time was shameful and never discussed). Slavery was seldom mentioned. However, when it was, it was described as an essentially humane and relatively harmless institution (that "peculiar institution" as it was called) where everyone worked hard and the slaves were revered members of the family. Poppycock!

There were other issues associated with the war, but without the issue of slavery there would have been no war. Slavery, by any measure, was a shameful blot on our history. We didn't invent it, but we took slavery to an extreme not previously known and we continue to pay for that sin today.

As a southerner by birth, and as an American, I am glad the south lost and I see no reason to refight the war today. It was a violent, ugly war as had been the revolution almost 90 years before. Fortunately the British don't keep trying to come back for more. I would suggest sending Professor DiLorenzo to rest with all those lying in the ground at Gettysburg, but I would not want to dishonor their memory.

tpaschal30
02-13-2009, 07:24 AM
About what I would expect from a man (DiLorenzo) whose primary claims to fame are his belief in the correctness of secession and his love for John C. Calhoun, "defender of liberty", who is well know for theory of racial hierarchy based on which CFA VP Alexander Stephens said "the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man," and that "slavery...is his natural and normal condition". Calhoun's other "great" accomplishment, according to DiLorenzo, was his theory in support of the right of secession based on states' rights and a rejection of the so-called natural rights that formed the basis for the declaration of independence. It was essential to reject these natural rights because they lay at the foundation of claims that slavery was immoral.

There was nothing pretty about the Civil War and its basis went beyond slavery alone. As I grew up in the south in 50's, the "war between the states" was a constant topic of discussion. The popular view was that the southern states were simply exercising their natural right of divorce (of course, real divorce at that time was shameful and never discussed). Slavery was seldom mentioned. However, when it was, it was described as an essentially humane and relatively harmless institution (that "peculiar institution" as it was called) where everyone worked hard and the slaves were revered members of the family. Poppycock!

There were other issues associated with the war, but without the issue of slavery there would have been no war. Slavery, by any measure, was a shameful blot on our history. We didn't invent it, but we took slavery to an extreme not previously known and we continue to pay for that sin today.

As a southerner by birth, and as an American, I am glad the south lost and I see no reason to refight the war today. It was a violent, ugly war as had been the revolution almost 90 years before. Fortunately the British don't keep trying to come back for more. I would suggest sending Professor DiLorenzo to rest with all those lying in the ground at Gettysburg, but I would not want to dishonor their memory.

You liberals always destroy the messenger. The northern states had a convention in the 1830s about secession. Nobody threaten them with invasion. Do you feel the 750,000 casualties were worth ending slavery(assuming that as the sole reason for arguements sake). when it would have ended eventually anyway? If slavery had ended anyway in 1 month, 1 year, 2 years, 10 years, 15 years, or say twenty years, at what point do you say the casualties were worth it.

Hew
02-13-2009, 07:27 AM
Yardley,

I'm not quite sure how applicable your history lesson on slavery is to a two page article on Lincoln's war-time excess. It seems to me like you're saying that slavery was so bad that the ends justified the means.

Given your non-stop angst over Bush waterboarding THREE terrorists and denying habeas corpus to TWO US citizens in response to 3,000 Americans being killed, I just figured you'd be all beside yourself in regards to Lincoln's conduct of the Civil War. Is your perspective machine on the fritz?

Captain Mike D
02-13-2009, 09:25 AM
Yardley,

You have fallen victim to revisionist history regarding the reasons for the civil war.

The truth is the government did not like the fact that the southern states were shipping raw materials to France and other countries. They imposed taxes on those materials since they felt the materials should be refined into products by the states which were industrializing (mainly the northern states)
The reason the South secceeded was over taxation.

Lincoln used the issue of slavery to further his agenda by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation as the war was entering its THIRD YEAR. It only applied to the states who had secceeded. IT DID NOT APPLY TO BORDER STATES WITH SLAVES THAT HAD NOT SECCEEDED!

Slavery was wrong, but it was not the reason for the Civil War!!

YardleyLabs
02-13-2009, 10:29 AM
Yardley,

I'm not quite sure how applicable your history lesson on slavery is to a two page article on Lincoln's war-time excess. It seems to me like you're saying that slavery was so bad that the ends justified the means.

