Historical Research On The War Between The States (contains graphic images)

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Johnny_Reb_1865, Jul 26, 2014.

  1. Hugh Bris Member

    I am on a very slow connection with limited bandwidth. I ran a test this month, to see how long it took me to run out my 10GB bandwidth with my normal surfing habits.

    Answer: 14 days. I've been running on very limited bandwidth for the past two weeks. Your videos don't even show up in my browsers. The joys of rural life. And being cheap. They want more money for more bandwidth. So all that means I will never watch your videos. Sorry. Too large a file for my bandwidth.

    Ah, as for the many flags...I'll pass.
  2. Very well then you posted a bit further back on the other page that you didn't know much about the war and that you had a lot of questions.
    Hit me with as many that you have.
  3. Hugh Bris Member

    Actually, what I said was these would be topics I was interested in discussing. I would use research to find the sources to address the issues, and I would be interested in what others thought of this thesis or that in regards to causes.

    For instance, I have been told all my life that it was a Civil War. It was not that long ago I realized that was BS, it was a war of secession. So why are we taught otherwise? I would say it is to make Lincoln look right, which makes the Government look right. I know that practically everyone on this board would not accept that (actually, they'll be foaming at the mouth to attack that), but there is research that shows that Lincoln was not very well liked, and there was a concerted effort to rehabilitate his image. I don't know if all that's true, but if so, it would explain a lot.

    Or we could go back further and ask if what the Founding Fathers did to pass the Constitution (the 3/5ths compromise, for instance, which ensured we would have slavery) was worth it. All they did was pass the buck in order to create a country. Would we have been better off with the Articles of Confederation? I don't know, but those would be interesting thesis to explore.

    Or one I asked earlier, why was the US the only country to go to war to end slavery (and then do it in name only)

    That's the problem with history, there's no do over switch so all we can do is speculate.
  4. Yeah your absolutely right about that.

    Truly the victor writes history....
  5. "why is it called a civil war? Who would benefit from calling it that..."

    You said that a few pages ago and I can answer that question.

    The government would.

    A true "Civil War" is when two groups fight for control of the government or to overthrow it.

    The Confederates where not fighting to over throw the government.

    Therefor it was not a "Civil War" that term is misleading so......

    As the op.......

  6. Below is an excerpt from " INTERVIEW WITH GENERAL N.B. FORREST

    Printed in the Cincinnati Commercial, August 28, 1868.

    ""The Story of the KuKluxKlan 1866-1871"" written by Stanley F. Horn in 1939 from The Riverside Press.

    The interviewer is not identified by name. I present this to you as a possible primary source of the quote Forrest is famous for which I underlined. I send this as an example of the whole context from which the quote is taken. The file I show you is the whole interview.

    Question:'What do you think of negro suffrage?'

    'I am opposed to it under any and all circumstances, and in our convention urged our party not to commit themselves at all upon the subject. If the negroes vote to enfranchise us, I do not think I would favor their disfranchisement. We will stand by those who help us. And here I want you to understand distinctly I am not an enemy to the negro. We want him here among us; he is the only laboring class we have; and, more than that, I would sooner trust him than the white scalawag or carpetbagger. When I entered the army I took forty-seven negroes into the army with me, and forty- five of them were surrendered with me. I said to them at the start: "This fight is against slavery; if we lose it, you will be made free; if we whip the fight, and you stay with me and be good boys, I will set you free; in either case you will be free." These boys stayed with me, drove my teams, and better confederates did not live.'

    'Do you think the Ku Klux will try to intimidate the negroes at the election?'

    'I do not think they will. Why, I made a speech at Brownsville the other day, and while there a lieutenant who served with me came to me and informed me that a band of radicals had been going through the country claiming to be Ku Klux, and disarming the negroes, and then selling their arms. I told him to have the matter investigated, and, if true, to have the parties arrested.'

