The Confederacy was About Slavery

OK, but thats hardly within the US antebellume period under discussion. You are in the era when even Britain was involved in the slave trade under The Navigation Acts

True however the rebellion in Haiti and the large scale killings of whites that then resulted did serve as a fear producing example of what could happen in the US South.

That and some small scale killings in the south itself such as the Nat Turner rebellion was never far from the concerns of southern whites.

States did not go to war with the Union to "preserve the right to enslave": they seceded in order to do so. Similarly, Lincoln went to war not to free slaves, but to get rid of the original intention of the Republic and force States back into a more authoritarian Union along 'Hamiltonian' lines. This is evinced by a lack of immediate Federal legislation to abolish slavery and a reluctance to initiate talks to negotiate the reversal of National dissolution.

Something called Ft. Sumter intervened, and pretty much knocked any negotiation out of the picture.

I fail to see the distinction.

Lincoln "went to war" because the South had already made war on the United States, and had taken actions even before Lincoln was nominated to prepare for war. John Floyd of Virginia, Buchanan's Secretary of War, shipped 115,000 muskets and rifled muskets to southern armories without the prior knowledge or consent of the Congress and the President. He did this in 1860; initially, before Lincoln had even been nominated. In the first week of January, 1861, so-called "state troops" of Alabama and Florida seized Federal property and installations--and Florida had not even yet passed an ordinance of secession. On January 8, 1861, these so-called "state troops" attempted to seize Forts Barrancas and McRae, but the officer commanding there had his troops fire over the heads of the mob, who ran back to Pensacola as fast as their fat little legs would carry them. On January 9, 1861, so-called "state troops" of South Carolina fired on The Star of the West, and unarmed merchant ship, which was attempting to each Fort Sumter. Lincoln was not inaugurated until March 4, 1861.

Go peddle your made-up bullshit somewhere else, where people are more credulous and less well-informed.

Hamilton ideas for the shape off the union was just as valid as Jefferson and once Jefferson assume the power of the presidency he cheerfully acted in a very Hamiltonian manner to say the least.

You know as in doubling the size of the country with little input from congress.

Yes: "Jeffersonian ends by Hamiltonian means": no argument with you on that :-)

Forgive the delay in my response: Yes: we all know about Buchanan sending the normal quota of arms to allow construction of Federal Arsenals and Forts in the South and wanting to have Fort Sumter abandoned: but any argument that he must therefore have acted in anticipation of a civil war is hearsay and not conclusive: in fact he had openly opposed secession in the past. Yes: "so called state troops of South Carolina firing on Star of the West" can be seen as indicative, but the point is moot and subjective: your supportive allusion to Lincoln's inauguration date, rather than that of his election, is tendentious because we all know that South Carolina seceded on 20 Dec 1860. No: whether or not state militias had "fat little legs" has no bearing on their initial impetus in formation: a perception of inadequate Federal protection. All through this one year thread I noticed your negative emotional commitment and tendency to label other posters and viewpoints with which you disagree as ill-informed or "bullshit peddlers". I also note your preference in writing of a United States rather than a Union: a Freudian analyst might even conclude that this nice distinction may be the factual heart of what you otherwise allow to be an excessively adhominem, over-politicized and one sided presentation of selected facts :-)

I not only said nothing about Buchanan sending quotas of arms to southern states, i pointed out the Mr. Floyd had shipped those arms without the knowledge or consent of either Congress or Mr. Buchanan. If you can't raise objections to what i write without resorting to a straw man fallacy, don't bother.

Your pseudo-psychological analysis of what i write is completely meaningless. It does not change that Mr. Lincoln did not start the war. It does not change that so-called state troops of South Carolina, Florida and Alabama seized or attempted to seize Federal property, property of the United States, without even a nod to compensation, and did so or attempted to do so, with armed violence. It does not change that all of this happened before Mr. Lincoln was president.

In fact, your silly discursus about my alleged psychological problems simply avoids addressing the central points of what i have been saying, to wit:

The southern states started a war in which they got their collective ass kicked, boo-hoo-hoo, and they've been whining about it ever since.

Mr. Lincoln is blamed for starting that war, but the factual evidence is that the southern states started the war, and Mr. Floyd's illegal arms shipments are evidence that the intent to start such a war was present even before Mr. Lincoln was elected.

That the so-called "state troops" of several states seized or attempted to seize property of the United States, and in the case of Florida, before an ordinance of secession had been passed--without any consideration of compensation to the United States, which had paid for that property out of general revenues, which came from states which were not attempting to leave the union.

