• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

The Myth Of Slavery & The Civil War

Brad S

Well-known member
Consider the holocaust perpetrated by the victorious Union against the native population.Its difficult to see much of the mythical racial benevolence alleged to be the impetus of the civil war in the 40 years after the war with respect to the Indians. I'm thinking racial protection had little to do with the war of northern aggression. Furthermore, the south offered to end slavery - tyrant Lincoln declined. Grant owned slaves 10 years later than lee.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Union General William Tecumseh Sherman - Sherman was not an abolitionist before the war and, like others of his time and background, he did not believe in "Negro equality." Before the war, Sherman at times even expressed some sympathy with the view of Southern whites that the black race was benefiting from slavery, although he opposed breaking up slave families and advocated teaching slaves to read and write. During the Civil War, Sherman declined to employ black troops in his armies.

"The more Indians we can kill this year the fewer we will need to kill the next, because the more I see of the Indians the more convinced I become that they must either all be killed or be maintained as a species of pauper. Their attempts at civilization is ridiculous"... Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman
 

Brad S

Well-known member
What Sherman did across the south is known as war crimes. If anyone is due reparations, the south - probably somewhere after the natives.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Sherman committed all his crimes will the full blessing of Lincoln. Lincoln threw Habeous Corpus out the window:


http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/deportation-roswell-mill-women
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Brad S said:
What Sherman did across the south is known as war crimes. If anyone is due reparations, the south - probably somewhere after the natives.
What Sherman did is what any commander and his army advancing through enemy territory does. Destroy anything and everything that might be the least bit useful to the enemy and his supporters. Has been done for ages before Sherman and many times since.

A very good read is James M. McPherson's "Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era"
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
I'm not nearly as concerned about who did what to whom almost 150 years ago as I am the criminal activity occuring right now with elected officials and others running for elected federal office. I had two great grandfathers who fought for the North. My guess is even they could tell that the supposed Republican nominee for President is as big a Democrat as either liberal Democrat contender.
 

Brad S

Well-known member
starvation of civilian population because "the military could eat it also" is tortured logic. Destroying civilian housing because?
Genocide certainly proceeded and succeeded Sherman - doesn't change what Sherman did.

As an aside, lee was presented with the plan to do basically the same in the north with gorillas. Citing "anything that could advance enemy power to comit war would make everything a target. Lee, citing honor and decency declined the proposal. Sherman and grant had a contest to see who could know less about honor and decency. Lincoln thought his ignorance about the constitution should count for something.
 

Mike

Well-known member
TexasBred said:
Brad S said:
What Sherman did across the south is known as war crimes. If anyone is due reparations, the south - probably somewhere after the natives.
What Sherman did is what any commander and his army advancing through enemy territory does. Destroy anything and everything that might be the least bit useful to the enemy and his supporters. Has been done for ages before Sherman and many times since.

A very good read is James M. McPherson's "Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era"

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.
 

Martin Jr.

Well-known member
Nations at war do not follow the International laws of war too well. In WWII American and Britain dropped 39000 tons of bombs that leveled Dresden Germany, and we cannot forget the two cities in Japan that were leveled by atomic bombs.
But even at that America has perhaps followed it better in later years than other governments. But there is always justification for these acts, 'The end result justifies the act'. War is not good at following laws.
 

Brad S

Well-known member
I think Japan was warned to clear civilians. They didn't believe we had the goods until after the second bomb. I've read that Japan had trained little kids to carry bombs and detonate them to disable tanks and of course kill themselves, in the eventual US landing on Japan's mainland. I'd suggest the bombs deflating Japan's war bluster actually saved Japanese lives.
 

Martin Jr.