    Printed in the Cincinnati Commercial, August 28, 1868, with his reply
    In August, 1868, a mild sensation was created by the publication in the Cincinnati Commercial of a news-letter from its traveling correspondent who was then in Memphis, and who reported an interview with General Nathan Bedford Forrest on the subject of the Ku KIlL" Klan, then a subject of absorbing interest throughout the entire country. This news article was as follows:
    Memphis, Tenn., August 28, 1868.
    To-day I have enjoyed 'big talks' enough to have gratified any of the famous Indian chiefs who have been treating with General Sherman for the past two years. First I met General N. B. Forrest, then General Gideon A. Pillow, and Governor Isham G. Harris. My first visit was to General Forrest, whom I found at his office, at 8 o'clock this morning, hard at work, although complaining of an illness contracted at the New York convention. The New Yorkers must be a bad set indeed, for I have not met a single delegate from the Southern States who has not been ill ever since he went there. But to General Forrest. Now that the southern people have elevated him to the position of their great leader and oracle, it may not be amiss to preface my conversation with him with a brief sketch of the gentleman.
    I cannot better personally describe him than by borrowing the language of one of his biographers. 'In person he is six feet one inch and a half in height, with broad shoulders, a full chest, and symmetrical, muscular limbs; erect in carriage, and weighs one hundred and eighty five pounds; dark-gray eyes, dark hair, mustache and beard worn upon the chin; a set of regular white teeth, and clearly cut features'; which, altogether, make him rather a handsome man for one forty-seven years of age.
    Previous to the war - in 1852 - he left the business of planter, and came to this city and engaged in the business of 'negro trader,' in which traffic he seems to have been quite successful, for, by 1861, he had become the owner of two plantations a few miles below here, in Mississippi, on which he produced about a thousand bales of cotton each year, in the meantime carrying on the negro-trading. In June, 1861, he was authorized by Governor Harris to recruit a regiment of cavalry for the war, which he did, and which was the nucleus around which he gathered the army which he commanded as lieutenant general at the end of the war.
    After being seated in his office, I said:
    'General Forrest, I came especially to learn your views in regard to the condition of your civil and political affairs in the State of Tennessee, and the South generally. I desire them for publication in the Cincinnati Commercial. I do not wish to misinterpret you in the slightest degree, and therefore only ask for such views as you are willing 1 should publish.'
    'I have not now,' he replied, 'and never have had, any opinion on any public or political subject which I would object to having published. I mean what I say, honestly and earnestly, and only object to being misrepresented. I dislike to be placed before the country in a false position, especially as I have not sought the reputation I have gained.'
    I replied: 'Sir, I will publish only what you say, and then you can not possibly be misrepresented. Our people desire to know your feelings toward the General Government, the State government of Tennessee, the radical party, both in and out of the State, and upon the question of negro suffrage.'
    'Well, sir,' said he, 'when I surrendered my seven thousand men in 1865, I accepted a parole honestly, and I have observed it faithfully up to to-day. I have counseled peace in all the speeches I have made. I have advised my people to submit to the laws of the State, oppressive as they are, and unconstitutional as I believe them to be. I was paroled and not pardoned until the issuance of the last proclamation of general amnesty; and, therefore, did not think it prudent for me to take any active part until the oppression of my people became so great that they could not endure it, and then I would be with them. My friends thought differently, and sent me to New York, and I am glad I went there.'
    'Then, I suppose, general, that you think the oppression has become so great that your people should no longer bear it.'
    'No,' he answered, 'It is growing worse hourly, yet I have said to the people "Stand fast, let us try to right the wrong by legislation." A few weeks ago I was called to Nashville to counsel with other gentlemen who had been prominently identified with the cause of the confederacy, and we then offered pledges which we thought would be satisfactory to Mr. Brownlow and his legislature, and we told them that, if they would not callout the militia, we would agree to preserve order and see that the laws were enforced. The legislative committee certainly led me to believe that our proposition would be accepted and no militia organized. Believing this, I came home, and advised all of my people to remain peaceful, and to offer no resistance to any reasonable law, It is true that I never have recognized the present government in Tennessee as having any legal existence, yet I was willing to submit to it for a time, with the hope that the wrongs might be righted peaceably,'
    'What are your feelings towards the Federal Government, general?' 'I loved the old Government in 1861; I love the Constitution yet.
    I think it is the best government in the world if administered as it was before the war. I do not hate it; I am opposing now only the radical revolutionists who are trying to destroy it. I believe that party to be composed, as I know it is in Tennessee, of the worst men on God's earth - men who would hesitate at no crime, and who have only one object in view, to enrich themselves,'
    'In the event of Governor Brownlow's calling out the militia, do you think there will be any resistance offered to their acts?' I asked.
    'That will depend upon circumstances. If the militia are simply called out, and do not interfere with or molest anyone, I do not think there will be any fight. If, on the contrary, they do what I believe they will do, commit outrages, or even one outrage, upon the people, they and Mr. Brownlow's government will be swept out of existence; not a radical will be left alive. If the militia are called out, we can not but look upon it as a declaration of war, because Mr. Brownlow has already issued his proclamation directing them to shoot down the Ku Klux wherever they find them; and he calls all southern men Ku Klux.'
    'Why, general, we people up north have regarded the Ku Klux as an organization which existed only in the frightened imaginations of a few politicians.'
    'Well, sir, there is such an organization, not only in Tennessee but allover the South, and its numbers have not been exaggerated.'
    'What are its numbers, general?' 'In Tennessee there are over forty thousand; in all the Southern States about five hundred and fifty thousand men.'
    'What is the character of the organization, may I inquire?' 'Yes, sir. It is a protective, political, military organization. I am willing to show any man the constitution of the society. The members are sworn to recognize the Government of the United States. It does not say anything at all about the government of the State of Tennessee. Its objects originally were protection against Loyal Leagues and the Grand Army of the Republic; but after it became general it was found that political matters and interests could best be promoted within it, and it was then made a political organization, giving its support, of course, to the democratic party.'
    'But is the organization connected throughout the State?'
    'Yes, it is. In each voting precinct there is a captain, who, in addition to his other duties, is required to make out a list of names of men in his precinct, giving all the radicals and all the democrats who are positively known, and showing also the doubtful on both sides and of both colors. This list of names is forwarded to the grand commander of the State, who is thus enabled to know who are our friends and who are not.'
    'Can you, or are you at liberty to, give me the name of the commanding officer of this state?'
    'No; it would be impolitic.'
    'Then I suppose there would be no doubt of a conflict if the militia interfere with the people; is that your view?'
    'Yes, sir; if they attempt to carry out Governor Brownlow's proclamation by shooting down Ku Klux - for he calls all southern men Ku Klux - if they go to hunting down and shooting these men, there will be war, and a bloodier one than we have ever witnessed. I have told these radicals here what they might expect in such an event. I have no powder to burn killing negroes. I intend to kill the radicals. I have told them this and more. There is not a radical leader in this town but is a marked man; and if a trouble should break out, not one of them would be left alive. I have told them that they were trying to create a disturbance and then slip out and leave the consequences to fall upon the negro; but they can't do it. Their houses are picketed, and when the fight comes not one of them would ever get out of this town alive. We don't intend they shall ever get out of the country. But I want it distinctly understood that I am opposed to any war, and will only fight in self-defense. If the militia attack us, we will resist to the last; and, if necessary, I think I could raise 40,000 men in five days, ready for the field.'
    'Do you think, general, that the Ku Klux have been of any benefit to the State?'
    'No doubt of it. Since its organization the leagues have quit killing and murdering our people. There were some foolish young men who put masks on their faces and rode over the country frightening negroes; but orders have been issued to stop that, and it has ceased. You may say further that three members of the Ku Klux have been court-martialed and shot for violations of the orders not to disturb or molest people.'
    'Are you a member of the Ku Klux, general?'
    'I am not; but am in sympathy and will cooperate with them. I know they are charged with many crimes they are not guilty of: A case in point is the killing of Bierfield at Franklin, a few days ago. I sent a man up there especially to investigate the case, and report to me, and I have his letter here now, in which he states that they had nothing to do with it as an organization.'
    'What do you think of negro suffrage?'
    'I am opposed to it under any and all circumstances, and in our convention urged our party not to commit themselves at all upon the subject. If the negroes vote to enfranchise us, I do not think I would favor their disfranchisement. We will stand by those who help us. And here I want you to understand distinctly I am not an enemy to the negro. We want him here among us; he is the only laboring class we have; and, more than that, I would sooner trust him than the white scalawag or carpetbagger. When I entered the army I took forty-seven negroes into the army with me, and forty- five of them were surrendered with me. I said to them at the start: "This fight is against slavery; if we lose it, you will be made free; if we whip the fight, and you stay with me and be good boys, I will set you free; in either case you will be free." These boys stayed with me, drove my teams, and better confederates did not live.'
    'Do you think the Ku Klux will try to intimidate the negroes at the election?'
    'I do not think they will. Why, I made a speech at Brownsville the other day, and while there a lieutenant who served with me came to me and informed me that a band of radicals had been going through the country claiming to be Ku Klux, and disarming the negroes, and then selling their arms. I told him to have the matter investigated, and, if true, to have the parties arrested.'
    'What do you think is the effect of the amnesty granted to your people?'
    'I believe that the amnesty restored all the rights to the people, full and complete. I do not think the Federal Government has the right to disfranchise any man, but I believe that the legislatures of the States have. The objection I have to the disfranchisement in Tennessee is, that the legislature, which enacted the law, had no constitutional existence, and the law in itself is a nullity. Still I would respect it until changed by law. But there is a limit beyond which men can not be driven, and I am ready to die sooner than sacrifice my honor. This thing must have an end, and it is now about time for that end to come.'
    'What do you think of General Grant?' I asked.
    'I regard him as a great military commander, a good man, honest and liberal, and if elected will, I hope and believe, execute the laws honestly and faithfully. And by the way, a report has been published in some of the newspapers, stating that while General Grant and lady were at Corinth, in 1862, they took and carried off furniture and other property. I here brand the author as a liar. I was at Corinth only a short time ago, and I personally investigated the whole matter, talked with the people with whom he and his lady lived while there, and they say that their conduct was everything that could be expected of a gentleman and lady, and deserving the highest praise. I am opposed to General Grant in everything, but I would do him justice.'
    The foregoing is the principal part of my conversation with the general. I give the conversation, and leave the reader to form his own opinion as to what General Forrest means to do. I think he has been so plain in his talk that it can not be misunderstood.
    As soon as General Forrest read this account of the interview with him, he addressed the following letter to the correspondent who wrote it:

    Memphis, September 3, 1868.
    "...Dear Sir:
    I have just read your letter in the Commercial, giving a report of our conversation on Friday last. I do not think you would intentionally misrepresent me, but you have done so and, I suppose, because you mistook my meaning. The portions of your letter to which I object are corrected in the following paragraphs:
    I promise the legislature my personal influence and aid in maintaining order and enforcing the laws. I have never advised the people to resist any law, but to submit to the laws, until they can be corrected by lawful legislation.
    I said the militia bill would occasion no trouble, unless they violated the law by carrying out the governor's proclamation, which I believe to be unconstitutional and in violence of law, in shooting men down without trial, as recommended by that proclamation.
    I said it was reported, and I believed the report, that there are forty thousand Ku Klux in Tennessee; and I believe the organization stronger in other states. I meant to imply, when I said that the Ku Klux recognize the Federal Government, that they would obey all State laws. They recognize all laws, and will obey them, so I have been informed, in protecting peaceable citizens from oppression from any quarter.
    I did not say that any man's house was picketed. I did not mean to convey the idea that I would raise any troops; and, more than that, no man could do it in five days, even if they were organized.
    I said that General Grant was at Holly Springs, and not at Corinth; I said the charge against him was false, but did not use the word 'liar.'
    I can not consent to remain silent in this matter; for, if I did so, under an incorrect impression of my personal views, I might be looked upon as one desiring a conflict, when, in truth, I am so averse to anything of the kind that I will make any honorable sacrifice to avoid it.
    Hoping that I may have this explanation placed before your readers, I remain, very respectfully,
    N. B. FORREST....."

    On The Web:
  7. The following text is from General Forrest's farewell address to his troops. It is a particularly interesting prelude to the experiences the South had during Reconstruction. Imagine that you are one of Forrest's troops on the receiving end of this proclamation. It is at the same time, very sobering and inspiring.