Get over it.

If you've got a problem with how i address other people posting here, that's your problem and not mine. We have a history here of years of "lost cause" bullshit peddlers showing up with the same old, shop-worn arguments, which are definitely not based on factual evidence, and usually are contradicted by the factual evidence. When you've had to refute the same bullshit dozens of times, you tend to develop a short way with the would be flim-flam artists who are attempting to peddle the bullshit.

Please forgive my late reply: Yes: I didn't distinguish my point very well: what I probably meant is that even accepting the premise that secession States may have used the preservation of slavery as an excuse to exercise their legal right (and may well have anticipated the consequences), their objective was, none-the-less, merely to secede: not to make war on the Union or any other State. On the other hand, while Lincoln himself was certainly an abolitionist, removal of the institution did not even become a Union war aim (although subordinate to reunion) until after the emancipation proclamation and, even then, it can be seen primarily as a political device to coerce secession States back into Union control because border and exempted States were left unaffected. Even in the improbable and hypothetical event of similar proclamations in secession States, the War would, in all likely-hood, have continued. The Union's foremost objective always was, and continued to be, the return of secession States back into a Union that they would never again have the right to leave :-)

Yes: my bad: Floyd's middle name is Buchanan and the mental confusion would have been corrected had I not been too lazy to proof read my own post :-) Did Floyd actually need the consent of the President or Congress to discharge his normal duties as Secretary of War toward Federal garrisons: I believe not. I do not quarrel with the facts, only with the repetition of contemporary press hearsay that he shipped arms in deliberate anticipation of a civil war: that conclusion is unsubstantiated. Similarly, whether or not militias (even if we had the evidence that they were sanctioned by State authorities) attempted to seize Federal property without compensation prior to the Lincoln presidency is neither here nor there: that would be robbery not war: even today there are such things as compulsory purchase orders with little or no compensation and, in any event, States would have been sovereign in such matters. We all know, from his own words, that Lincoln's principal war aim was preservation of the Union and not the abolition of slavery: indeed: his inaugural address can almost be read as a declaration of war because the words "perpetual union" were not in the Constitution and he indicated a willingness to use force to retain possession of Federal installations. Yes: it is unarguable that Beauregard's attack on Fort Sumter was an official act of violence, but this was within State boundaries, unlike Lincoln's response which was to call for volunteers from other States to put down "rebellion" and blockade the ports of seceding States. That responds to the salient points of your post: the facts are not in dispute only the conclusions drawn from them, and I accept your entitlement to have a interpretation that may be different from mine. Try to imagine the perspective of those living at the time, and examine historical events and alternative viewpoints sensibly and without the emotional baggage based apparently on contemporary sensibility and a desire to impose modern day standards of political correctness in the vernacular of popular culture :-)

What you believe in the matter is of no consequence. Section Eight, Article One gives Congress the power to arm the militia. Now certainly that can be delegated to the executive, but in this case Congress did not do so. In this case, Mr. Buchanan was unaware that Floyd was authorizing these shipments. Furthermore, Mr. Floyd sent 115,000 stand of arms to southern armories, but he sent none to armories in northern states. Finally, in late December, 1860, when knowledge of the shipments became public, Mr. Floyd resigned his position and immediately returned to Virginia. A congressional commission found that he had acted outside his authority.

On balance, Floyd took a Confederate commission, with which he was able to unintentionally sabotage the campaign in western Virginia in 1861, and he subsequently surrendered Fort Donelson over the objections of Beford Forrest and Gideon Pillow. One could reasonably say that despite his intentions, he proved to be a benefit to the United States.

I have stated of my own accord that he shipped arms in anticipation of war, especially as he began the shipments immediately after the John Brown raid. My remarks make no reference to press reports.

I agree that the actions of so-called state troops of Alabama and Florida seizing United States property, and doing so in Florida before their convention had passed a secession ordinance constituted robbery, i can agree with you on that account. There is absolutely no basis in constitutional or federal law to allege that states have any sovereign authoity to seize United States property.

I see you are still attempting to allege by inference that Mr. Lincoln started the war. Once again, so-called state troops of Alabama and Florida had seized or attempted to seize, while under arms, property of the United States, two months before Mr. Lincoln took office. So-called state troops of South Carolina fired on the un-armed merchant ship Star of West when it attempted to re-supply and reinforce Fort Sumter, just less than two months before Mr. Lincoln took office.

