OT - Civil War Movie picks...

Welcome to the Leverguns.Com Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here ... politely.

Moderators: AmBraCol, Hobie

Forum rules
Welcome to the Leverguns.Com General Discussions Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here other than politics... politely.

Please post political post in the new Politics forum.
bee-weg
Levergunner
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 6:59 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Re: OT - Civil War Movie picks...

Post by bee-weg »

I'm not going to get into a lengthy discussion on the legality of secession. People have argued that over and over and not come to a definite conclusion.

But in the first of your original quotes, Lincoln was not saying the right of revolution is a "legal" right. It is a natural right of men to throw off a government, and it is by nature ILLEGAL by that existing governments laws. If you win the revolution and establish a new goverment, more power to you.

In the second of your original quotes, Lincoln attacks the Confederates attempt to claim that secession is legal by the laws of our government.

There is simply no conflict between the two quotes. I can say I have the natural right to rebel against the government and establish my house and property as a new country and then fight to make that happen. But it would be silly for me to try to make the case that the laws of this country make it LEGAL for me to make my house a new country.

What is your point with the Polk/War Powers quote? Are you saying congress opposed the Civil War?

"Perfect Union" meant as in whole or unbroken. A Lincoln quote that I think sums up his perspective pretty well:
"Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came."
41bear
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 106
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:58 am

Re: OT - Civil War Movie picks...

Post by 41bear »

bee-weg wrote:I'm not going to get into a discussion on the legality of secession. People have argued that over and over and not come to a definite conclusion.

But in the first of your original quotes, Lincoln was not saying the right of revolution is a "legal" right. It is natural right of men to throw off a government, and it is by nature ILLEGAL by that existing governments laws. If you win the revolution and establish a new goverment, more power to you.

In the second of your original quotes, Lincoln attacks the Confederates attempt to claim that secession is legal by the laws of our government.

There is simply no conflict between the two quotes. I can say I have the natural right to rebel against the government and establish my house and property as a new country and then fight to make that happen. But it would be silly for me to try to make the case that the laws of this country make it LEGAL for me to make my house a new country.

What is your point with the Polk/War Powers quote? Are you saying congress opposed the Civil War?
I see; by your definition because the CSA lost the CSA were traitors yet had they won, by winning, it would prove that they were right God on their side so to speak. Which goes back to my original statement to you. Might makes right, right? I'm not debating your reasoning; you have every right to believe what ever you want. I just don't agree with your assessment of the man or the federalization of this government because of the actions he took. Which I feel were illegal.

Please point out, if you will, the Article in the Constitution that says it is illegal to withdraw from the Union or that the Union is perpetual?

I'm saying that Lincoln learned his lessions well under Polk. I'm sorry I thought that was clear. Lincoln started the war by sending troops into South Carolina; The CSA didn't invade the North until well after the war was started.

Perfect = without faults; complete and lacking nothing essential.
Union = the act of joining together; agreement or unity of interest or opinions

As I've said before if you have to go to war to maimtain the union its surely not Perfect or Agreeable.
DEO VINDICE

"if only one man among all of the rest will not break ...then all of them, all those who so despise men that they believe all men can be broken and all men can be bought, all of them have failed and all of them are defeated, because one alone destroys them and one alone can give heart to all other men." - Robert Crichton
bee-weg
Levergunner
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 6:59 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Re: OT - Civil War Movie picks...

Post by bee-weg »

I see; by your definition because the CSA lost the CSA were traitors yet had they won, by winning, it would prove that they were right God on their side so to speak. Which goes back to my original statement to you. Might makes right, right? I'm not debating your reasoning; you have every right to believe what ever you want. I just don't agree with your assessment of the man or the federalization of this government because of the actions he took. Which I feel were illegal.
I didn't say anything about a rebellion being right or wrong, only that man has a natural right to revolution. The revolt can be for good reasons or bad reasons, but the result is the same - if you lose, the same old boss makes the rules. If you win, you make the rules.
Please point out, if you will, the Article in the Constitution that says it is illegal to withdraw from the Union or that the Union is perpetual?
The Constitution doesn't address the issue of states withdrawing from the Union. The Articles of Confederation made the union perpetual, and the Constitution made a "more perfect Union." I would not think that making the Union "more perfect" would mean allowing states to come and go as they please.

Lincoln didn't start the war by sending troops to South Carolina. Lincoln resupplied a federal fort on a federally-owned island, deeded to the federal government by the state of SC, as recorded by the state of SC in 1841. The South started the war by firing on that fort.
CraigC
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:06 pm
Location: West Tennessee

Re: OT - Civil War Movie picks...

Post by CraigC »

Ft. Sumter was on CSA soverign soil, in a key strategic location overlooking Charleston harbor, occupied by an opposing enemy force that refused to leave. Rather than evacuating, the Union sent a fleet to force their way to Ft. Sumter to resupply it. In effect, forcing the CSA to fight to control its own harbor. The loss of Ft. Sumter did not necessitate an invasion.

Upon secession, that "federal" installation, deeded to that "federal" government, governed by "federal" law all became null and void. The Union offered Robert E. Lee command of the federal army to put down the "rebellion" months before Ft. Sumter was fired upon. War was imminent. It just gave the Union another excuse to put all the blame on the South.
bee-weg
Levergunner
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 6:59 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Re: OT - Civil War Movie picks...

Post by bee-weg »

Strategically located, yes. Sovereign? That is debatable.

Lee was still in the US Army at the time of Fort Sumter. Lincoln offered him the high command about a week after Sumter.