    By an agreement made between Liet.-Gen. Taylor, commanding the Department of Alabama. Mississippi, and East Louisiana, and Major-Gen. Canby, commanding United States forces, the troops of this department have been surrendered.
    I do not think it proper or necessary at this time to refer to causes which have reduced us to this extremity; nor is it now a matter of material consequence to us how such results were brought about. That we are BEATEN is a self-evident fact, and any further resistance on our part would justly be regarded as the very height of folly and rashness.
    The armies of Generals LEE and JOHNSON having surrendered. You are the last of all the troops of the Confederate States Army east of the Mississippi River to lay down your arms.
    The Cause for which you have so long and so manfully struggled, and for which you have braved dangers, endured privations, and sufferings, and made so many sacrifices, is today hopeless. The government which we sought to establish and perpetuate, is at an end. Reason dictates and humanity demands that no more blood be shed. Fully realizing and feeling that such is the case, it is your duty and mine to lay down our arms -- submit to the “powers that be” -- and to aid in restoring peace and establishing law and order throughout the land.
    The terms upon which you were surrendered are favorable, and should be satisfactory and acceptable to all. They manifest a spirit of magnanimity and liberality, on the part of the Federal authorities, which should be met, on our part, by a faithful compliance with all the stipulations and conditions therein expressed. As your Commander, I sincerely hope that every officer and soldier of my command will cheerfully obey the orders given, and carry out in good faith all the terms of the cartel.
    Those who neglect the terms and refuse to be paroled, may assuredly expect, when arrested, to be sent North and imprisoned. Let those who are absent from their commands, from whatever cause, report at once to this place, or to Jackson, Miss.; or, if too remote from either, to the nearest United States post or garrison, for parole.
    Civil war, such as you have just passed through naturally engenders feelings of animosity, hatred, and revenge. It is our duty to divest ourselves of all such feelings; and as far as it is in our power to do so, to cultivate friendly feelings towards those with whom we have so long contended, and heretofore so widely, but honestly, differed. Neighborhood feuds, personal animosities, and private differences should be blotted out; and, when you return home, a manly, straightforward course of conduct will secure the respect of your enemies. Whatever your responsibilities may be to Government, to society, or to individuals meet them like men.
    The attempt made to establish a separate and independent Confederation has failed; but the consciousness of having done your duty faithfully, and to the end, will, in some measure, repay for the hardships you have undergone.
    In bidding you farewell, rest assured that you carry with you my best wishes for your future welfare and happiness. Without, in any way, referring to the merits of the Cause in which we have been engaged, your courage and determination, as exhibited on many hard-fought fields, has elicited the respect and admiration of friend and foe. And I now cheerfully and gratefully acknowledge my indebtedness to the officers and men of my command whose zeal, fidelity and unflinching bravery have been the great source of my past success in arms.
    I have never, on the field of battle, sent you where I was unwilling to go myself; nor would I now advise you to a course which I felt myself unwilling to pursue. You have been good soldiers, you can be good citizens. Obey the laws, preserve your honor, and the Government to which you have surrendered can afford to be, and will be, magnanimous...."

    N.B. Forrest, Lieut.-General Headquarters, Forrest's Cavalry Corps
    Gainesville, Alabama
    May 9, 1865
  8. Report of Maj. Gen. Nathan B. Forrest, C. S. Army, commanding Cavalry, of the Capture of Fort Pillow
    MARCH 16-APRIL 14, 1864.--Forrest's Expedition into West Tennessee and Kentucky.
    O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME XXXII/1 [S# 57]
    Jackson, Tenn., April 26, 1864.
    Lieut. Col. THOMAS M. JACK,
    Assistant Adjutant-General.
    " ..... COLONEL: I have the honor respectfully to forward you the following report of my engagement with the enemy on the 12th instant at Fort Pillow:
    My command consisted of McCulloch's brigade, of Chalmers' division, and Bell's brigade, of Buford's division, both placed for the expedition under the command of Brig. Gen. James R. Chalmers, who, by a forced march, drove in the enemy's pickets, gained possession of the outer works, and by the time I reached the field, at 10 a.m., had forced the enemy to their main fortifications, situated on the bluff or bank of the Mississippi River at the mouth of Coal Creek. The fort is an earth-work, crescent shaped, is 8 feet in height and 4 feet across the top, surrounded by a ditch 6 feet deep and 12 feet in width, walls sloping to the ditch but perpendicular inside. It was garrisoned by 700 troops with six pieces of field artillery. A deep ravine surrounds the fort, and from the fort to the ravine the ground descends rapidly. Assuming command, I ordered General Chalmers to advance his lines and gain position on the slope, where our men would be perfectly protected from the heavy fire of artillery and musketry, as the enemy could not depress their pieces so as to rake the slopes, nor could they fire on them with small-arms except by mounting the breast-works and exposing themselves to the fire of our sharpshooters, who, under cover of stumps and logs, forced them to keep down inside the works. After several hours' hard fighting the desired position was gained, not, however, without considerable loss. Our main line was now within an average distance of 100 yards from the fort, and extended from Coal Creek, on the right, to the bluff, or bank, of the Mississippi River on the left.

    During the entire morning the gun-boat kept up a continued fire in all directions, but without effect, and being confident of my ability, to take the fort by assault, and desiring to prevent further loss of life, I sent, under flag of truce, a demand for the unconditional surrender of the garrison, a copy of which demand is hereto appended, marked No. 1, to which I received a reply, marked No. 2. The gun-boat had ceased firing, but the smoke of three other boats ascending the river was in view, the foremost boat apparently crowded with troops, and believing the request for an hour was to gain time for re-enforcements to arrive, and that the desire to consult the officers of the gun-boat was a pretext by which they desired improperly to communicate with her, I at once sent this reply, copy of which is numbered 3, directing Captain Goodman, assistant adju-tant-general of Brigadier-General Chalmers, who bore the flag, to remain until he received a reply or until the expiration of the time proposed.

    My dispositions had all been made, and my forces were in a position that would enable me to take the fort with less loss than to have withdrawn under fire, and it seemed to me so perfectly apparent to the garrison that such was the case, that I deemed their [capture] without further bloodshed a certainty. After some little delay, seeing a message delivered to Captain Goodman, I rode up myself to where the notes were received and delivered. The answer was handed me, written in pencil on a slip of paper, without envelope, and was, as well as I remember, in these words: "Negotiations will not attain the desired object." As the officers who were in charge of the Federal flag of truce had expressed a doubt as to my presence, and had pronounced the demand a trick, I handed them back the note saying: "I am General Forrest; go back and say to Major Booth that I demand an answer in plain, unmistakable English. Will he fight or surrender ?" Returning to my original position, before the expiration of twenty minutes I received a reply, copy of which is marked No. 4.

    While these negotiations were pending the steamers from below were rapidly approaching the fort. The foremost was the Olive Branch, whose position and movements indicated her intention to land. A few shots fired into her caused her to leave the shore and make for the opposite. One other boat passed up on the far side of the river, the third one turned back.

    The time having expired, I directed Brigadier-General Chalmers to prepare for the assault. Bell's brigade occupied the right, with his extreme right resting on Coal Creek. McCulloch's brigade occupied the left, extending from the center to the river. Three companies of his left regiment were placed in an old rifle-pit on the left and almost in the rear of the fort, which had evidently been thrown up for the protection of sharpshooters or riflemen in supporting the water batteries below. On the right a portion of Barteau's regiment, of Bell's brigade, was also under the bluff and in rear of the fort. I dispatched staff officers to Colonels Bell and McCulloch, commanding brigades, to say to them that I should watch with interest the conduct of the troops; that

    Missourians, Mississippians, and Tennesseeans surrounded the works, and I desired to see who would first scale the fort. Fearing the gun-boats and transports might attempt a landing, I directed my aide-de-camp, Capt. Charles W. Anderson, to assume command of the three companies on the left and rear of the fort and hold the position against anything that might come by land or water, but to take no part in the assault on the fort. Everything being ready, the bugle sounded the charge, which was made with a yell, and the works carried without a perceptible halt in any part of the line.