I assure that i have thoroughly examined the attitudes of those living at the time. The white, male minority of the seceding states voted to take that action, and while one can argue whether or not they had that right, it cannot be denied that they are not granted that right by the constitution, which does regulate how states may be admitted to the union. Several areas of the South did not wish to participate, not only the border states of Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri (i will leave out the slave state Delaware, as it would be ridiculous to suggest that they might have seceded, given how the state is situated geographically). But more than that, the western counties of Virginia passed their own act of secession from the Commonwealth of Virginia because they did not wish to leave the United States. The eastern counties of Tennessee did not go to that extent, but they did not participate in the Confederacy, and in fact endured a prolonged siege of Knoxville by Confederate forces, which failed to take the city. Lincoln's Vice President in his second term was Andrew Johnson, of Tennessee. Pro-slavery fervor was not sufficient in the southern confederacy to fill the ranks of thei armies--the Confederate States instituted conscription before it was instituted in the United States. Even before the war began to obviously go against the southern confederacy, desertions, especially of men who had been granted leave, was a sufficiently acute problem that Thomas Jackson wrote of the stern measures which should be taken to prevent it, and instucted his subordinate officers to be careful of the loyalty of the men to whom they granted leave. Jackson died of wounds well before anyone could allege that men were deserting a sinking ship.

You would do well to consider the attitudes of the times yourself. This has nothing to do with contemporary sensibilities or standards of political rectitude, your silly emoticon notwithstanding. Not only did United States Volunteers constitute the great majority of Federal troops in that war, but the soldiers of federal armies voted overwhelmingly to re-elect Mr. Lincoln. U. S. Volunteer regiments routinely re-enlisted en masse when their terms of service expired. You are simply calling for only the view of the southern firebrands to be taken into account.

You might also consider the case of Sam Houston. When Texas seceded and then joined the Confederate States, he refused to take an oath of loyalty to the new "nation," saying: "I love Texas too well to bring civil strife and bloodshed upon her. To avert this calamity, I shall make no endeavor to maintain my authority as Chief Executive of this State, except by the peaceful exercise of my functions." Furthermore, he stated, in writing:

"Fellow-Citizens, in the name of your rights and liberties, which I believe have been trampled upon, I refuse to take this oath. In the name of the nationality of Texas, which has been betrayed by the Convention, I refuse to take this oath. In the name of the Constitution of Texas, I refuse to take this oath. In the name of my own conscience and manhood, which this Convention would degrade by dragging me before it, to pander to the malice of my enemies, I refuse to take this oath. I deny the power of this Convention to speak for Texas....I protest....against all the acts and doings of this convention and I declare them null and void.""

Finally, in April, 1861, called upon to explain his refusal to take an oath of loyalty to the Confederate States, he stood in his hotel window and told the crowd:

"Let me tell you what is coming. After the sacrifice of countless millions of treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives, you may win Southern independence if God be not against you, but I doubt it. I tell you that, while I believe with you in the doctrine of states rights, the North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not a fiery, impulsive people as you are, for they live in colder climates. But when they begin to move in a given direction, they move with the steady momentum and perseverance of a mighty avalanche; and what I fear is, they will overwhelm the South."

I recall the centennial of this war, and all the hoopla leading up to it in the 1950s. I was not then sufficiently well-informed to judge the evidence, but i've certainly supplied that deficiency since that time. I've been reading the history of those times and of that war for over 50 years now. I have come to not only the conclusions i've already listed, but furthermore that the entire "lost cause" historical myth is the most successful and pernicious such effort in our nation's history. It began with the hagiography of Lee, and its first architect was Jubal Early, who had not in fact gotten along very well with Lee when he was an officer in his army.

Lee was one of the finest natural campaigners the USMA ever produced. He was also a disaster in high command. He didn't do basic staff work--when Jackson arrived northeast of Richmond at the commencement of the Seven Days, he was provided no maps. This was well below Jackson's own standard: Jedediah Hotchkiss was his topographical engineer and well-informed military historians credit his accurate and detailed maps as a major factor in Jackson's success in the campaigns in the Valley of Virginia. On the second day, he was sent an insubordinate cavalryman who lead Jackson's troops off in the wrong direction--when Jackson heard the sound of musketry fading and demanded to know where the man was leading them, he argued with Jackson and spoke to him in a manner which would have gotten him a drum-head court martial if he had been a part of Jackson's command. Lee never supplied the deficiency, sent no maps and sent no staff officers to either lead Jackson's march, nor to maintain contact between Lee and Jackson.