Given your non-stop angst over Bush waterboarding THREE terrorists and denying habeas corpus to TWO US citizens in response to 3,000 Americans being killed, I just figured you'd be all beside yourself in regards to Lincoln's conduct of the Civil War. Is your perspective machine on the fritz?

The decision to go to war was not one-sided. However, some fights need to be fought and that one was probably essential. One of the many precipitating events for the war was the sourthern state insistence that slavery rights be extended to newly opened territories because of their fear that more states would be added that did not possess slaves, making those states with slaves more and more isolated politically.

My comments on the DiLorenzo story are based on the fact that he is anything but a dispassionate historian. He is a CFA propagandist in many respects and his history of Lincoln is a one-sided hatchet job.

marshmonster
02-13-2009, 10:39 AM
Lincoln was also quite the racist.

The history books would have you believe he emancipated the slaves because he thought it right.

The fact is, he needed the blacks to fight the war.


and if you google Licoln's speeches, you will find excerpts like, 'although black men should be free, they should never be allowed to vote, or own property. They are not equals to white men.'

Or they 'should not be allowed to interracilly coexist or marry.'

there's a lot of it that proves he only did what was necessary to win the war, and having the black fighters, fighting to be free men, well, they can help tip the scales for sure.

he used the 'n' word in his writings regularly. And even in a formal letter to the President of Haiti used it about one of Haiti's ambassadors. When asked if Lincoln would require a white ambassador from Haiti, he said 'no, you may send a n..'


Amazing how selective history really is...

tpaschal30
02-13-2009, 10:53 AM
My comments on the DiLorenzo story are based on the fact that he is anything but a dispassionate historian. He is a CFA propagandist in many respects and his history of Lincoln is a one-sided hatchet job.

So Lincoln did not shell civilians which was illegal at the time, suspend habeas corpus, close newspapers which didn't agree with him, and even lock up politicians(northern) who disagreed? Northern states did not convene in 1814 and 1832 to decide on secession? And Jefferson did not say "In his First Inaugural Address Jefferson said that any secessionists should be allowed to "stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."? Please point out where Dr. Dilorenzo has lied.

I guess since nearly a 3/4 of a million casualties to free 4 million slaves was "essential" and worth it, 30,000 US casualties in Iraq to free 24 million people was a bargain

badbullgator
02-13-2009, 11:34 AM
So Lincoln did not shell civilians which was illegal at the time, suspend habeas corpus, close newspapers which didn't agree with him, and even lock up politicians(northern) who disagreed? Northern states did not convene in 1814 and 1832 to decide on secession? And Jefferson did not say "In his First Inaugural Address Jefferson said that any secessionists should be allowed to "stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."? Please point out where Dr. Dilorenzo has lied.

I guess since nearly a 3/4 of a million casualties to free 4 million slaves was "essential" and worth it, 30,000 US casualties in Iraq to free 24 million people was a bargain


:D:D:D ........

Hew
02-13-2009, 01:58 PM
So Lincoln did not shell civilians which was illegal at the time, suspend habeas corpus, close newspapers which didn't agree with him, and even lock up politicians(northern) who disagreed? Northern states did not convene in 1814 and 1832 to decide on secession? And Jefferson did not say "In his First Inaugural Address Jefferson said that any secessionists should be allowed to "stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."? Please point out where Dr. Dilorenzo has lied.

I guess since nearly a 3/4 of a million casualties to free 4 million slaves was "essential" and worth it, 30,000 US casualties in Iraq to free 24 million people was a bargain
Context and perspective?!? Wtf? More right wing kookery.

Bob Gutermuth
02-13-2009, 02:08 PM
Compared to the treatment given the Lincoln conspirators by the Johnson admin, waterboarding is a school picnic, and Surratt, Harold et al were Americans.

backpasture
02-13-2009, 02:36 PM
The debate over whether the southern states seceded 'legally' was settled pretty firmly at Appomattox.

As for the feeble attempt to equate Dubya's invasion of Iraq with Lincoln's preservation of the Union -- that is one of the most idiotic things I've seen posted around here yet. And that is a high bar.

If this is what passes for an intelligent thought in the Republican party, then that pretty much explains up why the party is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

tpaschal30
02-13-2009, 03:21 PM
The debate over whether the southern states seceded 'legally' was settled pretty firmly at Appomattox.