Maybe the war was imminent. But any rate, the situation went from a high tension political crisis to a shooting war, when the South opened fire on Sumter.
Doc Hudson
Member Emeritus
Posts: 2277
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:22 pm
Location: Crenshaw County, Alabama

Re: OT - Civil War Movie picks...

Post by Doc Hudson »

Gobblerforge wrote:could listen to that Tennessee drawl all day,

I beg your pardon, but Shelby Foote was not a Tennessean. He was born in, educated in, and largely grew up in Greenville, MS, about 35 miles from where I sit. Mr. Foote did not move to Memphis until the 1950's.
Doc Hudson, OOF, IOFA, CSA, F&AM, SCV, NRA LIFE MEMBER, IDJRS #002, IDCT, King of Typoists

Amici familia ab lectio est

Image Image
Image
UNITE!
Bluehawk
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:15 pm
Location: South East PA

Re: OT - Civil War Movie picks...

Post by Bluehawk »

I have been reading this for days and only now have decided to respond
IM only responding to say HI to Doc GLAD TO SEE YOU BACK A POSTING GLAD TO SEE YOUR OK HAVE NOT TALKED TO YOU IN A LONG TGIME BROTHER
Its the first post I noticed from you in a while :D
The right way is always the hardest. It's like the law of nature , water always takes the path of least resistence...... That's why we get crooked rivers and crooked men . TR Theodore the Great
41bear
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 106
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:58 am

Re: OT - Civil War Movie picks...

Post by 41bear »

I didn't say anything about a rebellion being right or wrong, only that man has a natural right to revolution. The revolt can be for good reasons or bad reasons, but the result is the same - if you lose, the same old boss makes the rules. If you win, you make the rules.
Thats what I said you said Might makes right. Thank you. :)
Lincoln didn't start the war by sending troops to South Carolina. Lincoln resupplied a federal fort on a federally-owned island, deeded to the federal government by the state of SC, as recorded by the state of SC in 1841. The South started the war by firing on that fort.
If you go to a mans house armed and try to break his door down what would you expect him to do? Greet you with open arms and invite you in for an Iced Tea? I think not. :roll: :wink:
DEO VINDICE

"if only one man among all of the rest will not break ...then all of them, all those who so despise men that they believe all men can be broken and all men can be bought, all of them have failed and all of them are defeated, because one alone destroys them and one alone can give heart to all other men." - Robert Crichton
CaptainFinn
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 179
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:33 am
Location: Ashland, KY

Re: OT - Civil War Movie picks...

Post by CaptainFinn »

In Ride With The Devil, Mr Evans (actor Zach Grenier) is speaking to Jack Bull and Jake (Skeet Ulrich and Tobet McGuire) about the North's driving need to make everyone in the country like themselves:

"And that is why they will win. Because they believe everyone should live and think just like them. And we shall lose because we don't care one way or another how they live. We just worry about ourselves. "

Semantics aside, I was thinking this could also serve as an analogy between the liberal gun-grabbers and the RKBA-friendly conservatives...gun owners aren't trying to make gun-haters own guns...but gun-grabbers want to impose their fears upon everyone else...
bee-weg
Levergunner
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 6:59 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Re: OT - Civil War Movie picks...

Post by bee-weg »

In the years leading up to the war, it was not the North that was trying to impose it's way on the South, but the other way around.

Sure there were abolitionists in the North that wanted to force the South to give up slavery. But the majority of Northerners were satisfied with the compromises that kept slavery confined to the Slave States and to the territories south of 36'30.

In the 1850's the South used their domination of the Federal Goverment to throw out those old compromises, and began using the power of the Federal Goverment to expand Slavery not only into the territories but also into the Free States.

In the territories, the Kansas-Nebraska act abolished the old Missouri Compromise. Now any territory could be Slave. And when the Kansas settlers split into two factions, creating both pro-slave and pro-free constitutions, President Buchanan tried to push only the pro-slave constitution through congress. That is what split the Northern and Southern Democrats. The Northern Democrats thought the issue should be decided by the residents of the territory, while the Southern Democrats wanted slavery forced on the territory.

In the Free States, the federal Fugitive Slave laws and the Dred Scott supreme court decision forced the Free States to comply with slavery in their own states. Dred Scott allowed slaveowners to move into Free states with their slaves and retain them as property. Some states, like Wisconsin, passed Personal Liberty laws which allowed any man, including escaped slaves, a fair trial. These personal liberty laws enraged the South.

It is a misconception that the South wanted a weak central goverment. The South wanted a very strong Federal government that promoted and protected Slavery. For decades, the South had dominated the three branches of the federal government. They just pushed too hard against the rights of the Free states in the 1850's, and the election of Lincoln was the backlash.

It's ironic that Lincoln had left government service and went back to practicing law. Outrage over the Kansas-Nebraska act, and then Dred Scott, brought him back in the public arena.

I've never understood what the South hoped to gain from the war. They were upset about the Northern resistance to their efforts to force slavery into the territories and free states, but even if they had won the war, an entirely separate sovereign USA surely would not have been cooperatively handing back their escaped slaves. And the territories were US territories, so unless they worked out a deal in the peace negotiations for some of the territories, they would have lost the potential slave territories, cancelling all they had worked for since the original Missouri Compromise.

