"Civil War" or "War of Northern Aggression"

[DadSmith]

I'll throw this in here

 

[BigRed]

I don't see seceding or not seceding from an unwanted government as a fundamental human right.

I suspect Jefferson would disagree.

 

[oze]

I'll throw this in here

I didn't watch it. Does it show Jefferson Davis, his entire cabinet and every ****ing slave holder lined up in front of Union artillery loaded with grape and chain?

I did not realize that typing mf as a single word bypasses the filter...

 

[BigRed]

I didn't watch it. Does it show Jefferson Davis, his entire cabinet and every ****ing slave holder lined up in front of Union artillery loaded with grape and chain?

I did not realize that typing mf as a single word bypasses the filter...

Shooting every ****ing slave holder would have required shooting a bunch of folks in the union....so no, it does not.

 

[DadSmith]

Shooting every ****ing slave holder would have required shooting a bunch of folks in the union....so no, it does not.

And minority slave owners.

 

[BigRed]

And minority slave owners.

Indeed.

 

[jamil]

I didn't watch it. Does it show Jefferson Davis, his entire cabinet and every ****ing slave holder lined up in front of Union artillery loaded with grape and chain?

I did not realize that typing mf as a single word bypasses the filter...

Huh. I did not realize that either. It blocks mother****er, but not mother****ing.

But anyway, it's supposedly a reenactment. They didn't line them up back then, so they couldn't "reenact" that.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I suspect Jefferson would disagree.

I wonder.

It doesn't strike my as something that can be an inherent human right. Otherwise we would have to conclude that any number of people, no matter how small, have an inherent right to take their own property, secede, and start their own country whenever they wish, right? That doesn't seem right, tempting as the idea is these days.

 

[JettaKnight]

The thread makes me want to watch the S'mores Schnapps episode of South Park where Eric Cartman is Jefferson Davis.

 

[oze]

But anyway, it's supposedly a reenactment. They didn't line them up back then, so they couldn't "reenact" that.

More's the pity.

 

[BigRed]

Follow The Money

 

[wagyu52]

Follow The Money

I’m no Lincoln fan but there’s no road in Springfield named old aristocracy row. There is a neighborhood named old aristocracy hill. The Old Aristocracy Hill Neighborhood Association was founded in the late 1990s.
Always makes me wonder what information a speaker has ”tweaked” that I don’t know

 

[Libertarian01]

While as a Libertarian I do support individual freedom and civil rights, I acknowledge that those rights are best defended by laws and law abiding nations.

The idea of being able to stop playing, pick up our marbles and go home sounds easy enough. Yet where would it stop? If a state can secede from a nation, then can a county secede from a state? If a county is allowed to secede then can a town secede from a county? If a town can secede then surely a township can secede from a town, right? What about a neighborhood from a town? It would never end.

We would be a nation of sovereign citizens all espousing our liberty and freedom in a land that would be chaos, with no ones rights being protected as there would be no law to protect them.

And even if we presume that at sometime and in some way we will allow states to pick up their marbles and go home, the method of doing so should at least be written in law first so as to have a preordained method of doing so, not just a spontaneous tantrum.

The British were legally allowed to pick up their marbles and go home, and legally voted to do so. Brexit is now nigh on five (5) years and they still aren't done. At least they always kept their currency different.

Government tyranny should always be resisted and berated, but chaos and anarchy can be far worse.

In our own civil war the south wanted to pick up their marbles and leave, even though there was no legal means to do so. Perhaps there should have been, but there wasn't. The north said "no." The ensuing civil war cost more American lives than any other war in history. One could argue that there were more "combat deaths" in WWII, but the #1 killer in war had been up to modern times disease. That puts the civil at the the top of the heap for total American deaths.

The worst thing to happen in our civil war, in my opinion, is the assassination of Pres Lincoln. My understanding is that he truly wanted to heal the nation and put a leash on the radical republicans in his own party. His assassination empowered them to cause great damage and resentment in the south.

Look at the disintegration of Yugoslavia. Very ugly. The best thing to come out of that was the split between Czech and Slovakia. They took a good look at their neighbor and said, "Nope. We're willing to sacrifice a little on each side. We sure as hell don't want to turn into them."

I think we take too much for granted. Maybe we've had it too easy. I don't know. I just believe it is far better to try to reform the game from the inside than to pick up our marbles.

Regards,

Doug

 

[rob63]

I’m no Lincoln fan but there’s no road in Springfield named old aristocracy row. There is a neighborhood named old aristocracy hill. The Old Aristocracy Hill Neighborhood Association was founded in the late 1990s.
Always makes me wonder what information a speaker has ”tweaked” that I don’t know

DiLorenzo is known for "tweaking" information to suit his biases and ignoring information that doesn't fit his agenda.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Follow The Money

Posting my thoughts as I watch the video, so they might be a bit incoherent:

So Lincoln wage war against his own country? So it was the same country? I guess this guy at least agrees with me (or at least agrees with my stated position at the start of this thread, which I have since come to reconsider on some levels) that it was properly called a Civil War, being a war withing one country.