As for the feeble attempt to equate Dubya's invasion of Iraq with Lincoln's preservation of the Union -- that is one of the most idiotic things I've seen posted around here yet. And that is a high bar.

If this is what passes for an intelligent thought in the Republican party, then that pretty much explains up why the party is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

Unfortunatly the south did not have Appomattox as precedent. Seceding was discussed openly and freely as an option by northern states prior to the Civil War and were never threatened. If you joined willingly and freely why could you not get out willingly and freely. Or was this the mafia they had joined.

If freeing 4 million with a quarter million casualties was worth it, freeing 24 million with 30,000 casualties is a bargain by comparison.

backpasture
02-13-2009, 03:59 PM
Unfortunatly the south did not have Appomattox as precedent. Seceding was discussed openly and freely as an option by northern states prior to the Civil War and were never threatened. If you joined willingly and freely why could you not get out willingly and freely. Or was this the mafia they had joined.

If freeing 4 million with a quarter million casualties was worth it, freeing 24 million with 30,000 casualties is a bargain by comparison.


1) The South may not have had 'Appomattox as a precedent'. But, we have it as a precedent now. So, to argue that secession is 'legal' is patently absurd.

2) I wasn't aware that there were 24 Million people in Iraq who were owned as property (forced into hard labor, children taken from their mothers and sold to the highest bidder, etc). It is a false moral equivalency, and patently absurd.

Captain Mike D
02-13-2009, 04:05 PM
The debate over whether the southern states seceded 'legally' was settled pretty firmly at Appomattox.

As for the feeble attempt to equate Dubya's invasion of Iraq with Lincoln's preservation of the Union -- that is one of the most idiotic things I've seen posted around here yet. And that is a high bar.

If this is what passes for an intelligent thought in the Republican party, then that pretty much explains up why the party is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

Defeat at Appomattox proves nothing as to the legality of the South's secession.

Who are you to judge idiocy, what is your name, occupation and merit.
You are but one person typing the thoughts of others from whom you have developed your political leanings, while hiding behind an anonymous handle and a keyboard.
Obviously you have learned the rules of engagement of the left, Demean and/or talk over the person who holds other views other than your own.

backpasture
02-13-2009, 04:19 PM
Defeat at Appomattox proves nothing as to the legality of the South's secession.


Really?? So, did they take their case to the courts and argue its legal merits? Where is the right to secession in the Consitution? Or, where is it written into law? We are a country of LAWS. The only place where secession is legal is in your fantasy life.

'The rules of engagement of the left', as you put it, apparently means basing your beliefs and arguments on reality.

Of course, when you believe that the south has a legal argument for secession, and that the slaves in America were no worse off than the citizens of a modern 2nd world country, then it's hard to find many folks who aren't to 'the left' of you politically.

YardleyLabs
02-13-2009, 04:35 PM
So Lincoln did not shell civilians which was illegal at the time, suspend habeas corpus, close newspapers which didn't agree with him, and even lock up politicians(northern) who disagreed? Northern states did not convene in 1814 and 1832 to decide on secession? And Jefferson did not say "In his First Inaugural Address Jefferson said that any secessionists should be allowed to "stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."? Please point out where Dr. Dilorenzo has lied.

I guess since nearly a 3/4 of a million casualties to free 4 million slaves was "essential" and worth it, 30,000 US casualties in Iraq to free 24 million people was a bargain

Apparently the issues at stake were worth it to the Confederacy since, as far as I can determine, more Union soldiers were killed than members of the Confederacy. Death toll per the Encyclopedia Americana:
United States: 360,222
k. in battle: 67,058
d. of wounds: 43,012
[Total battle deaths: 110,070]
Confederacy: 258,000
k. in battle: 94,000
[TOTAL: 618,222]Civilian deaths are estimated at 50,000 total (both sides). Non-battle deaths came from a variety of sources, most notoriously, deaths in prison camps operated by both sides, largely from starvation and disease.

I don't know about shelling civilians, although I suspect that both sides did that to some extent. Suspension of habeas corpus was definitely done as permitted by Article 1, section 9 of the Constitution in case of insurrection. Other than DiLorenzo, I haven't found details concerning northern secession. Presumably nothing came of it.

On the issue of my "revisionist" theory that slavery was the most immediate issue leading to secession, I offer the following:


The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war.