Well-known member
I agree that the atomic bomb saved many Japanese lives as well as American lives. The necessity of the bomb is partly because of the Japanese not following good "international war laws."
 

mrj

Well-known member
Brad, how or why is it that "the natives" deserve(d) reparations? Their history since time began in North America was for tribes to attack one another, either leaving no survivors, or capturing as slaves, or adopting occasional very young ones. Didn't people of European descent simply do what was necessary to care for their own families, later government entities acted similarly, it seems. It has been the sad history of man to invade one another since we got tossed from the Garden of Eden, and probably will continue until the Second Coming! Humans simply won't govern fairly and honestly, it appears. No race is exempt from it, and all races have treated their own people equally as badly as other races have treated them at various times, from what we can read from history.

mrj
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
If anyone is deserving of reparations, it's the Irish. The Brits abused them and put them into slavery for a thousand years, if not longer. The first slaves in North America were Irish, not African. So the Africans, Japanese, Native Americans, and everybody else can just get in line. Paddy & Seamus should get paid first.

Yeah.....like that's gonna happen.
 

Brad S

Well-known member
Mrj, your points are compelling and for the most part inescapable. To them I'd add, it's a mistake to review 16th century or what ever ancient issues through the prism of 21st century morality ( this point is implicit in the mrj points).

I don't support reparations for anyone, but if they were to be considered, I'd suggest the native claim to be more substantial than other claims.
 

Mike

Well-known member
I think you'll find throughout history the only times that a country has invaded it's own citizens.......and killed upwards of 50,000 civilians without negotiations............. that the orders were given by an autocratic tyrant. Not unlike Abraham Lincoln and his successors.
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Mike said:
I think you'll find throughout history the only times that a country has invaded it's own citizens.......and killed upwards of 50,000 civilians without negotiations............. that the orders were given by an autocratic tyrant. Not unlike Abraham Lincoln and his successors.
Funny the confederates no longer considered themselves citizens of the USA and no one in the US issued any orders until Ft. Sumpter was fired on. Did they thing that would go unnoticed?? Had the south had the ability they would have gladly reciprocated in the northern states and when opportunity did arise they didn't hesitate to kill off a few civilians who were at their mercy. It's been 150 years. It's time to realize the Civil War ended long ago and walking around carrying or wearing the confederate battle flag doesn't make you anything except someone who still lives in the past and often still rewriting the past to make it fit your narrative.

BTW rules of war didn't seem to stop Lt. Calley (A good ol' boy from Florida) from the My Lai massacre in Vietnam.
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Mike said:
I think you'll find throughout history the only times that a country has invaded it's own citizens.......and killed upwards of 50,000 civilians without negotiations............. that the orders were given by an autocratic tyrant. Not unlike Abraham Lincoln and his successors.
It would appear to me that the Confederacy declared war on the Union and attacked it first. Correct me if I'm wrong.
 

Mike

Well-known member
TexasBred said:
Mike said:
I think you'll find throughout history the only times that a country has invaded it's own citizens.......and killed upwards of 50,000 civilians without negotiations............. that the orders were given by an autocratic tyrant. Not unlike Abraham Lincoln and his successors.
It would appear to me that the Confederacy declared war on the Union and attacked it first. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The word "Attack" is questionable. No one was killed in the hostilities.........................NOT ONE!

The Federals were there collecting the Tarriffs at such a rate, the city of Charleston was but a stump of a once fruitful city.

At the time, Taussig says, the import-dependent South was paying as much as 80 percent of the tariff, while complaining bitterly that most of the revenues were being spent in the North. The South was being plundered by the tax system and wanted no more of it. Then along comes Lincoln and the Republicans, tripling (!) the rate of tariff taxation (before the war was an issue). Lincoln then threw down the gauntlet in his first inaugural: "The power confided in me," he said, "will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion--no using force against, or among the people anywhere" (emphasis added).

"We are going to make tax slaves out of you," Lincoln was effectively saying, "and if you resist, there will be an invasion." That was on March 4. Five weeks later, on April 12, Fort Sumter, a tariff collection point in Charleston Harbor, was bombarded by the Confederates. No one was hurt or killed, and Lincoln later revealed that he manipulated the Confederates into firing the first shot, which helped generate war fever in the North.