At Gettysburg, when Longsteet was ordered to attack the federal left on the second day, the attack did not get off until late afternoon. Lee had provided no maps and no guides, and Longstreet had to send his own staff officers off to find and mark out the route of the approach march.

Lee was also prodigal with the lives of his men. Even as late as the battle of Glendale in the Seven Days, the continued attack on Fitz John Porter's corps might barely be justified. But once Porter had successfully retreated across White Oak Swamp, none of the subsequent attacks were justified because Lee had failed in his objective. The attacks on Malvern Hill can reasonably be described as criminal. Daniel Harvey Hill commented sardonically on Lee's leadership and the attack on Malvern Hill by saying: "It wasn’t war, it was murder". The entire attack known as Pickett's charge was a bloody waste of life to no purpose, and more than one officer said as much before the attack was made. Longstreet quarreled with Lee about Lee's plan for Gettysburg even before that attack was made.

But Lee has been made the military saint of the South, so successfully that most northerners think he was a military genius. I cannot at all agree--his failures in high command are too obvious and their cost to his army too great.

The South only produced two indisputably superior military commanders who held high command. One was from northwest Virginia, and the other from southeast Virginia. The first was Thomas Jackson, who needs no introduction. The second stayed in the United States Army, and that was George Henry Thomas, for whom one can make the reasonable argument that he was the most modern and efficient general on either side.

Nevermind all the bullshit about southern military heroes, though. The facts plainly show that southerners made unprovoked attacks on United States property and troops, under arms, before Lincoln took office. They started the war, and they reaped the whirlwind which many of the those firebrands deserved, although by and large, others paid the price.

Thanks for your efforts, setanta. That last post was riveting.

I don't believe anyone has ever thanked me for posting on this subject. My thanks to you, EB.

Didn't want to divert the thread.

First you must understand that Southerners did NOT consider the Federal government to have authority over ANY state (north or south) government. Hense, the attack on the Federal garrisons at Key West, Pensacola, and Charleston were not attacks on the Federal governments, but an attempt to remove those troops from the state property and send them home to their respective states. What happened to the troops that surrendered at Charleston? They were sent home... not kept as POW's. It was not meant to be an act of war, mearly reclaiming the land that belonged to the state in the first place. What was the war about? The same thing as all wars are fought over... MONEY. The South was taxed in the form of export terrifs much more that the North. The South, being much less populated, had no ability to redress their greivences politically in Washington (they didn't have the votes). Any tax imposed by Washington must be paid. The Southern States position was that this tax was unfair and Washington had NO right to tax soverign states. It is essentially the same argument we currently argue politically... big Federal government vs. small Federal government. The Southern States believed they had the right to leave the Union and form their own Federal government and did so. One only has to read OUR Declaration of Independence. It states that when the PEOPLE decide that the government they are under is oppressive, they have the right to throw off that yoke and form their own government. This is what the South was doing. Was slavery an issue? Sure!! There were many in the North that believed that slavery should be abolished. But the Civil War was fought because the North (illegally) invaded the State of Virginia, CSA to stop their LEGAL right to secceed from the Union. The issue of slavery was skillfully brought into the war when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclaimation. It was issued in 1862 and stated that all States in rebellion against the Union would loose the right to hold slaves on January 1863. It did nothing to free slaves in the States that did not succeed... Maryland, Missiouri, etc. If the purpose of the North was to free the slaves, why wait until 1863? Why not free them in March 1861 when Lincoln was inaugurated? Also, only 25% of the households in 1860 owned slaves. Do you believe the other 75% were willing to go to war and die for the right of those 25% to own slaves? By the way General U. S. Grant owned 4 slaves that he refused to free after the war and was forced to by the Federal government, while General R. E. Lee had freed his slaves as early as 1840. Over 640,000 men died in the Cival War... all these men died over the issue of slavery? It is like saying the Revolutionary War was fought over tea!! Try research before spouting the old revisionist line about 'Father Abraham' and the 'blue clad saints' marching south to preserve the Union and free the slaves.

The winner writes the history, and in this case the winner wants to paint themselves as the savior of the victims because in our modern victim worship culture saving the victims is the most noble act a human can accomplish. Whether is actually happened that way or not is irrelevant, because the truth is not the goal, self esteem and self justification are.

Hi Wayne. Welcome to A2k.

For the ease of those of us reading along, please consider breaking your post into easier to read sections - paragraphs.

Thanks.

Please excuse my poor spelling... I know I would never have made it through college were it not for spell check on my word processor!!