In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.
The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.



But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.


Those sound like pretty clear statements to me. The "revisionists" are those who now try to downplay the central role of slavery from the very beginning of the secession movement. (quotes from http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html) For those arguing these issues, I think it only appropriate to include sources for claims made.

Captain Mike D
02-13-2009, 05:39 PM
Apparently the issues at stake were worth it to the Confederacy since, as far as I can determine, more Union soldiers were killed than members of the Confederacy. Death toll per the Encyclopedia Americana:

United States: 360,222
k. in battle: 67,058
d. of wounds: 43,012
[Total battle deaths: 110,070]
Confederacy: 258,000

k. in battle: 94,000
[TOTAL: 618,222]Civilian deaths are estimated at 50,000 total (both sides). Non-battle deaths came from a variety of sources, most notoriously, deaths in prison camps operated by both sides, largely from starvation and disease.

I don't know about shelling civilians, although I suspect that both sides did that to some extent. Suspension of habeas corpus was definitely done as permitted by Article 1, section 9 of the Constitution in case of insurrection. Other than DiLorenzo, I haven't found details concerning northern secession. Presumably nothing came of it.

On the issue of my "revisionist" theory that slavery was the most immediate issue leading to secession, I offer the following:









Those sound like pretty clear statements to me. The "revisionists" are those who now try to downplay the central role of slavery from the very beginning of the secession movement. (quotes from http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html) For those arguing these issues, I think it only appropriate to include sources for claims made.


After about forty years I will not be able to site sources from my early education in NC but this may help /www.civilwar.com/component/option,com_premiermenu/Itemid,62/

Please read through ALL of the materials offered from the Panicof of 1857 through the slavery issues. There were many issues that caused the secession.

Captain Mike D
02-13-2009, 05:45 PM
Really?? So, did they take their case to the courts and argue its legal merits? Where is the right to secession in the Consitution? Or, where is it written into law? We are a country of LAWS. The only place where secession is legal is in your fantasy life.

'The rules of engagement of the left', as you put it, apparently means basing your beliefs and arguments on reality.

Of course, when you believe that the south has a legal argument for secession, and that the slaves in America were no worse off than the citizens of a modern 2nd world country, then it's hard to find many folks who aren't to 'the left' of you politically.

Why don't you ask Walter Williams- Professor of Economics at George Mason University the repercussions of slavery and emancipation of blacks in this country.

Knowing his race may be a factor for you to be able to validate his theories in your mind He is a black man.

By the way D.S. you should know the person you are writing to before you use the term - You.

backpasture
02-13-2009, 06:39 PM
Why don't you ask Walter Williams- Professor of Economics at George Mason University the repercussions of slavery and emancipation of blacks in this country.

Knowing his race may be a factor for you to be able to validate his theories in your mind He is a black man.

What does this have to do with your argument the arguments that 1) The south was 'legally' entitled to secede. 2) That slaves in America supposedly had it as good as the citizens of Iraq at least (before we kicked the hornet's nest there and 'liberated' them).

Are you now arguing that freeing the slaves was a bad thing?

tpaschal30
02-13-2009, 07:36 PM
Really?? So, did they take their case to the courts and argue its legal merits? Where is the right to secession in the Consitution? Or, where is it written into law? We are a country of LAWS. The only place where secession is legal is in your fantasy life.

'The rules of engagement of the left', as you put it, apparently means basing your beliefs and arguments on reality.

Of course, when you believe that the south has a legal argument for secession, and that the slaves in America were no worse off than the citizens of a modern 2nd world country, then it's hard to find many folks who aren't to 'the left' of you politically.

Show us in the Constitution where it is illegal. There was no mention.

Captain Mike D
02-13-2009, 07:42 PM
What does this have to do with your argument the arguments that 1) The south was 'legally' entitled to secede. 2) That slaves in America supposedly had it as good as the citizens of Iraq at least (before we kicked the hornet's nest there and 'liberated' them).

Are you now arguing that freeing the slaves was a bad thing?

Hey Man,

Why don't you stop foaming at the mouth and look back at the posts through the thread.
1. I never stated that their was a law that allowed secession only that the main reason the souther states seceeded was because of taxation.
2. I never said anything at all about slaves other than slavery was a bad thing.