So Lincoln was rich and (shock and horror!) gave a contract to one of his buddies to make tin cups (gasp!) for the army? What other horrors and scandals are to be revealed!? Next we'll learn that Lincoln was once caught picking his nose, or maybe even farted once.

This guy sounds like one of the guys who forgets that the slogan at the time of the Revolution was "no taxation without representation" and not "no taxation." He is absolutely correct that big government, big taxing, big spending, and crony capitalism have been insidious problems in our country from the get-go.

Okay, we're halfway through the video, and he hasn't said anything significant about Lincoln, nor the Civil War, yet. I guess this long side story about the first secession meeting is leading up to some flimsy argument that we should ignore every account, every speech, every declaration from the actual time of the "Civil War" and conclude that the war was actually about tariffs because there was this meeting years beforehand where people wanted to secede because of tarrifs.

So I'm at the part where he's talking about Lincoln's first inaugural address. I paused the video to go and read it, as I confess I have not done so before. So here's the part he's getting all up in arms about "In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence [See! See! Lincoln's threatening bloodshed and violence! Oh wait, what's that? He said he didn't want bloodshed or violence unless is was forced upon the government? Oh, nevermind.], 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." Ah ha! So there you have it from Lincoln's own mouth; the war wasn't about slavery, it was about taxes and tariffs. Pardon me for being blunt, but only a fool would draw such a conclusion. It is obvious from the context of the speech that Lincoln is giving a justification for the federal government to wage war against the states, based on the Constitution, and not on moral grounds. Lincoln knew that he had no Constitutional grounds (at least not in the mind of the public) to wage a war over slavery, so even though that was the express reason for which the Southern States were attempting to secede, by their own declaration, he had to provide a justification other than that for using federal troops to invade them. So he appeals to authorities granted by the Constitution. It's kind of a sad reality that our Constitution grants more power to the federal government to impose and collect taxes than it does to protect the liberty of innocent men and women, but that's the reality Lincoln was faced with, and in many ways the reality we still have today. Lincoln knew that if he declared that invading the South was about ending slavery, that he would be accused of stepping outside the bounds of the Constitution, and more importantly, he would be in his own mind be, in fact, overstepping his authority, and thus violating his oath to the Constitution. For better of for worse he did believe that his oath to uphold the Constitution was more important than his personal values when it came to slavery. Despite all this he still couldn't resist slipping in a subtle jab like the one here: "Again: In any law upon this subject ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not in any case surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States"?"

I'm a little further in the video now, and he's saying something about how Lincoln wouldn't compromise on tariffs in order to avoid war. Was such a compromise ever offered? Was there ever any trace of a hint from the South that they would be willing to avoid war and stay in the Union if only they could compromise by lowering tariffs? Not that I'm aware of. Lincoln was the one making the war about tariffs, not because he was greedy, but so that he could justify his authority under the Constitution. The South, almost exclusively, declared the war to be primarily about slavery (okay, to be more precise, they said the war was about their right to secede, and almost universally declared their secession to be primarily for the purpose of preserving slavery) so it wasn't like Lincoln ever had an opportunity to go to the Confederate leaders and say "Hey, if it would help work this out peaceably, I'll push for a lower tariff in Congress." Even if they believed him, they would've laughed in his face because, as evidenced by their own words which we can read for ourselves, for them it wasn't about tariffs, but about slavery. That's why in attempting to extend an olive branch to them and prevent war, he made so many appeals to them assuring them that he planned to do nothing to end slavery through abuse of his power, and planned only to abide by the Constitution.

24:20 "...his massive corruption forced Lincoln to get rid of him..." Wait, I thought Lincoln was all about corruption, the more corrupt the better. Isn't that his whole argument here? Hmm...

Okay, this post is way long enough already, I've gotta go now, but I'll finish the rest of the video later.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Follow The Money

Okay, I finished the video now.

32:28 "...Lincoln was like all other politicians in the history of the world primarily interested in money and power..." (emphasis added.)

Precisely. Lincoln wasn't a saint. He wasn't a paragon of virtue. But on the issue of using his office to make money, I seriously doubt he was better or worse by any significant degree than your average politician has been for most of our history. The history of corruption and politicians getting rich in the US goes way back before Lincoln, as this guy clearly points out.

None of this guy's claims make any connection between the war and Lincoln's personal wealth. Lincoln didn't profit or lose anything based on whether or not tariffs were collected; he made his dirty money in railroads, and those were still going up regardless of the war, as the video points out quite explicitly.

I just find it hard to stomach the sheer hypocrisy of this guy's line of thinking. The entire economy of the South was built on plundering every living second and every single material good produced by men and women of color, and yet we're supposed to feel sorry for them because they had to pay tariffs? The Constitution clearly gave the federal government powers to impose tariffs, and that Constitution was ratified by those states; they still retained a voice, and a vote (more than their fair share of votes, too, I might add, since they were allowed to count as 3/5 of a person someone whom their laws claimed was mere property) all according to the same system they had agreed to. Of course, there could still be abuses of this system, and it wasn't just for a corrupt government and its cronies to try to profit off of the imposition of taxes and tariffs meant only to protect their own special interests. But such abuses are in a whole different class than the blatant violations of the most basic human rights which we being perpetrated by the South.

And yet we're supposed to ignore all that? We're supposed to just forget that as the South fired the first shot, attacking federal property, that they declared in every way possible that their cause was inextricably linked with the cause of preserving slavery? All because Lincoln made that one speech where he said that the Constitution only gave him authority to protect federal properties and collect tariffs (which was correct) and therefore that was the only thing he was going to use the powers of the federal government to do?

When Lincoln said in his first inaugural address that he didn't believe he had the power under the Constitution to abolish slavery, he wasn't saying that because he thought the war wasn't about slavery, but precisely the opposite. He knew that if the South didn't see a danger of slavery being abolished, they wouldn't have tried to secede, as they themselves clearly stated. That's why in his attempt to reconcile and avoid war he tried to reassure them that he would not usurp any powers not granted to him by the Constitution in order to abolish slavery. He was trying to make it clear that the troops he was sending in to federal properties within the borders of the Southern States were only going in order to enforce things that the Constitution gave them power to do, and not anything that the Constitution did not give them power to do. (Yes, you can debate whether or not Lincoln actually did have that authority under the Constitution, or any authority at all depending on your view of the legality of secession, but right now I'm arguing what Lincoln's point of view was, and he clearly states what he believes to be within the bounds of his Constitutional authority, and what he believes to be outside those bounds.)

So for the last time, Lincoln saying that he didn't have authority as president to abolish slavery in the States, but did have the authority to protect the federal government's property and collect tariffs, does NOT an any way say that he thought the war was about tariffs, and not about slavery.

The more I read of the actual words of Lincoln himself, and the other politicians and influential people of both sides who lived at the time, the more I see how patently obvious this all is to anyone who goes and reads these things for himself with any shred of intellectual honesty, and the more difficulty I have believing that those who claim these silly notions that the war was more about taxes and tariffs than about slavery are being anything but disingenuous.

 

[Magyars]

No one is going to be convinced either way.
People believe what they want based on the way they interpret the facts.

 

[jamil]

No one is going to be convinced either way.
People believe what they want based on the way they interpret the facts.

I think it’s that some people want to ignore certain facts that tend to disprove the thing their ideology tells them to believe. There are plenty of facts that put the virtue of Lincoln in question. I don’t think he deserved the veneration he gets. Too many verifiable facts exist that debunks the “war of aggression” narrative.

Southern states did not give a **** about States’ rights other their own, especially to protect and extend Slavery as an institution. They spent plenty of legislative effort trying to limit Northern states’ rights. Look at the speeches of legislators arguing various bills. The causes of the civil war were many, the primary cause was Slavery. One must ignore too many facts to conclude otherwise.

 

[rob63]

No one is going to be convinced either way.
People believe what they want based on the way they interpret the facts.

Sorry, but I disagree.

I certainly agree that there are people in this thread who appear to believe what they want regardless of the facts. However, there are at least some of us that study, evaluate ALL of the information available, and then reconsider our opinions.

I once bought into the whole "Lost Cause" narrative hook, line, and sinker, but it could not stand up to honest evaluation of the facts. Secession was entirely about saving slavery, end of story.

Lincoln was faced with tough choices. I don't agree with all of them, but that doesn't mean I have to ignore reality and buy into the tyrant nonsense. He was hardly running a dictatorship; he was often responding to public pressure and advice from others. He tended to be the moderate voice, not the extreme one.

 

[jamil]

Sorry, but I disagree.

I certainly agree that there are people in this thread who appear to believe what they want regardless of the facts. However, there are at least some of us that study, evaluate ALL of the information available, and then reconsider our opinions.

I once bought into the whole "Lost Cause" narrative hook, line, and sinker, but it could not stand up to honest evaluation of the facts. Secession was entirely about saving slavery, end of story.

Lincoln was faced with tough choices. I don't agree with all of them, but that doesn't mean I have to ignore reality and buy into the tyrant nonsense. He was hardly running a dictatorship; he was often responding to public pressure and advice from others. He tended to be the moderate voice, not the extreme one.

He was kinda a tyrant. The circumstances were dire. Suspending habeas corpus was merely on the list of many tyrannical actions not justified by the circumstances. It looks to me like it was to punish political enemies as much as to get them out of the way. He could easily be Joe Biden’s favorite Republican just for that reason.

But, two things can be right at the same time. Lincoln was a bit of an unnecessary tyrant. The primary cause of the South was to save slavery for the aristocracy. They effectively convinced the poor Southern Whites to make it an issue of pride and fight for their cause.