    As our troops mounted and poured into the fortification the enemy retreated toward the river, arms in hand and firing back, and their colors flying, no doubt expecting the gun-boat to shell us away from the bluff and protect them until they could be taken off or re-en-forced.

    As they descended the bank an enfilading and deadly fire was poured into them by the troops under Captain Anderson, on the left, and Barteau's detachment on the right. Until this fire was opened upon them, at a distance varying from 30 to 100 yards, they were evidently ignorant of any force having gained their rear. The regiment who had stormed and carried the fort also poured a destructive fire into the rear of the retreating and now panic-stricken and almost decimated garrison. Fortunately for those of the enemy who survived this short but desperate struggle, some of our men cut the halyards, and the United States flag, floating from a tall mast in the center of the fort, came down.

    The forces stationed in the rear of the fort could see the flag, but were too far under the bluff to see the fort, and when the flag descended they ceased firing. But for this, so near were they to the enemy that few, if any, would have survived unhurt another volley. As it was, many rushed into the river and were drowned, and the actual loss of life will perhaps never be known, as there were quite a number of refugee citizens in the fort, many of whom were drowned and several killed in the retreat from the fort. In less than twenty minutes from the time the bugles sounded the charge firing had ceased and the work was done. One of the Parrott guns was turned on the gun-boat. She steamed off without replying. She had, as I afterward understood, expended all her ammunition, and was therefore powerless in affording the Federal garrison the aid and protection they doubtless expected of her when they retreated toward the river. Details were made, consisting of the captured Federals and negroes, in charge of their own officers, to collect together and bury the dead, which work continued until dark.

    I also directed Captain Anderson to procure a skiff and take with him Captain Young, a captured Federal officer, and deliver to Captain Marshall, of the gun-boat, the message, copy of which is appended and numbered 5. All the boats and skiffs having been taken off by citizens escaping from the fort during the engagement, the message could not be delivered, although every effort was made to induce Captain Marshall to send his boat ashore by raising a white flag, with which Captain Young walked up and down the river in vain signaling her to come in or send out a boat. She finally moved off and disappeared around the bend above the fort. General Chalmers withdrew his forces from the fort before dark and encamped a few miles east of it.

    On the morning of the 13th, I again dispatched Captain Anderson to Fort Pillow for the purpose of placing, if possible, the Federal wounded on board their transports, and report to me on his return the condition of affairs at the river. I respectfully refer you to his report, numbered 6.
    My loss in the engagement was 20 killed and 60 wounded. That of the enemy unknown. Two hundred and twenty-eight were buried on the evening of the battle, and quite a number were buried the next day by details from the gun-boat fleet

    We captured 6 pieces of artillery, viz., two 10-pounder Parrott guns, two 12-pounder howitzers, and two brass 6-pounder guns, and about 350 stand of small-arms. The balance of the small-arms had been thrown in the river. All the small-arms were picked up where the enemy fell or threw them down. A few were in the fort, the balance scattered from the top of the hill to the water's edge.

    We captured 164 Federals, 75 negro troops, and about 40 negro women and children, and after removing everything of value as far as able to do so, the warehouses, tents, &c., were destroyed by fire.

    Among our severely wounded is Lieut. Col. Wiley M. Reed, assigned temporarily to the command of the Fifth Mississippi Regiment, who fell severely wounded while leading his regiment. When carried from the field he was supposed to be mortally wounded, but hopes are entertained of his ultimate recovery. He is a brave and gallant officer, a courteous gentleman, and a consistent Christian minister.
    I cannot compliment too highly the conduct of Colonels Bell and McCulloch and the officers and men of their brigades, which composed the forces of Brigadier-General Chalmers. They fought with courage and intrepidity, and without bayonets assaulted and carried one of the strongest fortifications in the country.
    On the 15th, at Brownsville, I received orders which rendered it necessary to send General Chalmers, in command of his own division and Bell's brigade, southward; hence I have no official report from him, but will, as soon as it can be obtained, forward a complete list of our killed and wounded, which has been ordered made out and forwarded at the earliest possible moment.
    In closing my report I desire to acknowledge the prompt and energetic action of Brigadier-General Chalmers, commanding the forces around Fort Pillow. His faithful execution of all movements necessary to the successful accomplishment of the object of the expedition entitles him to special mention. He has reason to be proud of the conduct of the officers and men of his command for their gallantry and courage in assaulting and carrying the enemy's work without the assistance of artillery or bayonets.
    To my staff, as heretofore, my acknowledgments are due for their prompt and faithful delivery of all orders.
    I am, colonel, very respectfully, your obedient servant,............"
    N. B. FORREST,
    Major-General, Commanding.
  9. Random guy Member

    I'd say the nation massacring people in land they had occupied have some problems laying claims to moral superiority.

    The US stopped the export of aeroplane fuel in 1940 when Japan attacked French Indochina, they still were exporting oil when the bombs started raining over the harbour.

    You could argue that the Japanese pushed themselves into an untenable position by strolling around playing imperialists in China. Japan wanted to be big shots in the Pacific. I don't think you need a Nobel prize in economics to see that this would sooner or later put them into conflict with the US, the Commonwealth and the French. Had the Japanese stayed at home or contended themselves with China and possibly Korea (and behaved reasonably towards the locals), the Pacific war might never have happened.

    Oh, I agree. Coming from Europe where alliances and super-states come and go I have no problems with states seceding if they so wish. Granted, the reason the South gave for seceding was possibly the worst reason they could have come up with, but secession itself should be no reason to start a war.

    ... and then the South stated shelling Fort Sumter :eek:

    As you said, there was a general reluctance to go to war over the secession in the North. A lot of people thought the South were in their right. Lincoln wanted to keep the Union intact, and was looking for a good excuse to put military power behind his demands.

    Correspondence between For Sumter and the South Carolina militia right before shelling:

    Fort SUMTER, S.C., April 12, 1861.
    GENERAL: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt by Colonel Chesnut of your second communication of the 11th instant, and to state in reply that, cordially uniting with you in the desire to avoid the useless effusion of blood, I will, if provided with the proper and necessary means of transportation, evacuate Fort Sumter by noon on the 15th instant, and that I will not in the mean time open my fires upon your forces unless compelled to do so by some hostile act against this fort or the flag of my Government by the forces under your command, or by some portion of them, or by the perpetration of some act showing a hostile intention on your part against this fort or the flag it bears, should I not receive prior to that time controlling instructions from my Government or additional supplies.
    I am, general, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

    Major, First Artillery, Commanding.
    Brig. Gen. BEAUREGARD,

    FORT SUMTER, S.C., April 12, 1861--3.20 a.m.
    SIR: By authority of Brigadier-General Beauregard, commanding the Provisional Forces of the Confederate States, we have the honor to notify you that he will open the fire of his batteries on Fort Sumter in one hour from this time.
    We have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servants,

    Captain, C. S. Army, Aide-de-Camp.
    U. S. Army, Commanding Fort Sumter.

    We can only speculate what the civil war would have looked like if Chestnut hadn't gone and started shelling.
  10. Hugh Bris Member

    I'm not saying the Japanese were saints. Attacking people is not in line with my principles. But if you ignore the US conduct in the time leading up to WWII, then you ignore history. Pearl didn't happen in a vacuum.
    YOu might like to look this over.
    According to this, part of the problem was that FDR just plain didn't like the Japanese.

    As for the Civil War, what I know is it was not a civil war. I looked the term 'civil war' up one day and found they had to change the definition to accommodate the concept of the US civil war.

    As Johnny Reb has pointed out, a civil war is when two groups compete for the one seat of power.

    A war of secession is when one group wants to leave the union and set up their own place.

    The latter definition fits the War Between the States far better than the former. That got me to wondering. Why did all my teachers tell me it was a Civil War? I came to the conclusion I had been played, that we all had been.