With slavery, Lincoln was conciliatory. In his first inaugural address, he said he had no intention of disturbing slavery, and he appealed to all his past speeches to any who may have doubted him. Even if he did, he said, it would be unconstitutional to do so.

But with the tariff it was different. He was not about to back down to the South Carolina tariff nullifiers, as Andrew Jackson had done, and was willing to launch an invasion that would ultimately cost the lives of 620,000 Americans to prove his point. Lincoln’s economic guru, Henry C. Carey, was quite prescient when he wrote to Congressman Justin S. Morrill in mid-1860 that "Nothing less than a dictator is required for making a really good tariff" (p. 614, "Abraham Lincoln and the Tariff").
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Mike said:
TexasBred said:
Mike said:
I think you'll find throughout history the only times that a country has invaded it's own citizens.......and killed upwards of 50,000 civilians without negotiations............. that the orders were given by an autocratic tyrant. Not unlike Abraham Lincoln and his successors.
It would appear to me that the Confederacy declared war on the Union and attacked it first. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The word "Attack" is questionable. No one was killed in the hostilities.........................NOT ONE!

The Federals were there collecting the Tarriffs at such a rate, the city of Charleston was but a stump of a once fruitful city.

At the time, Taussig says, the import-dependent South was paying as much as 80 percent of the tariff, while complaining bitterly that most of the revenues were being spent in the North. The South was being plundered by the tax system and wanted no more of it. Then along comes Lincoln and the Republicans, tripling (!) the rate of tariff taxation (before the war was an issue). Lincoln then threw down the gauntlet in his first inaugural: "The power confided in me," he said, "will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion--no using force against, or among the people anywhere" (emphasis added).

"We are going to make tax slaves out of you," Lincoln was effectively saying, "and if you resist, there will be an invasion." That was on March 4. Five weeks later, on April 12, Fort Sumter, a tariff collection point in Charleston Harbor, was bombarded by the Confederates. No one was hurt or killed, and Lincoln later revealed that he manipulated the Confederates into firing the first shot, which helped generate war fever in the North.

With slavery, Lincoln was conciliatory. In his first inaugural address, he said he had no intention of disturbing slavery, and he appealed to all his past speeches to any who may have doubted him. Even if he did, he said, it would be unconstitutional to do so.

But with the tariff it was different. He was not about to back down to the South Carolina tariff nullifiers, as Andrew Jackson had done, and was willing to launch an invasion that would ultimately cost the lives of 620,000 Americans to prove his point. Lincoln’s economic guru, Henry C. Carey, was quite prescient when he wrote to Congressman Justin S. Morrill in mid-1860 that "Nothing less than a dictator is required for making a really good tariff" (p. 614, "Abraham Lincoln and the Tariff").

I guess it would have appeared much more justified had they had killed everyone in the fort.


They claim it increased the tariff on the south from 15% to nearly 50%. This is another lie. First of all, there was not a tariff on the south. The tariff was paid only on imports, not on any specific section of the United States. Secondly, the Morrill Tariff raised rates to around 26% overall, and around 34% on dutiable goods. It wasn’t until after the war began that the tariff began to rise much higher, and the reason for that was to pay for the war started by the confederacy.

Related to this is the claim we often hear that the south paid the tariff. The idea that the south paid the tariff is preposterous. Andy Hall has a great illustration showing where the tariff was collected.

In 1860, Charleston only had $2.0 million in imports, Savannah had only $800,000 in imports, Mobile had only $600,000 in imports, New Orleans had only $20.6 million in imports, and other southern ports had only $3.0 million in imports. In the same year, New York City alone had $231.3 million in imports and all other northern ports had $95.3 million in imports.

New Orleans was the southern port that collected the most in the tariff, and it was only $3.1 million. The total south only collected $4.0 million in tariff revenues, whereas New York City collected $34.9 million in tariff revenues and the total for northern ports was $48.3 million. [Source: Douglas B. Ball, Financial Failure and Confederate Defeat, p. 205, Table 18, “Trade Figures by Port in 1860” and “Customs Collections by Major Port (1860)”]

One may claim that where the tariff was paid does not determine who paid it. It was paid by importers, and the cost of that was passed onto whoever bought the goods. So who bought the goods?

“There were difficulties to be overcome before direct importations could be established other than deficiency of capital and credit, the long credit system, or the absence of a thoroughly Southern mercantile class. One lay in the comparatively small amounts of foreign goods consumed in the South. There is no way of calculating accurately the value of the foreign imports consumed in territory naturally tributary to Southern seaports; but the probabilities are that it did not so greatly exceed the direct importations as Southerners generally supposed. Some Southern writers made the palpably untenable assumption that the Southern population consumed foreign goods equal in value to their exports to foreign countries, that is about two-thirds or three-fourths of the nation’s exports or imports. More reasonable was the assumption that the per capita consumption of imported goods in the South was equal to that of the North; but even that would seem to have been too liberal. A much higher percentage of the Northern population was urban; and the per capita consumption of articles of commerce by an urban population is greater than the per capita consumption by a rural population. Southern writers made much of the number of rich families in the South who bought articles of luxury imported from abroad; but there is no doubt that the number of families who lived in luxury was exaggerated. That the slaves consumed comparatively small quantities of foreign goods requires no demonstration. Their clothing and rough shoes were manufactured either in the North or at home. Their chief articles of food (corn and bacon) were produced at home or in the West. The large poor white element in the population consumed few articles of commerce, either domestic or foreign. The same is true of the rather large mountaineer element, because if for no other reason, they lived beyond the routes of trade. Olmstead had these classes in mind when he wrote: ‘I have never seen reason to believe that with absolute free trade the cotton States would take a tenth part of the value of our present importations.’ One of the fairest of the many English travelers wrote: ‘But the truth is, there are few imports required, for every Southern town tells the same tale.’ ” [Robert R. Russel, Economic Aspects of Southern Sectionalism, 1840-1861, pp. 107-108]

The most the southern states could have paid, then, was a per capita percentage of the tariff, and even that was likely an overestimate of the amount they paid. The percentage of the population in the 11 states of the confederacy was 29% of the total US population in 1860, according to the US Census, and 40% of THAT population were slaves who didn’t use imported goods. So we have the most southerners in the confederate states would have paid being just about 17%. Again, this is most probably an overestimate.

The video claims that Lincoln declared he would collect the taxes no matter what, and to prove this they take one phrase of his First Inaugural out of context.

“I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.

“In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices.”

Quite clearly, Lincoln is saying he will enforce the laws of the United States–all of them, including the revenue laws–and he will hold, occupy, and possess the property of the government. We have to remember that at the time of Lincoln’s Inaugural there were states that had taken over US Government property and wanted to take more. Indeed, it was the firing on Fort Sumter, not the tariff, that led to Lincoln’s call for troops.

The video calls the war an “illegal invasion of the Southern States.” That’s an out-and-out lie. It was a legal case of putting down a rebellion, which Lincoln, as Commander-in-Chief, had the authority to do. The video claims the states had legally seceded. That’s another lie. There was nothing legal about the attempted secession of those 11 states. They claim the war was fought “just to keep money flowing into Washington.” That’s another lie. The goal, for the first half of the war, was to preserve the Union.

The video ends saying that this was the “grounds that sparked the first meeting of secession.” The first meeting of secession was sparked by the election of Abraham Lincoln, an antislavery president.

Anyone who believes this nonsense has no clue about what really happened in US history. Of course, as we know, it’s not about history, it’s about heritage–and we find that in this case, the heritage is about telling lies.
 
Top