So go peddle your elitest hatred somewhere else, or better still, why don't you go put an MH after whatever that pups name is in your avatar.
And while you are at it why don't you come out of the closet and let us all know you you are.

Captain Mike D
02-13-2009, 07:52 PM
Show us in the Constitution where it is illegal. There was no mention.

Congress violated Article 1 Section 9 re: tarriffs upon the goods of states.

You are right, No mention regarding the states right to seceed.

YardleyLabs
02-13-2009, 08:54 PM
After about forty years I will not be able to site sources from my early education in NC but this may help /www.civilwar.com/component/option,com_premiermenu/Itemid,62/

Please read through ALL of the materials offered from the Panicof of 1857 through the slavery issues. There were many issues that caused the secession.

I stated that in one of my earlier posts, but I also said that without the slavery issue there would have been no secession. It was the precipitating factor as is clear from each state's declarations at the time. I was accused of falling for revisionist history.

The revisionists are those that try to downplay the importance of that one issue. The truth was that the southern states viewed the right to slavery as sacrosanct. It was an issue that was central to their decision to join the revolution. Of course, they wanted to have their cake and eat it toon On one had they wanted to maintain an absolute right to own slaves. On the other, they wanted those slaves -- treated as chattel under the law -- to be counted for census purposes to increase the value of the southern vote.

The great compromise was that slavery was permitted but was never mentioned in the Constitution. Rather Article 2, section 2 stated that "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due." It then stated that "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." (Art. 1, section 2) Both of these sections were modified following the Civil War.

The South accurately saw the increasing hostility of the northern states towards slavery as a threat to the rights they had negotiated following the revolution. They sought to improve their poltiical position by having slavery instituted in new states and to have territories be bound by the same obligations to return runaway slaves. They seceded when it became apparent that they were going to ultimately lose this battle in the face of opposition to slavery and as it became clear that there was little support for enforcing the law on return of runaways that made it to the north.

The right to dissolve the union was one never mentioned in the Constitution. However, those southern states that felt the need for such a discussion included arguments that the right to secede was inplicit in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. They characterized the union as being the equivalent of a gentleman's club where members could leave at will. This was never argued in court by either side. Rather, the southern states seceded and the northern states treated this as an act of insurrection under the Constitution.

Ultimately, the issue of the legality was answered by a devastating war which was won by the Union. Their legal position was subsequently made explicit under law with the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution which were ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures as required. Needless to say, the southern state legislatures were those put into place by the victors, not the losers. Right or wrong, that's how war works when talking no longer suffices.

Every time I hear these issues argued again, I wonder at the motives of those, such as DiLorenzo, who argue the CSA position not as history but as politics. Are you seriously seeking a return to slavery? Are you seeking to dissolve our country even as you wave the flag and urge wars against all those who oppose us?

When I was a kid, these types of discussions were simple warm ups for proclamations against civil rights legislation and all those liberals stirring up trouble. My parents were leaders in the civil rights movement in the 50's in Tennessee, so the same people used to put fish hooks in breadballs and throw them to my dogs and tail my mother for two hours before ticketing her for going 26 mph in a 25 mph zone. I always liked those people. They taught me how to fight.

backpasture
02-14-2009, 06:25 AM
Show us in the Constitution where it is illegal. There was no mention.


So, again I ask: Did the southern states argue the merits of this ridiculous argument in a court of law, and prove the 'legality' of secession?

Your argument is ridiculous. There is no 'legal' secession. Interesting to hear the kinds of arguments they make out on the lunatic fringe, though.

backpasture
02-14-2009, 06:29 AM
Hey Man,


1. I never stated that their was a law that allowed secession only that the main reason the souther states seceeded was because of taxation.
2. I never said anything at all about slaves other than slavery was a bad thing.



You never stated it, but you just responded to my post refuting those ridiculous arguments with some non-sequiter about 'the repercussions of slavery and emancipation of blacks in this country'.

tpaschal30
02-14-2009, 06:34 AM
I stated that in one of my earlier posts, but I also said that without the slavery issue there would have been no secession. It was the precipitating factor as is clear from each state's declarations at the time. I was accused of falling for revisionist history.