    It's my opinion that it was to justify the Civil War. Period. The North aggresses against the South, But that doesn't fit the US narrative. It can't be the fault of the US, therefore it has to be the South's fault therefore we rewrite history to suit our narrative. It's also my opinion that compulsory public education helps to create this national narrative. If all the schools are teaching the same narrative, then alternate points of view become buried, never a good idea when open and vigorous debate is needed.

    I may be wrong, but I'm certain.
  11. Exactly,

    And have you ever asked your teacher about that?

    What did he/she say?

    My ges is they said "I can't talk about it."

    That makes me wonder... "Why can't you?"

    "The latter definition fits the War Between the States far better than the former. That got me to wondering. Why did all my teachers tell me it was a Civil War? I came to the conclusion I had been played, that we all had been."

    Yeah I like "The War Between The States" better myself.
    One thing from my little days I remember is that the fact that when the slaves where coming over here the slave ships flew the stars and stripes was never discused nor was the fact that northern bankers made money from the slave trade.

  12. Quote of the day:

    "We must expect reverses, even defeats. They are sent to teach us wisdom and prudence, to call forth greater energies, and to prevent our falling into greater disasters."

    General Robert E. Lee
  13. Random guy Member

    I must confess some scepticism towards "The Independence Institute" (US right wing think tanks have a bad rep over here in Euroland), and the book the article mainly builds on seems to be borderline conspiracy theory: . Besides, I fail to see how Roosevelt's personal feelings was of much consequence. Japan and the US were bound to but heads in the Pacific at some point.

    Had Roosevelt been an all out Japan-fan with a Japanese mistress and a personal friend of the Emperor, he would have been replaced by the next election of someone less benignly disposed. Roosevelt beeing elected in the first place might well have reflected how Americans in general saw Japan. If not Roosevelt, someone else not overly fond of Japan would have been driven down a similar course of action.

    The article glosses over the fact that Japan did not get the national resources then needed to build an empire out of China. They needed more. It was just a matter of time before the would have attacked the Philipines or any of the European colonies, and the war would be on.

    The US was the guy with the big stick in the Pacific, any nation trying to take the stick would find themselves in war soon enough. Whether the US had any right to that big stick in thge first place is besides the point.

    The definition of a civil war has always been roughly what it is now as far as I can see. I might be wrong though, I'm not a native English speaker.

    There are subclasses of civil wars, where secession wars are one and coups are the other. If the part starting the war wins, it changes from a civil war to a war for independence in the first instance, to a revolution in the second. If the group starting the war looses, it remains a civil war, see e.g. the Civil War in Sri Lanka.

    It's semantics though, the (2nd) US civil war was a civil war of the liberationist type. Non of this has any bearing on whether the war was "just" or not though.
  14. Hugh Bris Member

    Your English is better than many native speakers.

    The South had the right to secede. They did not have the right to keep slaves.

    Imagine my distress at learning you don't like "right wing sites" and how Europe is skeptical of them. You and TI send me to left wing sites on a regular basis. Besides, to call it right wing is to point out your lack of rigorous semantics. No libertarian is right wing. To call one so is to create confusion for you. It makes it harder for you to understand my positions, since you will be making assumptions that just aren't there.

    As for the definition of the types of war, I thought I was quite clear. One can become the other, I'm sure, but that's not the case for the US Civil War. It was a War of Secession, plain and simple.

    And to say it's 'semantics' is to ignore the role of semantics in reasoning. The first thing we learn in our quest for reason is grammar and syntax. If we don't master this, then reasoning becomes impossible. Semantics, and definitions are at the base of understanding a topic.
  15. No Insults Please Hugh Bris.

    And we are getting of topic.
  16. The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

    "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

    "We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare,
    "That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved;
    and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

    They went on to say,

    "…That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to altar or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness".

    On July 4, the Congress formally endorsed Jefferson's Declaration, with copies sent to all of the colonies. The actual signing of the document occurred on August 2, as most of the 55 members of Congress placed their names on the parchment copy.
    The Declaration was essentially an appeal to the international community's common law and a list of grievances against the King of England. The delegates were a group of founding citizens who wanted the people of the colonies to escape the oppression of the British government. The document stated that the Continental Congress on July 4th, 1776, announced that the separation of thirteen North American colonies from Great Britain had occurred. Its underpinning of political philosophy was derived from English theorist, John Locke, and American writer Thomas Paine.

    This underlying principle of the new American government was liberty. This was most important at the time, since most people viewed government as the primary threat to their rights.

    Freedom meant freedom from government oppression. They were in the process of creating a new constitutionally limited government to protect the rights of the citizens to preserve their liberty.

    The American Founders viewed limited government as necessary to protect people from aggressors, but feared government's power. They realized that left unchecked, government was the greatest threat to the peoples' liberty it was supposed to protect.
    Very plainly, the Declaration of Independence made no pretense of secession in behalf of one Nation, but expressly stated that the United States were 13 "Free and Independent States." It was not the birth of the new nation, but the secession of 13 colonies from the British Empire. With the publication of the Declaration of Independence, the colonies were announcing to the civilized world through a legal document that they were no longer under English rule.
  17. Ogsonofgroo Member

    Wow, this thread is still... Some American history that has almost no relevance to what people now-a-days give a shit about, except some miscreant flag-wavers down in the swamps who have no real world views.
    Hey Johnny, guess ya haven't noticed pretty near nobody gives a shit, (ie. none of the non-Americans, maybe a couple of the members here), dats okay though, carry on bro, be happy you gots a little sand-box to play in.
    Should I start a thread about Canuck fightings with the seperatists shit.... no?, meh.


    Stay On Target Folks! There's a fucking corrupt cult of greed and pain to slag!
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  18. White Tara Global Moderator

    Variety Ogs, its the spice of life ;)
    • Like Like x 1
  19. The Internet Member

    After Adam Kokesh and his tribe of anti-Federal moonbats, and Cliven Bundy, and the Millers in Las Vegas, and the people agitating blacks to riot in Ferguson, and Tea Partiers saying the US Federal gov is the enemy and states rights moar better.... and Putin telling us the US is gonna fail soon and re-emerge as regional states... and Kochs wanting the EPA gone...

    tl;dr: I can troll the US Federal government. I will not be able to troll Greater Putinlandia when it comes, because “Private Property Fuck Off” signs everywhere. So long live the US!
  20. Random guy Member

    Indeed. Unfortunately, slavery was the direct reasons they gave for secession, which makes the whole thing a bit morally ambiguous.

    If we want to go a bit deeper, two factors stand out. First, the South held a political hegemony from the start in Congress through the (how shall we say it) ... interesting 3/5s doctrine. It's evident in the South bludgeoning the North into accepting the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act. When this hegemony was threatened by new non-slaver states being accepted into the union, the South seceded.

    The second trend is the unequal rate of change in the North and South from the late 18th century to the mid 19th century. If we look at world history, this period coincide with the industrial revolution. It seems to me the power structure of the South prevented any meaningful industrialization, while North developed quickly. The "economic war" you mentioned appear to me very much the result of one half of the country lagging some 50 years behind in economic structural development.

    Both of these factors are ultimately bound up in slavery, so slavery is very much left, right and centre in this conflict.

    I have sent you to a leftie site? Which one? Wikipedia?

    It's funny how difference in culture shape perception. I had a look at the most recent comments on the Independent Institute site:

    Obamacare Is Affecting Everyone, Market Forces Should Regulate Smoking , American Education Needs Competition, Not Common Core, Private Schools for the Poor, Let’s Privatize Medicare etc

    Where I come from that not merely right wing, it's Tacherism, and about as far right as you can come here in Europe before you start bumping into fascists and neo-nazis. Libertarianism may not be right wing where you come from, it most certainly is here.

    My main beef with the article is not the right wing site though, it is shoddy footwork. The source material is not good, hence I have troubles taking much of the article seriously.

    It is a failed war of secession, which like the failed bid for secession by the Tamils make it a civil war in common parlance.

