RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: An Unnecessary War - RightNation.US

Jump to content

-----

An Unnecessary War

(And you thought it was going to be about Iraq.)

I doubt that many, if any, refugees from the public school system, along with those still imprisoned therein, have learned anything other than that the American Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery. I count myself in that number, and I entered first grade in 1950. Since this was already established educational dogma then, one can only speculate how much further back the perpetuation of this myth goes.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Those with the courage to read and understand history as it happened, rather then as it is taught, can only reach the conclusion that it was - as the South maintains - a War of Northern Aggression. And it didn't start in 1861, but at least two decades earlier.

What too many do not realize is that in 1861 slavery, as an institution in the United States, was in the same condition as the Roman Empire in 500 A.D.; i.e. dead, although it had not yet collapsed. Left alone, American slavery would not have lasted to the end of the 19th Century.

I can already hear the cries of "Blasphemy! Bigotry! Racism!" I can smell the torches. I can almost feel the rope around my neck.

Let me explain.

Slavery was dead in 1861, due to the efforts of three white men: Eli Whitney, Cyrus McCormick, and John Deere. The Cotton Gin, the Mechanical Reaper and the Steel Plow killed slavery by making it economically untenable. Slaves were a huge overhead cost to farmers who owned/used them; such farms could not match the profit of mechanized operations. Slavery was doomed by the dollar and, absent outside interference, would have dwindled away accompanied by a concurrent gradual and natural shift in human perception. But there was a lot of outside interference.

Consider the punitive trade laws and regulations imposed on the South by legislators from the North, who were in the majority in the U.S. Congress. Don't take my word for it, do some research (I strongly recommend The Politically Incorrect Guide To American History as a starting point). You'll be more likely to believe your own work. By 1860, these onerus provisions had virtually strangled the South and driven it to the brink of revolt. The fuse was laid; the spark was Fort Sumter, in Charleston harbor, South Carolina.

After a small band of radicals - civilians - stormed the fort (and, by the way, just how did they manage that against a superior number of better armed, better trained U.S. Army troops?), they put the garrison ashore unarmed and unharmed. A survey of the situation revealed that fort's cannon could only fire through the harbor entrance and out to sea. If moved to other positions, the cannon could not be depressed enough to hit either ships in the harbor or the city itself. They settled down to wait, not knowing what else to do. Had Federal forces done nothing more than blockade the fort to prevent resupply, the insurgents would have meekly come out on their own as soon as they got hungry enough. The two big questions here are: who gave the order for Federal forces to open fire on their own fort? And why? While the first answer is moot by now, the second is most probably arrogance more than anything else.

I believe that it can truthfully be said that responsibility for The War Between the States and the resultant ethnic unpleasantness that continues unto the present day can rightfully be placed directly at the feet of the bleeding heart liberals of their day: the abolitionists. Had they not sought to bring the South to its knees economically, fomented a civil war, then caused particularly harsh and degrading reprisals to be levied afterward none of the upheavals this Nation has experienced since 1850, or so, would have come to pass.

What an unnecessary war it was.
0
  Like

4 Comments On This Entry

I must have had a couple of decent history teachers. That sounds 'bout right to me. :lol:
0

KenpoDude, on Jan 17 2007, 06:19 AM, said:

I must have had a couple of decent history teachers. That sounds 'bout right to me. :lol:


You're one of the lucky ones, Dude. Congrats.
0
A couple of other things:

The states that formed the Confederacy believed in the strict federalism that had been layed out by the Constitution (written, almost entirely, by a Virginian--James Madison). In the North, Jefferson's and Jackson's party--the Democrats--had turned their backs on Jefferson's belief in federalism and favored a strong central government in Washington, while the true heirs of Jefferon and Jackson in the South maintained the federalist stance. The main issue of the War Between the States, therefore, was states' rights. Slavery gave the North the appearance of a moral imperative.

The issue of secession was borne out of the constitution itself. The opinion that the southerners (and most northerners, truth be told) was that, since a state was not techincally part of the Union until its legislature ratified the Constitution, then a state wishing to leave the Union, it only needed its legislature to vote to repeal the ratification act. It was entirely legal. The states that seceded were independent states until the Confederacy was founded and its constitution (very simialr to the Virginia-born US Constitution) ratified.

You are absolutely correct that the War was not about slavery. The two biggest pieces of evidence for this are: (1) Tecumseh Sherman's statement: "If this war be about slavery, then I shall have to remove the Blue and don the Grey," and, (2) the pesky (for leftists) fact that, at Appomattox, the General who held no slaves (and had not for over a qarter of a century) surrendered to the General who held slaves. Lee freed his slaves in 1840 and convinced his wife to free the slaves she had inherited from her father (George Washington's step-son, btw) before the war broke out. Grant had slaves on his farm back in Ohio and did not free them until forced to by the Thirteenth Ammendment.

Which brings us to one more point: Abraham Lincoln never freed a single slave--No, not one. His family held none for him to free. And the Emancipation Proclamation freed nary a slave. It proclaimed that all slaves held only "in states currently in rebellion against the United States" to be freemen. Therefore, slaves--and there were a lot of them--being held by Northerners were not freed. As a matter of fact, at the time Lincoln issued the Proclamation, there were no "states in rebellion against the United States." There were eleven states fighting a war against the US, but they were loyal members of the Confederate States, a separate country with no loyalty to the United States and over which the United States held no power. Therefore, the CS could not have been "in rebellion against the US." Part of the surrender at Appomattox was immediate dissolution of the CSA and re-unification of the Southern states with the Union, so that they were not "in rebellion against the United States," and the slaves there were not freed.

Full disclosure: of my twenty-one years of formal education, sixteen were in public schools. I attended a private Kindergarten (1962-63), public elementary and secondary schools (1963-75), a private, church(Southern Bapist)-related college (Wake Forest, 1975-79), and a public medical school (West Virginia U, 1979-83). I was taught about the states' rights thing as early as the eighth grade and figured out the Emancipation Proclamation thing on my own that same year. The rest I picked up over the years. So, public education was pretty fair for me.
0

Shrinque, on Jan 18 2007, 02:38 PM, said:

A couple of other things:

The states that formed the Confederacy believed in the strict federalism that had been layed out by the Constitution (written, almost entirely, by a Virginian--James Madison). In the North, Jefferson's and Jackson's party--the Democrats--had turned their backs on Jefferson's belief in federalism and favored a strong central government in Washington, while the true heirs of Jefferon and Jackson in the South maintained the federalist stance. The main issue of the War Between the States, therefore, was states' rights. Slavery gave the North the appearance of a moral imperative.

The issue of secession was borne out of the constitution itself. The opinion that the southerners (and most northerners, truth be told) was that, since a state was not techincally part of the Union until its legislature ratified the Constitution, then a state wishing to leave the Union, it only needed its legislature to vote to repeal the ratification act. It was entirely legal. The states that seceded were independent states until the Confederacy was founded and its constitution (very simialr to the Virginia-born US Constitution) ratified.

You are absolutely correct that the War was not about slavery. The two biggest pieces of evidence for this are: (1) Tecumseh Sherman's statement: "If this war be about slavery, then I shall have to remove the Blue and don the Grey," and, (2) the pesky (for leftists) fact that, at Appomattox, the General who held no slaves (and had not for over a qarter of a century) surrendered to the General who held slaves. Lee freed his slaves in 1840 and convinced his wife to free the slaves she had inherited from her father (George Washington's step-son, btw) before the war broke out. Grant had slaves on his farm back in Ohio and did not free them until forced to by the Thirteenth Ammendment.

Which brings us to one more point: Abraham Lincoln never freed a single slave--No, not one. His family held none for him to free. And the Emancipation Proclamation freed nary a slave. It proclaimed that all slaves held only "in states currently in rebellion against the United States" to be freemen. Therefore, slaves--and there were a lot of them--being held by Northerners were not freed. As a matter of fact, at the time Lincoln issued the Proclamation, there were no "states in rebellion against the United States." There were eleven states fighting a war against the US, but they were loyal members of the Confederate States, a separate country with no loyalty to the United States and over which the United States held no power. Therefore, the CS could not have been "in rebellion against the US." Part of the surrender at Appomattox was immediate dissolution of the CSA and re-unification of the Southern states with the Union, so that they were not "in rebellion against the United States," and the slaves there were not freed.

Full disclosure: of my twenty-one years of formal education, sixteen were in public schools. I attended a private Kindergarten (1962-63), public elementary and secondary schools (1963-75), a private, church(Southern Bapist)-related college (Wake Forest, 1975-79), and a public medical school (West Virginia U, 1979-83). I was taught about the states' rights thing as early as the eighth grade and figured out the Emancipation Proclamation thing on my own that same year. The rest I picked up over the years. So, public education was pretty fair for me.


Thanks for the expansion on my theme. I had also figured these things out on my own (no thanks to the Montgmey County, PA, school system - specifically the history text books it bought) but thought the post would be too long.
0
Page 1 of 1

Recent Entries

1 user(s) viewing

1 Guests
0 member(s)
0 anonymous member(s)

Tags

    Search My Blog