The revisionists are those that try to downplay the importance of that one issue. The truth was that the southern states viewed the right to slavery as sacrosanct. It was an issue that was central to their decision to join the revolution. Of course, they wanted to have their cake and eat it toon On one had they wanted to maintain an absolute right to own slaves. On the other, they wanted those slaves -- treated as chattel under the law -- to be counted for census purposes to increase the value of the southern vote.

The great compromise was that slavery was permitted but was never mentioned in the Constitution. Rather Article 2, section 2 stated that "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due." It then stated that "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." (Art. 1, section 2) Both of these sections were modified following the Civil War.

The South accurately saw the increasing hostility of the northern states towards slavery as a threat to the rights they had negotiated following the revolution. They sought to improve their poltiical position by having slavery instituted in new states and to have territories be bound by the same obligations to return runaway slaves. They seceded when it became apparent that they were going to ultimately lose this battle in the face of opposition to slavery and as it became clear that there was little support for enforcing the law on return of runaways that made it to the north.

The right to dissolve the union was one never mentioned in the Constitution. However, those southern states that felt the need for such a discussion included arguments that the right to secede was inplicit in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. They characterized the union as being the equivalent of a gentleman's club where members could leave at will. This was never argued in court by either side. Rather, the southern states seceded and the northern states treated this as an act of insurrection under the Constitution.

Ultimately, the issue of the legality was answered by a devastating war which was won by the Union. Their legal position was subsequently made explicit under law with the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution which were ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures as required. Needless to say, the southern state legislatures were those put into place by the victors, not the losers. Right or wrong, that's how war works when talking no longer suffices.

Every time I hear these issues argued again, I wonder at the motives of those, such as DiLorenzo, who argue the CSA position not as history but as politics. Are you seriously seeking a return to slavery? Are you seeking to dissolve our country even as you wave the flag and urge wars against all those who oppose us?

When I was a kid, these types of discussions were simple warm ups for proclamations against civil rights legislation and all those liberals stirring up trouble. My parents were leaders in the civil rights movement in the 50's in Tennessee, so the same people used to put fish hooks in breadballs and throw them to my dogs and tail my mother for two hours before ticketing her for going 26 mph in a 25 mph zone. I always liked those people. They taught me how to fight.

Dilorenzo or no one wants to return to slavery. He just argues there was no provision either way on getting out of the Union. While the north discussed it without threat on two previous occasions. I feel as does Dilorenzo, slavery would have fallen under it's own weight.(I agree with you that slavery was a major factor in the cause, but politically, not for any moral reasons on the Norths side). Where else in the world was a war fought to end slavery?
I think we all lost and gained from the CW. We all lost some freedom the framers intended, but we gained in prosperity with interstate trade, which would have been much more difficult without a powerful central government.

"A government big enough to supply you with everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have...." Thomas Jefferson

Pete
02-14-2009, 07:25 AM
Slavery is alive and well in Africa. Black slaves are common in many of the countries in Africa and they are owned by black people.
GO figure

Pete

Cody Covey
02-14-2009, 10:40 AM
states are sovereign. there would be no government without them. So to say they can't leave that which they created is kind of absurd. It wasn't the constitution that said anything about states leaving it was the declaration of independence. Also look at Jeffersons inaugural address. He stated "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it." and again later in a speach he said "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate." I guess I'm not to sure how the states didn't have a right to secede, they created the body known as the federal government and if the people of that state don't want to be a part of it any longer then how can the thing that it created tell you no. Do any of you let your children tell you what you can and can't do? It would be like you living in there house and laying down ground rules and then getting mad at you when you did something they didn't like but wasn't part of the rules...so you leave and they tell you no you have to stay.

Captain Mike D
02-14-2009, 06:37 PM
You never stated it, but you just responded to my post refuting those ridiculous arguments with some non-sequiter about 'the repercussions of slavery and emancipation of blacks in this country'.

Dude, I don't know what you are smoking but perhaps it would be wise to back away from the pipe before you implode.

Just trying to be helpful to my fellow man,

Mike

Steve Hester
02-15-2009, 08:38 AM
Anyone that believes that the Civil War was about slavery simply chooses to ignore the historical facts. :rolleyes:

tpaschal30
02-15-2009, 09:34 AM
Anyone that believes that the Civil War was about slavery simply chooses to ignore the historical facts. :rolleyes:

It was a factor though. It's main purpose was as a propaganda tool, it certainly was no antislavery crusade.