    Indeed. I believe I have a bit of a lead here, since I regularly "think" in two languages. Thoughts that are easily expressed in one may be difficult in the other and vice versa. This is particularly relevant regarding scientology, because Hubbard's writings sounds vaguely meaningful in English, but looses all coherence when expressed in my language. I guess this is why the cult is mainly an Anglophone phenomenon.
  21. Hugh Bris Member

    The 3/5 compromise (and no, TI, people then did not think that blacks were 3/5th of a white man) was the compromise that allowed the Constitution to be passed. It was a purely political move to get the document passed. It means that my country, dedicated to all men being equal, denied several million men their rights.

    There are principled stands for each of those positions. That you can't see that is sad. YOu don't have to agree with the principles, but you're not even seeing them.

    The winner writes the history. It still doesn't make it a civil war.

    I did study German in high school for 3 years and I am studying Spanish now, at my advanced age. Where I live, I hear mostly Spanish when I shop so I thought I might want to learn some basics.

    I agree, you cannot know you own language if you haven't studied another one.
  22. Random guy Member

    Of course there are. I happen to know them too: The market is the most effective way of solving problems, the many thinks better than the few, the state should be the smallest possible to allow private initiatives to solve the problems and so on. It may fly as left/right neutral in the US, where I come from it's Tacherism, and it belongs on the outer right fringes.

    The US left/right and the European left/right are not the same things. Here, that organisation is unambiguously (far) right wing.

    Then a lot of civil wars aren't civil wars. The question is whether the reinterpretation of the word should take precedence over common usage. I favour the "no", but your mileage may vary.

    I've tried my hand at Spanish too, but have too few opportunities to practice where I live.
  23. Hugh Bris Member

    OK. So, are you saying you agree that the market is the better mechanism, or only that you understand the principle?

    I find the Left-Right paradigm to be hopelessly simplistic. It gives no insight into the actual political positions. There are progressives, liberals, conservatives, libertarians and more. That does not fit into a Left Right paradigm.
  24. The Internet Member

    Hugh Bris, I like a lot of those principles and I think Random Guy means, “Thatcherism.” But principles are just nice words, like the nice words in this picture:

    You need to look at who is the Marblecaek for any political movement. If they are spending a lot of money on misleading propaganda, then they are not your friends even though your words agree with their pretty words.

    Of all the political principles out there, I think “Do not bullshit the public” needs to be at the top of the list. Because choices are determined by what people know. There’s no freedom to choose if people “know” false information.
  25. Random guy Member

    I am familiar with the libertarian principle, and I disagree with most of it.

    It is probably a matter of different cultures. I come from one of those places where the government is, if not actual unicorns, at least fairly knobbly in the forehead. Following the libertarian principle to the letter here would be an all out disaster, hence only the outer fringes try to argue from it. I understand it might have broader appeal in placed with a badly functioning government.

    Sure, but the libertarians still cluster with the far right here in Europe.
  26. Hugh Bris Member

    OK. Could you be specific? Which principles do you disagree with? Which do you agree with?

    For instance, do we agree that people shouldn't initiate violence? That's a fundamental principle in my world. Do not initiate force against someone. Period. Full stop.

    What, if anything, do you find objectionable about that?

    I think you're in Sweden, which is one of the most homogenous populations on earth. I imagine that makes an easier time for governments.
    Indeed, my government does things that shock the conscience, so that may have an effect on my reasoning. But all that means is that here, with a gov that functions so poorly as mine, that alternatives to their control must be found.

    OK. I'm not that familiar with European politics. I find major differences between the conservative, far right and libertarian positions, more than you do, it seems.
  27. Hugh Bris Member

    DOn't worry, TI, I got what he was saying. Thatcher, like Reagan, was not someone I am in agreement with.

    Well, after translating that into English I have to wonder if that applies to you? I find so much of what the Progressives say is misleading, for instance minimum wage, which destroys the job prospects for the very people proponents say it will help. That is the sort of misleading propaganda I find offensive.

    I also find that Obama and his team are masters at misleading propaganda.
    You assume people can't sort through the crap. You even called for some sort of database to sort out facts, which is astoundingly naive, thinking that such a database wouldn't be used to demonize opponents.

    What I take from your posts is an elitist attitude, that most people are not quite up to the task of living without some smart person explaining life to them.
  28. Random guy Member

    Sigh. Sorry about that.

    As for the general unicorn theory, considering the sheer amount of bullox coming from the US these last few years (the Snowdon case being but the tip of the iceberg), I can sympathize. You guys really do not have a unicorn.
  29. The Internet Member

    Polling data proves Americans have been mislead regarding the scientific consensus for global warming. So you are wrong to say all I have is my own personal assumption.

    Also tu quoque.

    But we should not fag up JohnnyReb’s nice thread with this stuff probably.
  30. Random guy Member

    Normally, yes. Sometimes you have to though, to stop murderous madmen. If possible, this si best left to the professionals, which is why we have a police force. Unless one populates the force with people without much education and relevant training and skimp on supervision, it works quite well. Not perfect (nothing ever does), but good enough.

    When states skimp on training and supervision, you get things like in Ferguson.

    Nah, all the Scandinavian countries now have their fair share of 3rd World immigrants. In the major cities it can be up to half of the populations in some quarters. The homogeneity is more one of economy, in that all Scandinavian countries tries to limit the gap between rich and poor through various forms of wealth distribution. It appears that the lower the income gap, the more tranquil the society (I'll trak down some sources if you want me to). It doesn't matter if the population looks like a patchwork bed-cover, as long as all are roughly in the same economic situation.

    Real problems appear where large number of people who falls through the cracks in the welfare system dominate in large numbers. That can bring about quit a lot of problems. I guess Ferguson is a relevant US example.

    Sure there are differences. I guess much of the difference is a lack of a pure libertarian tradition in (at least Northern) Europa. The "pure" libertarian is an American tradition I think.

    In Europe, where most countries has a more or less decent (and highly appreciated) NHS and a relatively competent civil administration, libertarianism has limited appeal. I guess that's why they ride on someone's coattails, and in Europe those coattails belongs to the far right.

  31. "Polling data proves Americans have been mislead regarding the scientific consensus for global warming. So you are wrong to say all I have is my own personal assumption.

    Also tu quoque.

    But we should not fag up JohnnyReb’s nice thread with this stuff probably"

    I agree.
  32. Quote of the day:

    “The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states.”

    Charles Dickens, 1862
  33. Below are just a few excerpts from history that reveal that the war between the United States of America and the Confederate States of America was not a battle of good versus evil, or even a true civil war. The facts reveal the shallow, one-sided, "history" and stereotypes of the Antebellum South, the War, the Union, and the Confederacy that most of us have been taught. We are all familiar with the War between the North and South as told through Northern eyes and texts. My objective by posting this thread was to challenge what is usually accepted as the causes of Southern secession and of the War that followed by offering alternative insights based on excerpts of neglected American history.

    The South did not intend to take control of the United States government, but to peacefully form their own sovereign nation. They had no more intention of conquering Washington than the patriots of 1776 had in conquering London. This was, in fact, a war between two nations and cultures, the South having declared her independence from the North just as the thirteen American Colonies had done from England, and Texas had done from Mexico. The right of a State to secede from the Union had been widely assumed, though untested, in both the North and South, from the time the Constitution was written and ratified, until South Carolina took that bold step on December 20, 1860. Drawing heavily on the American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence one people declared their independence, and another determined to use all necessary measures to forcefully restore the former Union. Under the cover of war and through bullets and bayonets, the relationship between the States and the Federal government would be radically changed. The term "union," having once been understood to mean voluntary cooperation for the mutual benefit of each State, had taken on the notion of indivisible–held together by force, and at all costs. It became clear that "government of the people, for the people, [and] by the people" as well as the noble idea of "the consent of the governed" was now defined by those who wielded the greater military force, relegating the defeated peoples to the status of "rebels" and traitors. In short, a declaration of independence became laudable only if those desiring independence win in their struggle - a philosophy of "might makes right." Finally, the victors write the prevailing history.