And if they lost the war, they would lose slavery. They had to know that. The majority of Northerners were fairly indifferent to Slavery. But once "Slavery fired on the Flag" as Grant said, the indifference was gone. It's said that the war "abolitionized" the Union army, because as they marched through the South they saw the reality of slavery, the conditions in which the slaves lived, etc.

Either way, it seemed like a lose-lose situation for the South.
Last edited by bee-weg on Fri Jul 11, 2008 5:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Winjester
Levergunner 1.0
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 4:44 pm
Location: N. Utah

Re: OT - Civil War Movie picks...

Post by Winjester »

I just finished reading the book "Battle Cry Of Freedom, The Civil War Era" by the Pulitzer prize-winning author James M. McPherson. It was a lengthy read, but it really delved into the politics, prejudices, and the overall causes of the War Between The States. It was a real eye-opener to find out who the actual supporters of slavery and abolition really were. I highly recommend this book!
Winjester
God Bless America!
CraigC
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:06 pm
Location: West Tennessee

Re: OT - Civil War Movie picks...

Post by CraigC »

bee-weg wrote:In the years leading up to the war, it was not the North that was trying to impose it's way on the South, but the other way around.
Now I've heard it all. I think you just went from Disciple of The Big Lie to crackpot. So now you're saying that the South instigated the whole thing. When they couldn't push slavery (an increasingly expensive and undesirable institution) further north they decided that war was the only solution. Right. I have to say that that is far sillier than believing that the Union invaded the South and destroyed much of its infrastructure because it didn't agree with its labor practices. Wait, who invaded who???

I guess it would just be easier to everybody if we just conceded. Maybe we should just finally admit that we are the sister-marrying, beer drinking, uneducated, bass-ackwards, moonshinin', toothless, inbred, knuckle dragging racists the world portrays us to be? Then we can kneel at the feet of St. Lincoln and thank him for bringing us back to morality.

Hmmm, I don't think so.
41bear
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 106
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:58 am

Re: OT - Civil War Movie picks...

Post by 41bear »

Very good Bee-weg, I believe you are wrong but....., I’d like to respond in kind and I’ll provide references.

Bee-weg
In the years leading up to the war, it was not the North that was trying to impose it's way on the South, but the other way around.

Sure there were abolitionists in the North that wanted to force the South to give up slavery. But the majority of Northerners were satisfied with the compromises that kept slavery confined to the Slave States and to the territories south of 36'30.

In the 1850's the South used their domination of the Federal Government to throw out those old compromises, and began using the power of the Federal Government to expand Slavery not only into the territories but also into the Free States.
First of all neither the Free nor the Slave states had more power. They were equal in their number for one reason only; to maintain the Union. the North wanted to protect its goods with high tariffs and the South wanted to be treated as an equal partner but didn't feel equal because of the high tariffs inposed by the federal government starting in 1818

http://library.thinkquest.org/J0112391/myth_1.htm
In 1818, the Territory of Missouri applied for admission to the Union. At the time, slavery was legal in the Territory of Missouri. About 10,000 slaves lived in this Territory and most people expected that Missouri would become a slave state. When the bill to admit Missouri to the Union was introduced to Congress, eleven states were slave states and eleven states were free states. Missouri would break that tie and could destroy the balance of free and slave states (even though that balance had already temporarily been upset a number of times.) Luckily, that same year, Maine applied for admission to the Union. Congressmen from slave states and free states agreed to vote to admit Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a free state without upsetting the balance between free and slave states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1850

The Compromise of 1850 came about because California wanted to become a state but by doing so it would upset the balance of power in congress, there by being one more free state than slave states. To get California admitted to the Union Henry Clay came up with the Compromise of 1850. It is telling to note that Clay was unable to get it passed and it was two Northerners that pushed this act thru congress.
The measures, a compromise designed by Whig Senator Henry Clay (who failed to get them through himself), were shepherded to passage by Democratic Senator Stephen Douglas and Whig Senator Daniel Webster. The measures were opposed by Senator John C. Calhoun. The Compromise was possible after the death of President Zachary Taylor, who was in opposition. Succeeding President Taylor was a strong supporter of the compromise: Millard Fillmore. It temporarily defused sectional tensions in the United States, postponing the secession crisis and the American Civil War.


Bee-weg
It is a misconception that the South wanted a weak central goverment. The South wanted a very strong Federal government that promoted and protected Slavery. For decades, the South had dominated the three branches of the federal government.
Two things should be pointed out here.
1. The CSA Constitution

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/csa.htm
5) No capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken.
(6) No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State, except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses.
(7) No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those of another.
(8) No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.
(9) Congress shall appropriate no money from the Treasury except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses, taken by yeas and nays, unless it be asked and estimated for by some one of the heads of departments and submitted to Congress by the President; or for the purpose of paying its own expenses and contingencies; or for the payment of claims against the Confederate States, the justice of which shall have been judicially declared by a tribunal for the investigation of claims against the Government, which it is hereby made the duty of Congress to establish.
(10) All bills appropriating money shall specify in Federal currency the exact amount of each appropriation and the purposes for which it is made; and Congress shall grant no extra compensation to any public contractor, officer, agent, or servant, after such contract shall have been made or such service rendered.
As you can see this Constitution was much more in line with the Articles of Confederation than the US Constitution at that time which made the central government much weaker not stronger as you claimed. In fact it is a wonder that the South was able to maintain an Army in the field at all.

2. If as you say the South was leaving to maintain slavery I would answer you by saying all you have to do is look at the actions of Lincoln himself.

On the very same day that Lincoln’s Congress passed the Morrill Tariff Act they also passed Lincoln’s 13th Amendment which, if ratified, would have guaranteed Slavery in perpetuity anywhere in the United States and would have also guaranteed States rights keeping the United States a Republic. Only Illinois had the chance to vote for it before the first shot was fired.A historical note here is that this is the only Amendment that was ever signed by a sitting President.

http://www.southernmessenger.org/14th_amendment.htm
With slavery not being their reason for leaving the Union, the Southern States were not interested in returning and paying unfair tariffs that were being spent almost exclusive on Northern infrastructure.
"If the South had only wanted to protect slavery, all they had to do was go along with the ORIGINAL 13th Amendment, offered in early 1861 after several states had seceded, which would have protected slavery for all time in the states where it then existed. This was not inducement enough
to bring South Carolina or any others back into the fold.
The States of the Confederacy, even today, could block the passage of the 13th Amendment, and certainly could have then. This is exactly why the Slaveholders wanted to stay in the Union.. Their "property"
was protected by the Constitution."
The Morrill tariff act increased taxes on imports from 18.5 % to 47.5 %.
Was slavery an issue? Of course it was to the radicals on both sides but to the majority of the southern population it was all about states rights and unfair taxes.

A little known and often overlooked fact is that the largest slave auction house in the US was in Washington DC in 1861
DEO VINDICE

"if only one man among all of the rest will not break ...then all of them, all those who so despise men that they believe all men can be broken and all men can be bought, all of them have failed and all of them are defeated, because one alone destroys them and one alone can give heart to all other men." - Robert Crichton
bee-weg
Levergunner
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 6:59 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Re: OT - Civil War Movie picks...

Post by bee-weg »

41Bear, thank you for the good post and the references. I need to take the time to provide some references as well, when I have a little more time. But just some quick points...

The compromise of 1850 was not a bad deal... it still maintained the old Missouri Compromise. It was not anywhere near as bad as the Kansas-Nebraska act

Stephen Douglas, although a Northerner, was fine with Slavery spreading to the territories as long as it was by consent of the settlers in that territory. He referred to it as "popular sovereignty."

By domination of the federal government, I meant control of the branches of government... The presidency, the judiciary, and leadership of congress. The South dominated these for many decades.

By "very strong Federal government," I meant before the war when the South tried to use the Federal government to force slavery issues on the free states and territories. I agree with you that the Confederate central government had some issues exerting control over the Confederate states.

As far as tariffs, the period documents just don't support tariffs as being a significant reason for secession. Slavery was the issue. Also, I think the Morill tariff was under Buchanan but could be wrong.
C. Cash
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 5384
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 6:02 pm

Re: OT - Civil War Movie picks...

Post by C. Cash »

Winjester wrote:I just finished reading the book "Battle Cry Of Freedom, The Civil War Era" by the Pulitzer prize-winning author James M. McPherson. It was a lengthy read, but it really delved into the politics, prejudices, and the overall causes of the War Between The States. It was a real eye-opener to find out who the actual supporters of slavery and abolition really were. I highly recommend this book!
Winjester
+1 It a good one. Even though an obvious Yankee he does a pretty good job of remaining objective :wink:
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8
41bear
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 106
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:58 am

Re: OT - Civil War Movie picks...

Post by 41bear »

Bee-weg
As far as tariffs, the period documents just don't support tariffs as being a significant reason for secession. Slavery was the issue. Also, I think the Morill tariff was under Buchanan but could be wrong.
You are right about Buchanan signing the Morrill Tariff act just before Lincoln took office. Lincoln having already stating that if Buchanan failed to inact it that it would be his first order of business. It was, you're aware, the corner stone of Lincoln's party; protectionism!

Here are three links to refute your claim that Tariffs were not the over riding cause. Notice also that these writers and Historians are for the most part Northern.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/1100g.asp

http://www.etymonline.com/cw/economics.htm

http://mises.org/article.aspx?Id=1168

I've read Charles Adams "When in the Course of Human Events". He lays out the true course of that historical time frame very well.

Another very good book "A Consititutional History of Secession" by John Remington Graham

Both of these Northern writers present a valid case for Secession but the most enduring part is a fact that no one can get around. Jefferson Davis was never brought to trial for treason, which of course, if secession was treason it would be easy to prove in court. The deck was stacked against Davis, the North just won, Lincoln was shot, Chase was to preside so what was the problem? Stewart was foaming at the mouth to get it done as he wanted to break the south so that it would never forget its place. NO lawyer would touch the case because they knew they had 0 chances of winning. THe US then offered Davis a pardon but he refused because he wanted to go to trial. So he was released on bond never to be tried or pardoned!

One other thing you might want to read:

http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=312
DEO VINDICE

"if only one man among all of the rest will not break ...then all of them, all those who so despise men that they believe all men can be broken and all men can be bought, all of them have failed and all of them are defeated, because one alone destroys them and one alone can give heart to all other men." - Robert Crichton
bee-weg
Levergunner
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 6:59 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Re: OT - Civil War Movie picks...

Post by bee-weg »

41Bear

Mises is rabidly anti-Lincoln. DiLorenzo has written books demonizing Lincoln which have been torn apart by historians. 3 out of your 4 references are related to Mises. I would interested in any period documents supporting your views, because both the modern anti-government groups like Mises, and also the Neo-confederate groups have an obvious agenda.

Here are two period documents by Alexander Stephens, the Vice-President of the Confederacy. The first is in November 14, 1860, after Lincoln has been elected but before South Carolina has seceded. He talks briefly about the tariff issue:

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/steph2.html
The next evil that my friend complained of, was the Tariff. Well, let us look at that for a moment. About the time I commenced noticing public matters, this question was agitating the country almost as fearfully as the Slave question now is. In 1832, when I was in college, South Carolina was ready to nullify or secede from the Union on this account. And what have we seen? The tariff no longer distracts the public councils. Reason has triumphed. The present tariff was voted for by Massachusetts and South Carolina. The lion and the lamb lay down together-- every man in the Senate and House from Massachusetts and South Carolina, I think, voted for it, as did my honorable friend himself. And if it be true, to use the figure of speech of my honorable friend, that every man in the North, that works in iron and brass and wood, has his muscle strengthened by the protection of the government, that stimulant was given by his vote, and I believe every other Southern man. So we ought not to complain of that.
[Mr. Toombs: That tariff lessened the duties.]
[Mr. Stephens:[ Yes, and Massachusetts, with unanimity, voted with the South to lessen them, and they were made just as low as Southern men asked them to be, and those are the rates they are now at. If reason and argument, with experience, produced such changes in the sentiments of Massachusetts from 1832 to 1857, on the subject of the tariff, may not like changes be effected there by the same means, reason and argument, and appeals to patriotism on the present vexed question? And who can say that by 1875 or 1890, Massachusetts may not vote with South Carolina and Georgia upon all those questions that now distract the country and threaten its peace and existence? I believe in the power and efficiency of truth, in the omnipotence of truth, and its ultimate triumph when properly wielded. (Applause.)
Stephens makes it clear that although the Tariffs were an issue of conflict during the 1832 crisis, the current issue “agitating” the country is Slavery. Below is Stephens’s famous “cornerstone” speech, of March 1861, where he says the war is over Slavery:

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/corner.html
But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind -- from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics; their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just -- but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.
At the time of secession, the tariffs were lower than any time since 1812. They were not a significant cause of secession.
41bear
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 106
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:58 am

Re: OT - Civil War Movie picks...

Post by 41bear »

bee-weg wrote:41Bear
At the time of secession, the tariffs were lower than any time since 1812. They were not a significant cause of secession.
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/corner.html This is also from your cornerstone link and should be noted it was a newspaper account of VP Stephens’ speech.
[REPORTER'S NOTE. -- Your reporter begs to state that the above is not a perfect report, but only such a sketch of the address of Mr. Stephens as embraces, in his judgment, the most important points presented by the orator. -- G.]

Several other points were alluded to by Mr. Stephens, particularly as to the policy of the new government toward foreign nations, and our commercial relations with them. Free trade, as far as practicable, would be the policy of this government. NO higher duties would be imposed on foreign importations than would be necessary to support the government upon the strictest economy.


Our fathers had guarded the assessment of taxes by insisting that representation and taxation should go together. This was inherited from the mother country, England. It was one of the principles upon which the revolution had been fought. Our fathers also provided in the old constitution, that all appropriation bills should originate in the representative branch of Congress, but our new constitution went a step further, and guarded not only the pockets of the people, but also the public money, after it was taken from their pockets.


Mr. Stephens reviewed at some length, the extravagance and profligacy of appropriations by the Congress of the United States for several years past, and in this connection took occasion to allude to another one of the great improvements in our new constitution, which is a clause prohibiting Congress from appropriating any money from the treasury, except by a two-third vote, unless it be for some object which the executive may say is necessary to carry on the government.

While it is a fixed principle with them never to allow the increase of a foot of slave territory, they seem to be equally determined not to part with an inch "of the accursed soil." Notwithstanding their clamor against the institution, they seemed to be equally opposed to getting more, or letting go what they have got. They were ready to fight on the accession of Texas, and are equally ready to fight now on her secession. Why is this? How can this strange paradox be accounted for? There seems to be but one rational solution -- and that is, notwithstanding their professions of humanity, they are disinclined to give up the benefits they derive from slave labor. Their philanthropy yields to their interest The idea of enforcing the laws, has but one object, and that is a collection of the taxes, raised by slave labor to swell the fund, necessary to meet their heavy appropriations. The spoils is what they are after -- though they come from the labor of the slave. [Continued applause.]

The prospect of war is, at least, not so threatening as it has been. The idea of coercion, shadowed forth in President Lincoln's inaugural, seems not to be followed up thus far so vigorously as was expected. Fort Sumter, it is believed, will soon be evacuated.

"The power confided in me, will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion – no using of force against, or among the people anywhere.... You can have no conflict, without being yourselves the aggressors." ~ Lincoln's ultimatum to the South: basically it states, pay tribute to the North or failure to do so will be interpreted as a declaration of war, by the South, against the North. From Lincoln's first Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861.


This new constitution, or form of government, constitutes the subject to which your attention will be partly invited. In reference to it, I make this first general remark. It amply secures all our ancient rights, franchises, and liberties. All the great principles of Magna Charta are retained in it. No citizen is deprived of life, liberty, or property, but by the judgment of his peers under the laws of the land. The great principle of religious liberty, which was the honor and pride of the old constitution, is still maintained and secured. All the essentials of the old constitution, which have endeared it to the hearts of the American people, have been preserved and perpetuated. [Applause.] Some changes have been made. Of these I shall speak presently. Some of these I should have preferred not to have seen made; but these, perhaps, meet the cordial approbation of a majority of this audience, if not an overwhelming majority of the people of the Confederacy. Of them, therefore, I will not speak. But other important changes do meet my cordial approbation. They form great improvements upon the old constitution. So, taking the whole new constitution, I have no hesitancy in giving it as my judgment that it is decidedly better than the old. [Applause.]
Allow me briefly to allude to some of these improvements. The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality. Honest labor and enterprise are left free and unrestricted in whatever pursuit they may be engaged. This subject came well nigh causing a rupture of the old Union, under the lead of the gallant Palmetto State, which lies on our border, in 1833. This old thorn of the tariff, which was the cause of so much irritation in the old body politic, is removed forever from the new. [Applause.]
Again, the subject of internal improvements, under the power of Congress to regulate commerce, is put at rest under our system. The power claimed by construction under the old constitution, was at least a doubtful one-it rested solely upon construction. We of the South, generally apart from considerations of constitutional principles, opposed its exercise upon grounds of its inexpediency and injustice. Notwithstanding this opposition, millions of money, from the common treasury had been drawn for such purposes. Our opposition sprang from no hostility to commerce, or all necessary aids for facilitating it. With us it was simply a question, upon whom the burden should fall. In Georgia, for instance, we have done as much for the cause of internal improvements as any other portion of the country according to population and means. We have stretched out lines of railroads from the seaboard to the mountains; dug down the hills, and filled up the valleys at a cost of not less than twenty-five millions of dollars. All this was done to open an outlet for our products of the interior, and those to the west of us, to reach the marts of the world. No State was in greater need of such facilities than Georgia, but we did not ask that these works should be made by appropriations out of the common treasury. The cost of the grading, the superstructure, and equipments of our roads, was borne by those who entered on the enterprise. Nay, more-not only the cost of the iron, no small item in the aggregate cost, was borne in the same way-but we were compelled to pay into the common treasury several millions of dollars for the privilege of importing the iron, after the price was paid for it abroad. What justice was there in taking this money, which our people paid into the common treasury on the importation of our iron, and applying it to the improvement of rivers and harbors elsewhere?
The true principle is to subject the commerce of every locality, to whatever burdens may be necessary to facilitate it. If Charleston harbor needs improvement, let the commerce of Charleston bear the burden. If the mouth of the Savannah river has to be cleared out, let the sea-going navigation which is benefitted by it, bear the burden. So with the mouths of the Alabama and Mississippi river. Just as the products of the interior, our cotton, wheat, corn, and other articles, have to bear the necessary rates of freight over our railroads to reach the seas. This is again the broad principle of perfect equality and justice. [Applause.] And it is especially set forth and established in our new constitution.
That is a lot to say about something you claim has no bairing on this subject.

Now from Robert Toombs’s speech. http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/toombs.html

This was given the day before Mr, Stephens speech of which you spoke.
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/steph2.html Mr. Stephens wasn’t VP at the time of this speech. It should be stated here that these two speeches given before Georgia seceded but right after Lincoln was elected.
Neither these statesmen nor their constituents sought in any way to use the Government for the interest of themselves or their section, or for the injury of a single member of the Confederacy. We can to-day open wide the history of their administrations and point with pride to every act, and challenge the world to point out a single act stained with injustice to the North, or with partiality to their own section. This is our record; let us now examine that of our confederates.
The instant the Government was organized, at the very first Congress, the Northern States evinced a general desire and purpose to use it for their own benefit, and to pervert its powers for sectional advantage, and they have steadily pursued that policy to this day. They demanded a monopoly of the business of ship- building, and got a prohibition against the sale of foreign ships to citizens of the United States, which exists to this day.
They demanded a monopoly of the coasting trade, in order to get higher freights than they could get in open competition with the carriers of the world. Congress gave it to them, and they yet hold this monopoly. And now, to-day, if a foreign vessel in Savannah offer[sl to take your rice, cotton, grain or lumber to New-York, or any other American port, for nothing, your laws prohibit it, in order that Northern ship-owners may get enhanced prices for doing your carrying. This same shipping interest, with cormorant rapacity, have steadily burrowed their way through your legislative halls, until they have saddled the agricultural classes with a large portion of the legitimate expenses of their own business. We pay a million of dollars per annum for the lights which guide them into and out of your ports. We built and kept up, at the cost of at least another million a year, hospitals for their sick and disabled seamen when they wear them out and cast them ashore. We pay half a million per annum to support and bring home those they cast away in foreign lands. They demand, and have received, millions of the public money to increase the safety of harbors, and lessen the danger of navigating our rivers. All of which expenses legitimately fall upon their business, and should come out of their own pockets, instead of a common treasury.
Even the fishermen of Massachusetts and New England demand and receive from the public treasury about half a million of dollars per annum as a pure bounty on their business of catching codfish. The North, at the very first Congress, demanded and received bounties under the name of protection, for every trade, craft, and calling which they pursue, and there is not an artisan in brass, or iron, or wood, or weaver, or spinner in wool or cotton, or a calicomaker, or iron-master, or a coal-owner, in all of the Northern or Middle States, who has not received what he calls the protection of his government on his industry to the extent of from fifteen to two hundred per cent from the year 1791 to this day. They will not strike a blow, or stretch a muscle, without bounties from the government. No wonder they cry aloud for the glorious Union; they have the same reason for praising it, that craftsmen of Ephesus had for shouting, "Great is Diana of the Ephesians," whom all Asia and the world worshipped. By it they got their wealth; by it they levy tribute on honest labor. It is true that this policy has been largely sustained by the South; it is true that the present tariff was sustained by an almost unanimous vote of the South; but it was a reduction - a reduction necessary from the plethora of the revenue; but the policy of the North soon made it inadequate to meet the public expenditure, by an enormous and profligate increase of the public expenditure; and at the last session of Congress they brought in and passed through the House the most atrocious tariff bill that ever was enacted, raising the present duties from twenty to two hundred and fifty per cent above the existing rates of duty. That bill now lies on the table of the Senate. It was a master stroke of abolition policy; it united cupidity to fanaticism, and thereby made a combination which has swept the country. There were thousands of protectionists in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New-York, and in New-England, who were not abolitionists. There were thousands of abolitionists who were free traders. The mongers brought them together upon a mutual surrender of their principles. The free-trade abolitionists became protectionists; the non-abolition protectionists became abolitionists. The result of this coalition was the infamous Morrill bill - the robber and the incendiary struck hands, and united in joint raid against the South.
Thus stands the account between the North and the South. Under its ordinary and most favorable action, bounties and protection to every interest and every pursuit in the North, to the extent of at least fifty millions per annum, besides the expenditure of at least sixty millions out of every seventy of the public expenditure among them, thus making the treasury a perpetual fertilizing stream to them and their industry, and a suction-pump to drain away our substance and parch up our lands.
It seems to me that your claims, to the contrary, the Morrill Tariff has a lot more to do with this conflict than you care to admit.

http://www.tax.org/Museum/1816-1860.htm
Now, while you are correct that tariff’s were low before 1828 and between 1833 and 1857. The marked upward revision of the tariff rates enacted by the Tariff of 1828, dubbed the Tariff of Abominations by its southern opponents, formed the basis for the nullification crisis of South Carolina
The Morrill Tariff raised those figures from 18.5% to 47%

As to your comments that the South seceded because of slavery as I showed before why leave if Lincoln was willing to amend (he signed it, the only president to ever sign one) the Constitution. Both houses passed it and its known that at least 3 states ratified it before the shooting started.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment
The missing 13th's
http://www.usconstitution.net/constamfail.html
The Slavery Amendment
In 1861, an amendment prohibiting the Congress from making any law interfering with the domestic institutions of any State (slavery being specifically mentioned) was proposed and sent to the states. This amendment is still outstanding. Congressional research shows that the amendment was ratified by two states, the last being in 1862. This amendment is also known as the Corwin Amendment, as it was proposed by Ohio Representative Thomas Corwin.

The text:

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.
DEO VINDICE

"if only one man among all of the rest will not break ...then all of them, all those who so despise men that they believe all men can be broken and all men can be bought, all of them have failed and all of them are defeated, because one alone destroys them and one alone can give heart to all other men." - Robert Crichton
bee-weg
Levergunner
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 6:59 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Re: OT - Civil War Movie picks...

Post by bee-weg »

This snippet is about 2/3's of the way down your Stephans quote:
This subject came well nigh causing a rupture of the old Union, under the lead of the gallant Palmetto State, which lies on our border, in 1833. This old thorn of the tariff, which was the cause of so much irritation in the old body politic, is removed forever from the new. [Applause.]
He acknowledges that tariffs are no longer an issue. He also talks about "internal improvements" which is what we refer to now as infrastructure or public works. But Stephans speech makes it ablsolutely clear that the main issue is Slavery.

Toombs speech also talks about Slavery and the free states not honoring the fugitive slave laws.

If the South was that upset about the Morrill tariff, why secede and leave the Senate with insufficient opposition to the bill, thereby allowing it to pass?

The Corwyn amendment was a last-minute appeasement of the South in order to avoid war. It was probably too little, too late, as the South refused to accept it. It would have brought back the 36'30 slavery containment of the Missouri Compromise, which the South had already been successful in eliminating, so they didn't want that back.

Edit: Correction, the Corwin amendment didn't bring back 36'30, I was thinking of another last-minute appeasement, the Crittenden Compromise. The Corwin amendment just reaffirmed what everyone already understood the contsitution to say anyway. It didn't promote slavery, it just affirmed congress didn't have the constitutional power to abolish it in a state (it kept the options open for the territories though).
41bear
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 106
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:58 am

Re: OT - Civil War Movie picks...

Post by 41bear »

bee-weg wrote:This snippet is about 2/3's of the way down your Stephans quote:
This subject came well nigh causing a rupture of the old Union, under the lead of the gallant Palmetto State, which lies on our border, in 1833. This old thorn of the tariff, which was the cause of so much irritation in the old body politic, is removed forever from the new. [Applause.]
1. First of all its a newspaper article so we don't know what the reporter left out. We don't know if the reporter was pro or con slavery; which would slant his reporting.
2. This was a speech before secession, Stephens was a known pro Union man and , of course his speech would have no negative elements to it, the whole speech is devised to calm everyones fears and cause Georgia to stay in the Union. All anyone has to do is read the begining of the speech to see that.

Bee-weg wrote:If the South was that upset about the Morrill tariff, why secede and leave the Senate with insufficient opposition to the bill, thereby allowing it to pass?

The Corwyn amendment was a last-minute appeasement of the South in order to avoid war. It was probably too little, too late, as the South refused to accept it. It would have brought back the 36'30 slavery containment of the Missouri Compromise, which the South had already been successful in eliminating, so they didn't want that back.

Edit: Correction, the Corwin amendment didn't bring back 36'30, I was thinking of another last-minute appeasement, the Crittenden Compromise. The Corwin amendment just reaffirmed what everyone already understood the contsitution to say anyway. It didn't promote slavery, it just affirmed congress didn't have the constitutional power to abolish it in a state (it kept the options open for the territories though).
The balance of power shifted to the Northern states with the inclusion of California. The Southern states didn't have the votes to stop it; besides the fact that Lincoln himself said that if it wasn't passed by the time he became President he would force it thru the new congress. Face it; Lincoln was a known portectionist, he wanted a northern route for the railroad, he wanted to keep the money rolling in to increase the power of the northern industeral base, and most important of all he couldn't allow himself to be seen as the President who oversaw the break up of the Union and would do anything (the Corwin Amendment) including breaking his word to follow the Repubs platform of abolishing slavery to keep the Southern states from leaving. If you have read anything about Lincoln you would know that he never believed that the South would pull out "They were like the boy crying Wolf" on secession.

THe death of 630,000 american boys was over greed and taxes, MONEY nothing more and nothing less. Was Slavery an issue, of course after the Mu. compromise of 1820 even Jefferson saw it and warned that it would lead to the breakup of the Union. Not so much slavery but division between the states it could have been anything. Don't forget the compromise was brought about because of division of power; slavery was the results but power was the cause. Just read his words on this subject.
DEO VINDICE

"if only one man among all of the rest will not break ...then all of them, all those who so despise men that they believe all men can be broken and all men can be bought, all of them have failed and all of them are defeated, because one alone destroys them and one alone can give heart to all other men." - Robert Crichton
bee-weg
Levergunner
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 6:59 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Re: OT - Civil War Movie picks...

Post by bee-weg »

If the real issues were money and tariffs, why did the last-minute appeasements to avert war, like Corwyn and Crittendon, all have to do with Slavery?

Also, I wouldn't agree that Lincoln broke his word. He knew before he took office that the executive did not have the constitutional power to abolish slavery.
41bear
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 106
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:58 am

Re: OT - Civil War Movie picks...

Post by 41bear »

bee-weg wrote:If the real issues were money and tariffs, why did the last-minute appeasements to avert war, like Corwyn and Crittendon, all have to do with Slavery?

Also, I wouldn't agree that Lincoln broke his word. He knew before he took office that the executive did not have the constitutional power to abolish slavery.
You just answered your own question. I submit to you that if the war was truly only about slavery, as you claim, then the South would have jumped at the chance to stay in the Union. Do you really believe that everyone was so blood thirsty as to want the war they got?

And you think that the South was to dumb to know that too. The fact is if you cut out all the political posturing and moral indignation about slavery: Slavery had only two ways to go A. Die a natural death, which I believe it would have given 20 years time. or B. A Constitutional Amendment to outlaw it and if the South had stayed in the Union they could have easily blocked that move till hell was ICE because it takes a 3/4ths vote to add an amendment. Quick answer: all the South had to do was stay in the Union. Now why is that so hard to understand?
DEO VINDICE

"if only one man among all of the rest will not break ...then all of them, all those who so despise men that they believe all men can be broken and all men can be bought, all of them have failed and all of them are defeated, because one alone destroys them and one alone can give heart to all other men." - Robert Crichton
bee-weg
Levergunner
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 6:59 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Re: OT - Civil War Movie picks...

Post by bee-weg »

Hard to understand? Apparently those who agitated for war didn't understand very well. And those who believed the fear-mongering of the agitators didn't understand very well either.

I posted before in this thread that it seemed to me a lose-lose situation for the South to go to war for Slavery. The progression into war was a political game of chicken gone tragically bad. Both sides thought the other would back down quickly, and there would be minimal casualties.

Shiloh sure changed that thinking, and then shortly after, Antietam too...

Thank you for the discussion. I will bow out as I think we are set in our opinions, and any further expression of them would not be fair to the dead horse.
41bear
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 106
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:58 am

Re: OT - Civil War Movie picks...

Post by 41bear »

bee-weg wrote:Thank you for the discussion. I will bow out as I think we are set in our opinions, and any further expression of them would not be fair to the dead horse.
You are more than welcome; I really enjoyed it. In the end we agree more than you think. The war mongers on both sides wanted war and much to everyones disbelief thay got way more than they bargined for. In my mind Lincoln was stubborn and was't going to back down and played a risky but masterful hand at the begining. Davis, full of "Don't tread on Me" did the most stupid thing he could do, "He Fired the FIRST Shot." You NEVER start something you can't win and Mr. Davis was to hot headed to listen to anyone but his heart. It's odd you brought up Stephens and I quoted Toomes as they (The 2 men from Georgia) were the two in Davis' cabnet that begged him not to Fire on the Feds at Charlstown and the rest is history.

Thank you for a well thought out debate I really enjoyed it, I hope you did also. Ron.
DEO VINDICE

"if only one man among all of the rest will not break ...then all of them, all those who so despise men that they believe all men can be broken and all men can be bought, all of them have failed and all of them are defeated, because one alone destroys them and one alone can give heart to all other men." - Robert Crichton
Gobblerforge
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1510
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 1:02 pm
Location: Eastern Ohio, Foothills of Appalachia
Contact:

Re: OT - Civil War Movie picks...

Post by Gobblerforge »

I would also like to say thanks. Though I am not that knowledgeable on the topic and I usually don't clog my mind up with all those facts, I enjoyed your view points of the posts. It is obvious at how different any two folks can see any one thing. God bless America.
Gobbler
Click Click Boom
Post Reply