    We must look into history to find the true roots of that tragic War. Care must be taken to draw a distinction between the causes of the secession of the Southern States, and the reasons why war broke out between the North and South. History reveals the likelihood of a great conflict between the North and South–two distinct peoples and cultures. Many of the differences between the North and South coalesced in the issues of sectional political struggles for power in Congress, Federal encroachment on the rights reserved and retained by the States, differing regional economic interests, regional cultural differences, the moral question of slavery, and the regional effects of federal tariffs. It all came to a head as political power shifted in Congress and then in the Presidency. The South, feeling her back was against the wall, declared herself to be an independent nation, just as the Founding Fathers had done as they broke away from England, and the Texans had done when they broke away from Mexico.
    Unfortunately, the topic of slavery has served as a red herring to distract from the more fundamental reasons for the conflict between the North and South that led to secession. To understand the role of slavery in this conflict, one must ask why it was an issue, both for the North and the South. But first, because we are so far removed from that time in history, it is also important to remember that the institution of slavery had widely acknowledged constitutional protection, being an issue for each State, North and South, to deal with as it's citizens saw fit. A basic principle in understanding the people and events of history is to interpret them within their historical context. In historical context, prior to the Thirteenth Amendment, slaves were held in legally binding servitude. While such a notion is shocking to modern ears, it was the law and sentiment of the land with a strong constitutional argument. Abraham Lincoln openly shared these sentiments.

    Most modern observers cannot–or will not–see beyond the issue of slavery to the many foundational issues of the growing division between North and South, many of which had simmered from before the birth of the Nation. Though a growing point of contention, slavery was but one of the differentiating factors between the agrarian economy and culture of the South, and the increasingly industrial economy and culture of the North. Slavery, in and of itself, was not the reason for Southern secession nor the cause of the War for Southern Independence. The citizens of the Northern States were not willing to fight and die to end slavery, nor did they do so. Lincoln himself had made this clear. The abolitionist's voice at the national level was still a small political minority. Besides, the voices of Northern racial prejudice and white laborers who feared the loss of jobs through an influx of emancipated slaves rang in the ears of Northern politicians.

    The mostly one crop economy of the South was itself a slave to slavery, for mechanization had not yet embraced the growing of cotton. The terms "Cotton States" and "Slave States" encompassed Southern interests in general, whether economic, political, or cultural. To control slavery through national politics was perceived by the South as a threat to her economic interests, her influence in national politics on a wide range of other issues vital to her agrarian foundations, an assault on the Constitution, and a threat to historic States' rights.

    For one thing, limiting slavery to the existing Southern States, while the United States continued to spread West and the population growth in the North outpaced that of the South, would reduce Southern political influence in many areas of unique concern to her to a hopeless minority position. Yet, by favoring the protection of slavery where it currently existed, the Republicans could cloud partisan and sectional debate by claiming not to be an enemy of the South. But the Republicans did not have to end slavery in the South. All they had to do was contain it where it was in order to stifle Southern political and economic power as Congressional representation from the West and North grew in strength.

    No doubt, their were those few in the North did not want to see slavery spread for moral reasons. However, this would not move beyond a minority position until Lincoln used abolition as political a tactic midway through the war. Yet the real reason for the opposition to the spread, not only of slavery, but even of free black settlers to the frontier was to reserve these lands for white settlers.

    It was these threats to the South through the institution of slavery that were among the many contributing factors leading to the secession of the first seven Southern States, but to simplistically raise up slavery as the reason both distorts and obscures the truth. After all, the North shared in keeping slavery viable by her growing appetite for Southern cotton and tobacco, and by providing direct financing for slave ownership.

    The opposing sides in debates over tariffs followed this same division, as did other issues of a sectional nature as Northern industrial influence in national politics grew. The Southern Democrats had long been a thorn in the side of Northern industrial interests by fighting import tariffs–tariffs that protected the Northern industrial economy from foreign competition. To reduce Southern influence in national politics would mean smoother sailing for protectionist trade legislation. But, at the same time, those same tariffs collected at Southern ports were the major source for all Federal revenue–most of which was spent on the burgeoning industrial infrastructure of the North. This last point would figure prominently in shaping Northern opinion and sentiments over Southern secession.

    Had the South threatened the roots of Northern economics and culture from a position of superior political strength, the North would have reacted similarly. Indeed, this scenario had been played out in the Nation's past on numerous occasions. Political and economic grievances such as these were not new, for New England had voiced similar ones at various times throughout American history, threatening secession herself multiple times.

    Finally, history records that the secession of the remaining Southern States of the Confederacy was precipitated by Federal aggression mobilized against the first seven States that had already seceded.

    The major companion question to the one regarding slavery that must be answered is, "Why did Lincoln deem it worth 'preserving' the Union at the cost of over 600,000 lives and the near total destruction of the Southern economy and infrastructure–which would take over 100 years to recover; by what legal or moral grounds did he do this?" In the months just prior to Lincoln's decision to march on the South, the voice of Northern merchants and financiers grew more desperate at the prospect of entering into a trade and tariff war with the South. With the high import tariffs of the North and the low tariffs of the South, foreign manufactured goods would naturally enter through the South. It was also feared that the Southern market for Northern manufactured goods would shrivel, if not dry up. On this issue, the agrarian South had nothing to lose and everything to gain, while Northern merchants, financiers, and the Federal coffer stood only to lose. The South did not need the North for their economic well being nearly as much as the growth and prosperity of the North depended on the South's continued membership in the Union. Surely it is not hard to believe that economics was a major factor in both the secession of the Southern States and the ultimate cry from the North for war once the economic realities settled in. And surely it is not unrealistic to think that the combined outcry of powerful Northern capitalists was heeded by Lincoln and the Republicans, especially with the threat of economic catastrophe should the South be permitted to remain out of the Union. In short, the North feared it could not survive in the competitive arena of free trade.

    While slavery was legal in the Confederate States of America for 4 years (1861-1865), slavery was legal in the United States of America for 89 years (1776-1865). But, does the existence, practice and acceptance of slavery in 1776 America nullify the honor and valor associated with the spilling of Patriot blood in the struggle for independence from our mother country? Likewise, does the existence, practice and acceptance of slavery in 1830's Texas strip the honor and valor from those Texans who died at Goliad and at the Alamo as they fought for independence from Mexico? Did the words and sentiments expressed in the Declaration of Independence no longer apply to people in the several States of the United States once the Constitution was ratified? Are these struggles for independence any less legitimate because political unions were torn apart? Nor should the South be judged any differently for its own struggle for independence in 1861-65. As economist, professor, author, and columnist Walter E. Williams wrote in his December 2, 1998, article The Civil War Wasn't About Slavery, "the only good coming from the War Between the States was the abolition of slavery."

    Should you find the preceding analysis too alien to what you were taught and had always believed, at least read and consider the following chronology of lesser known excerpts of American history related to the long standing tension between the North and South. Be open to the possibility that politics, competing philosophies of government, and money might have been much greater factors in both Southern secession and the war cry of the North than are commonly acknowledged, and that the insistence of the unconditional and immediate abolition of slavery was a minority position in the North.

    According to the Declaration of Independence, political unions are not sacrosanct. Truly precious is liberty and government instituted by the people that remains under the consent of the people.

    "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect of the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation [...] That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to altar or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness" (The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776).

    "The Declaration was the outcome of prolonged discussion, and of hopelessness in resisting arbitrary measures, while in union with the mother country. When no other course was compatible with self-respect, the pressure of liberty compelled the tearing asunder of the ties of allegiance and union, and Virginia and Massachusetts went hand in hand in leading the rupture" (JLMC p. 33).

    The members of the Second Continental Congress were not members of a governing body, but were delegates and ambassadors sent by governors and legislatures of the thirteen States–independent States that tenaciously asserted and guarded their respective sovereignty (WEW p. 232; JLMC p. 64-65, 68-82).
    John Adams, Massachusetts delegate to the Second Continental Congress, wrote to his wife of the stark differences between the two peoples of the Northern and Southern colonies, and that the proposed union could not be held together "without the utmost caution on both sides" (JRK p. 24).

    The sovereignty and independence, not of one nation, but of each of the individual thirteen States was recognized by King George III after the "Articles of the proposed Treaty" of peace were signed between England and "Commissioners of the United States of America" in Paris on November 30, 1782. As stipulated by Benjamin Franklin in the preamble of the treaty with England, and in cooperation with France, formal independence from and peace with England for each of the thirteen individually recognized States was finalized as peace was made between France and England. This definitive "Treaty of Peace" between England and "the United States of America" was signed on September 3, 1783. The entire transaction for peace was referred to as the "Peace of Paris" (WEW p. 212-13; SEM p. 266-67; JLMC p. 35). Article I of both documents contain these words:

    "His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz. New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, [Delaware,] Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent States; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof."
    Given their history of inter-colonial rivalries, many observers doubted that any compact between the newly independent thirteen States would last. "Josiah Tucker, dean of Gloucester, who was one of the leading economic and political authorities of Great Britain, said, 'The mutual antipathies and clashing interests of the Americans [...] their difference of governments, habitudes, and manners, indicate that they will have no centre of union and no common interest. They never can be united into one compact empire under any species of government whatever'" (WEW p. 213).

    Alexander Hamilton, a staunch Federalist strongly opposed to democracy, and even a republican form of government, lobbied during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 for a government patterned after the European monarchies. He proposed that the government of the United States consist of a president and senate who were to be elected by electors, with the members of the senate serving for life, and a lower house consisting of persons elected by popular vote for a three year term. He also proposed that the governors of the States be appointed by the federal administration and that the president or congress have veto power over the State legislatures (WEW p. 234-35, 294). In summary, the Hamiltonians, or Federalists, distrusted the individual State governments' for judicious self-government, and argued for a strong central government with a corresponding decrease of States' rights (WEW p. 267; SEM p. 328-29; MLD p. 62-63, 69-70).

    Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican and staunch advocate of democracy, and believing that the Union was a group of sovereign States that had carefully delegated specific powers to an administrative agent, stated his view of States' rights within the Union as follows, "My plan would be to make the states one as to everything connected with foreign nations, and several as to everything purely domestic" (WEW p. 294). In summary, the Jeffersonians, or Antifederalists, considered the United States as a league of sovereign States that had delegated a few of the States' inherent and inalienable powers to a federal authority, that Government was regulating force imposed upon the people from without, and that there should be as little of it as possible (WEW p. 267; SEM p. 328-29; JLMC p. 93).

    The Antifederalists of the Pennsylvania delegation to the Constitutional Convention opposed ratification saying that "the powers vested in Congress by this constitution, must necessarily annihilate and absorb the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of the several states and produce from their ruins one consolidated government, which from the nature of things will be an iron-handed despotism" of the central government (MLD p. 123).

    On October 25, 1787, George Clinton, Governor of New York, himself quite sectional in his sentiments and exhibiting hostility toward the Southern States, wrote as "Cato" in Antifederalist No. 14 in The New York Journal. Here, he states his trepidation over forming a union whose federal government is granted so much power over States with such dissimilar interests. He fears that such a diverse union can, ultimately, only be held together by force, and at the cost of liberty. He even warns of the necessity of a standing army to enforce collection of federal revenues from the States–a fear that would become a reality as sectional battles over tariffs became increasingly contentious during the 1800's.

    "[...] whoever seriously considers the immense extent of territory comprehended within the limits of the United States, together with the variety of its climates, productions, and commerce, the difference of extent, and number of inhabitants in all; the dissimilitude of interest, morals, and politics, in almost every one, will receive it as an intuitive truth, that a consolidated republican form of government therein, can never form a perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to you and your posterity, for to these objects it must be directed. This unkindred legislature therefore, composed of interests opposite and dissimilar in their nature, will in its exercise, emphatically be like a house divided against itself.

    "[...] Will this consolidated republic, if established, in its exercise beget such confidence and compliance, among the citizens of these states, as to do without the aid of a standing army? I deny that it will. The malcontents in each state, who will not be a few, nor the least important, will be exciting factions against it. The fear of a dismemberment of some of its parts, and the necessity to enforce the execution of revenue laws (a fruitful source of oppression) on the extremes and in the other districts of the government, will incidentally and necessarily require a permanent force, to be kept on foot. Will not political security, and even the opinion of it, be extinguished? Can mildness and moderation exist in a government where the primary incident in its exercise must be force?

    "[...] Is it, therefore, from certainty like this, reasonable to believe, that inhabitants of Georgia, or New Hampshire, will have the same obligations towards you as your own, and preside over your lives, liberties, and property, with the same care and attachment? Intuitive reason answers in the negative...." (Antifederalist No. 14)
    The ratification of the new Constitution, beginning on November 6, 1787, and ending May 29, 1790, took place within State conventions. It was not submitted to the collective people of a nation. It was the will of the citizens of each individual State that was sought. Inherent in this process was the possibility that the citizens of a State might choose not to enter into the proposed constitutional confederacy. The proposed Union would come into being after nine states ratified the new Constitution, with or without the remaining States. (JLMC p. 77, 98).

    During the ratification process of the proposed constitution, George Mason, in a letter to the Virginia Ratification Convention dated June 4, 1788, warned of the inevitable tension in the union of States of "so extensive a country, embracing so many climates, and containing inhabitants so very different in manners, habits, and customs" under a national government (JRK p. 24; PBK ch. 8, doc. 37).

    The June 26, 1788, Virginia Act of Ratification of the United States Constitution contained clarifying language stating that the people of Virginia reserved the right to recall the powers they delegated to the newly formed federal government if "the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will" (JRK p. 189; GLD p. 65; JLMC p. 81; CA p. 15). Clearly, recalling the powers they had delegated would cause the State to revert back to their pre-ratification status, not by permission of the other States, but by her own will.

    As with Virginia, prior to ratifying the U.S. Constitution, the States of New York and Rhode Island reserved the right to recall the powers they were delegating to the new federal government by stating that "the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whenever it shall become necessary to their happiness" (GLD p. 65-66; JLMC p. 77).

    Dissenting States would not ratify the Constitution without the assurance that a bill of rights to the Constitution, declaring the privileges inviolably retained by the people of the States and limiting the reach of the Federal government, would be put through in the first session of the new Congress (WEW p. 247; MLD p. 58).
    The Federalist position argued against a bill of rights in the new Constitution; stating that it was "unnecessary" since sufficient restraint upon the government already exists within the body of the Constitution, being understood by the prominent phrase "WE THE PEOPLE", and also because of inherited respect for British common-law. They also surmised that a specific list of rights would provide a rationale for the national government to violate other rights not listed. The Federalist were especially opposed to a declaration of rights which exclusively placed limits on the national government, while not similarly addressing the State governments (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers, Number 84; MLD p. 58-60).

    As typified in New York's ratification document, the Antifederalist position argued that a bill of rights was a "legal weapon to keep the national government within its specified sphere of constitutional trust [...] in the event of a constitutional contest between itself [a State] and the national government" (MLD p. 61). This document reads in part:
    "That the sovereignty, freedom, and independency of the several states shall be retained, and every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by this constitution expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."
    Raphael Semmes in his 1869 work, Memoirs of Service Afloat, writes of the nervousness of the States toward the proposed new government in relation to the retained powers of the States (JRK p. 206).

    Prior to ratifying the new constitution, the State of Massachusetts insisted "that it be explicitly declared, that all powers not delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several States, to be by them exercised."

    Pennsylvania likewise insisted that the new constitution be amended to include language guaranteeing that "[a]ll the rights of sovereignty which are not, by the said Constitution, expressly and plainly vested in the Congress, shall be deemed to remain with, and shall be exercised by the several states in the Union."
    The Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution addressed the basic Antifederalist distrust of a central government to not usurp the reserved rights of the States (MLD p. 5; JRK p. 177-78, 206).

    James Madison, "the father of the Constitution," expressed his view of the proposed new government and the sovereign status of the States as they ratified the new constitution when he stated,

    "In order to ascertain the real character of the government, it may be considered in relation to the foundation on which it is to be established; to the sources from which its ordinary powers are to be drawn; to the operation of those powers; to the extent of them; and to the authority by which future changes in the government are to be introduced.
    "On examining the first relation, it appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but, on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a NATIONAL, but a FEDERAL act.
    "That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation [...] Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its voluntary act" (James Madison, Federalist Papers, Number 39).

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins