Trump indicted: Espionage Act

[Steeltime]

The issue with that is the fact that in the late 1800s and early 1900s there was a movement to make the Southern cause look more noble. In fact, I have read things to the idea that is where the term "The Cause" came from. So where we are today could be multiple different optics from what they were thinking during and just after the war.

I just do not believe that if the institution of slavery wasn't there that war gets fought. I will never believe that. It is the roots of what almost every other issue stemed from. Again, this from the people in charge, NOT the poor farm boy doing the fighting and dying.

I guess all the people in Chambersburg, after their homes were burned by Confederate soldiers, and lost their ability to feed their families and so forth, don't count. I wonder about those Union soldiers in Andersonville or Belle Isle who died horrific deaths, I guess they don't matter. What a bunch of horseshit. How many damn times do you have to be told that the assertion is NOT being made that those farm boys were fighting for slavery. The powerful people who put them there and helped to cause it, for sure it was about slavery.

Diver, I am revisiting this issue because I read an article thoroughly refuting your position that the Civil War was based on a push by the North to end slavery. The facts are these:

• The Morrill Tariff imposed significant tariffs on English imports, which shifted massive amounts of money from Southern states to Northern states. That is undisputed.
• The Southern states refused to fund further industrialization of the North. The war was an economic war.
• In fact, Lincoln and the Republicans understood that the March 2, 1861 Morrill Tariff would result in secession of Southern states from the Union.
• Why do I say that the war had nothing to do with slavery and was in fact an economic war? On the same day in an effort to prevent secession, the Republicans passed and Lincoln endorsed the Corwin Amendment. The Corwin Amendment would have made it impossible for slavery to be abolished.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment
• So I am supposed to believe that the North pushed for a Constitutional amendment to protect slavery, but a few weeks later went to war to end slavery? Yeah, sure. You bet.
• In his inaugural address Lincoln said: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” The North had no intention of going to war over slavery.
• The South fought because they were invaded. The Southern states were invaded because they declared independence, not war, stemming from economic reasons. Again, the dispute arose from the massive transfer of wealth from Southern states to Northern states under the Morrill Tariff.
• Lincoln said that the South could have all the slavery that it wanted as long as the Southern states paid the tariff. The North would not go to war over slavery, but it would to collect the tariff.
• In fact, while Lincoln repeatedly said he did not seek to end slavery and supported slavery remaining in the Southern states, he simultaneously promised to use the government’s power “to collect the duties and imposts" - meaning, to enforce the Morrill tariff.
• And if Northern leaders were so invested in civil rights - ending slavery - why did they send the same troops who invaded and fought the south to commit genocide on plains Indians?
• And if the North was so intent on ending slavery, why did the Emancipation Proclamation "free" slaves only in the states the North did not govern and keep slavery in the states they actually controlled (Missouri, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, even Washington, D.C.)?
• Lincoln's own Secretary of State admitted that the Union "freed slaves in territories that we do not control and left them in slavery in territories we do control."

 

[DBS1970]

Diver, I am revisiting this issue because I read an article thoroughly refuting your position that the Civil War was based on a push by the North to end slavery. The facts are these:

• The Morrill Tariff imposed significant tariffs on English imports, which shifted massive amounts of money from Southern states to Northern states. That is undisputed.
• The Southern states refused to fund further industrialization of the North. The war was an economic war.
• In fact, Lincoln and the Republicans understood that the March 2, 1861 Morrill Tariff would result in secession of Southern states from the Union.
• Why do I say that the war had nothing to do with slavery and was in fact an economic war? On the same day in an effort to prevent secession, the Republicans passed and Lincoln endorsed the Corwin Amendment. The Corwin Amendment would have made it impossible for slavery to be abolished.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment
• So I am supposed to believe that the North pushed for a Constitutional amendment to protect slavery, but a few weeks later went to war to end slavery? Yeah, sure. You bet.
• In his inaugural address Lincoln said: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” The North had no intention of going to war over slavery.
• The South fought because they were invaded. The Southern states were invaded because they declared independence, not war, stemming from economic reasons. Again, the dispute arose from the massive transfer of wealth from Southern states to Northern states under the Morrill Tariff.
• Lincoln said that the South could have all the slavery that it wanted as long as the Southern states paid the tariff. The North would not go to war over slavery, but it would to collect the tariff.
• In fact, while Lincoln repeatedly said he did not seek to end slavery and supported slavery remaining in the Southern states, he simultaneously promised to use the government’s power “to collect the duties and imposts" - meaning, to enforce the Morrill tariff.
• And if Northern leaders were so invested in civil rights - ending slavery - why did they send the same troops who invaded and fought the south to commit genocide on plains Indians?
• And if the North was so intent on ending slavery, why did the Emancipation Proclamation "free" slaves only in the states the North did not govern and keep slavery in the states they actually controlled (Missouri, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, even Washington, D.C.)?
• Lincoln's own Secretary of State admitted that the Union "freed slaves in territories that we do not control and left them in slavery in territories we do control."

NO NO NO!
It was not about Mercantilism and making stock jobbers in Boston, New York and Chicago MOAR MONEY it was about ending slavery in punishing those ignorant southerners for their HUWHYTE SOOPRAMECY even though less than 1% of the white population in the south ever owned slaves...

 

[diver]

Diver, I am revisiting this issue because I read an article thoroughly refuting your position that the Civil War was based on a push by the North to end slavery. The facts are these:

• The Morrill Tariff imposed significant tariffs on English imports, which shifted massive amounts of money from Southern states to Northern states. That is undisputed.
• The Southern states refused to fund further industrialization of the North. The war was an economic war.
• In fact, Lincoln and the Republicans understood that the March 2, 1861 Morrill Tariff would result in secession of Southern states from the Union.
• Why do I say that the war had nothing to do with slavery and was in fact an economic war? On the same day in an effort to prevent secession, the Republicans passed and Lincoln endorsed the Corwin Amendment. The Corwin Amendment would have made it impossible for slavery to be abolished.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment
• So I am supposed to believe that the North pushed for a Constitutional amendment to protect slavery, but a few weeks later went to war to end slavery? Yeah, sure. You bet.
• In his inaugural address Lincoln said: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” The North had no intention of going to war over slavery.
• The South fought because they were invaded. The Southern states were invaded because they declared independence, not war, stemming from economic reasons. Again, the dispute arose from the massive transfer of wealth from Southern states to Northern states under the Morrill Tariff.
• Lincoln said that the South could have all the slavery that it wanted as long as the Southern states paid the tariff. The North would not go to war over slavery, but it would to collect the tariff.
• In fact, while Lincoln repeatedly said he did not seek to end slavery and supported slavery remaining in the Southern states, he simultaneously promised to use the government’s power “to collect the duties and imposts" - meaning, to enforce the Morrill tariff.
• And if Northern leaders were so invested in civil rights - ending slavery - why did they send the same troops who invaded and fought the south to commit genocide on plains Indians?
• And if the North was so intent on ending slavery, why did the Emancipation Proclamation "free" slaves only in the states the North did not govern and keep slavery in the states they actually controlled (Missouri, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, even Washington, D.C.)?
• Lincoln's own Secretary of State admitted that the Union "freed slaves in territories that we do not control and left them in slavery in territories we do control."

Their own words...not mine. Various states secession declarations:

“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery.” — Mississippi Secession Declaration.

“The people of the slave holding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery.” — Louisiana Secession Declaration.

“t is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South.” — Alabama Secession Ordinance.

“The right of property in slaves.” — South Carolina Secession Declaration.

Mississippi Senator, Albert Brown, in 1858, arguing for eventual secession: “I would spread the blessings of slavery, like the religion of our Divine Master, to the uttermost ends of the earth.”

One more time. I AM NOT arguing the poor farm boy was fighting for slaves. That was the least of his concerns. He was fighting for survival. The wealthy, powerful slave owners and politicians put him there. What surprises me is some fo you who, rightfully, rail against our present government shafting the working people...wealthy politicians making it harder for everyday folks to get by, are all on the side of a system that in some ways manipulated poor young men into fighting for a cause they would never benefit from.

 

[Confluence]

Their own words...not mine. Various states secession declarations:

“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery.” — Mississippi Secession Declaration.

“The people of the slave holding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery.” — Louisiana Secession Declaration.

“t is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South.” — Alabama Secession Ordinance.

“The right of property in slaves.” — South Carolina Secession Declaration.

Mississippi Senator, Albert Brown, in 1858, arguing for eventual secession: “I would spread the blessings of slavery, like the religion of our Divine Master, to the uttermost ends of the earth.”

One more time. I AM NOT arguing the poor farm boy was fighting for slaves. That was the least of his concerns. He was fighting for survival. The wealthy, powerful slave owners and politicians put him there. What surprises me is some fo you who, rightfully, rail against our present government shafting the working people...wealthy politicians making it harder for everyday folks to get by, are all on the side of a system that in some ways manipulated poor young men into fighting for a cause they would never benefit from.

Are you referring to the Boooshhhhh/Bommmaaa wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

 

[diver]

Are you referring to the Boooshhhhh/Bommmaaa wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Sure. Unfortunately with most wars that ends up being the case.

 

[diver]

When you think about it, the one war that may have benefitted to some degree the people that fought it was WW2 with the GI Bill. It was a situation where the poor kid if he survived could actually advance his lot in life.

They all probably would have preferred not to fight it, though. I remember reading a response of a WW2 Army Air Corps vet being asked by a snot nosed college kid what his feelings were bombing German towns. His response was, 'Well, my first feeling was I didn't want to be there."

 

[Steeltime]

Their own words...not mine. Various states secession declarations:

“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery.” — Mississippi Secession Declaration.

“The people of the slave holding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery.” — Louisiana Secession Declaration.

“t is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South.” — Alabama Secession Ordinance.

“The right of property in slaves.” — South Carolina Secession Declaration.

Mississippi Senator, Albert Brown, in 1858, arguing for eventual secession: “I would spread the blessings of slavery, like the religion of our Divine Master, to the uttermost ends of the earth.”

One more time. I AM NOT arguing the poor farm boy was fighting for slaves. That was the least of his concerns. He was fighting for survival. The wealthy, powerful slave owners and politicians put him there. What surprises me is some fo you who, rightfully, rail against our present government shafting the working people...wealthy politicians making it harder for everyday folks to get by, are all on the side of a system that in some ways manipulated poor young men into fighting for a cause they would never benefit from.

Then why didn't the Southern states simply accept the Corwin amendment to the Constitution, guaranteeing the right to slavery? And if slavery was such a driving interest for the North, explain why the government "freed" only the slaves they could not free and kept slavery in states where they could have ended it?

Oh, and the South Carolina secession statement does not say what you claim it says. It actually reads, "We, the People of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the Ordinance adopted by us in Convention, on the twenty-third day of May in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and eighty eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and also all Acts and parts of Acts of the General Assembly of this State, ratifying amendment of the said Constitution, are here by repealed; and that the union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of 'The United States of America,' is hereby dissolved."

That's it.

Until you can answer why the Northern states tried to adopt a Constitutional amendment to GUARANTEE the institution of slavery, and why the same government did NOT free slaves in states it actually controlled, and why the same government went on a murderous campaign against plains Indians less than a generation after its supposed fealty to civil rights, sorry - I am not buying what you're selling.

 

[diver]

Then why didn't the Southern states simply accept the Corwin amendment to the Constitution, guaranteeing the right to slavery? And if slavery was such a driving interest for the North, explain why the government "freed" only the slaves they could not free and kept slavery in states where they could have ended it?

Oh, and the South Carolina secession statement does not say what you claim it says. It actually reads, "We, the People of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the Ordinance adopted by us in Convention, on the twenty-third day of May in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and eighty eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and also all Acts and parts of Acts of the General Assembly of this State, ratifying amendment of the said Constitution, are here by repealed; and that the union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of 'The United States of America,' is hereby dissolved."

That's it.

Until you can answer why the Northern states tried to adopt a Constitutional amendment to GUARANTEE the institution of slavery, and why the same government did NOT free slaves in states it actually controlled, and why the same government went on a murderous campaign against plains Indians less than a generation after its supposed fealty to civil rights, sorry - I am not buying what you're selling.

Not quite sure what you are reading, but my research shows a much longer document. From the Constitution Center. An excerpt from that document:

[A]n increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. . . .

If it wasn't about slavery, why were they concerned about the hostility of non-slaveholding states to the institution of slavery?

I have also never asserted it was the only thing. I have asserted it was the main thing, and will always believe that. I do not believe that war gets fought if not for slavery. Nowhere have I said the North was all noble in this, either. Hell, I will even concede that slavery was used as an excuse for the war by many in the North who had other interests that concerned them much more than slavery. But you cannot escape the fact that because the issue was there it gave them the excuse. If there was no slavery, the could not used it as an excuse. You know how these things work, you have observed how our leaders frame things. The North could then frame their role in the conflict as moral because they were fighting to eradicate slavery.

I don't understand this attempt to defend the governments of the South, especially in light of other things I have read by you, which you and I are very much in agreement on. I think there is an inconsistency when criticizing the excesses of our present government but defending the governments of the states of the South.

 

[Confluence]

Diver, I think you just generally agreed with Steeltime's thesis, with the slight difference in your conclusion that he was defending the South's guvmints.

I think his overriding point was that the economics(unfair taxes) drove the conflict, with the issue of slavery being present as an excuse, like you confirmed, but that modern media, academia, and political folks have unfairly demonized the south for the issue of slavery as the only reason for the Civil War, which it wasn't.

 

[diver]

Diver, I think you just generally agreed with Steeltime's thesis, with the slight difference in your conclusion that he was defending the South's guvmints.

I think his overriding point was that the economics(unfair taxes) drove the conflict, with the issue of slavery being present as an excuse, like you confirmed, but that modern media, academia, and political folks have unfairly demonized the south for the issue of slavery as the only reason for the Civil War, which it wasn't.

I absolutely agree with that. But a bigger point for me...I hate the idea that the poor soldier boy that fought that war would get demonized in any way. They were just trying to survive. But there are powerful people from BOTH sides that do deserve being demonized.

 

[Confluence]

I absolutely agree with that. But a bigger point for me...I hate the idea that the poor soldier boy that fought that war would get demonized in any way. They were just trying to survive. But there are powerful people from BOTH sides that do deserve being demonized.

Most rank and file soldiers on the losing side get demonized because they didn't write the history. The US is unique in its revision of the history of the Civil War causes to fit into social and political narratives, although that seems somewhat true in other war reporting since modern media became mostly used for propaganda.

 

[diver]

Most rank and file soldiers on the losing side get demonized because they didn't write the history. The US is unique in its revision of the history of the Civil War causes to fit into social and political narratives, although that seems somewhat true in other war reporting since modern media became mostly used for propaganda.

Do you realize there was a concerted effort in the late 1800s and early 1900s to make the South's role in the war and their reasons for it look more noble? It goes both ways.

 

[diver]

To advance the idea that the winners of that war were the one's that controlled the history...hell just look at popular culture from the first half of the 20th century. Watch the opening of Gone With the Wind. The slaves on Tara, why, they were just thrilled woking there. The one slave even proudly declares that it's only quitting ti me at Tara when he says so. Probably an accurate description of how it was.

 

[Confluence]

Do you realize there was a concerted effort in the late 1800s and early 1900s to make the South's role in the war and their reasons for it look more noble? It goes both ways.

That is the point of propaganda, right?

Young children might think the evil Cheatriots******* a great football team, unless they watch the beer drinking Steeler HoFer's Bettis and Ben(soon) denounce the cheating.

 

[Confluence]

To advance the idea that the winners of that war were the one's that controlled the history...hell just look at popular culture from the first half of the 20th century. Watch the opening of Gone With the Wind. The slaves on Tara, why, they were just thrilled woking there. The one slave even proudly declares that it's only quitting ti me at Tara when he says so. Probably an accurate description of how it was.

Or the American version of WWII

 

[Stewey]

There seems to have been debate on the root cause of the war even back then!

While Lincoln waited for his generals to secure a victory, New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley provided Lincoln with an opportunity to test public reaction to emancipation as a war measure. In an open letter to President Lincoln published on August 20 under the heading "The Prayer of Twenty Millions," Greeley urged Lincoln to recognize slavery as the root cause of the war and act boldly with regard to emancipation.

Although he already had a draft emancipation proclamation prepared, Lincoln responded with his own open letter to Greeley, which he published in the National Intelligencer in Washington, D.C. Lincoln stated plainly that the goal of his administration's policies, including those related to slavery, was to save the Union. "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that."

One thing for certain is that Lincoln was highly opposed to slavery. Viewed it as morally wrong.
In his presidential campaign speech, he said "I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free."

Although Lincon stated that saving the Union took precedence over freeing the slaves it didn't give you that impression.
Emancipation was the first order of business. He had written up the Emancipation before the war ended as the Union was on the verge of victory.

What was the hurry Abe?

 

[Steeltime]

Not quite sure what you are reading, but my research shows a much longer document. From the Constitution Center.

You are not reading the actual declaration of secession from South Carolina but instead a statement of justification. This is like citing the declaration of independence. Yes, it's informative and persuasive information about the Constitution, but not actually the Constitution.

I have also never asserted it was the only thing. I have asserted it was the main thing, and will always believe that. I do not believe that war gets fought if not for slavery.

Again, that makes NO SENSE when the North published an amendment to the CONSTITUTION to make slavery inviolate.

Nowhere have I said the North was all noble in this, either. Hell, I will even concede that slavery was used as an excuse for the war by many in the North who had other interests that concerned them much more than slavery. But you cannot escape the fact that because the issue was there it gave them the excuse.

You mean other than the fact they proposed an amendment to the Constitution to make slavery the law of the land and failed to free slaves under their actual control??

I don't understand this attempt to defend the governments of the South, especially in light of other things I have read by you, which you and I are very much in agreement on. I think there is an inconsistency when criticizing the excesses of our present government but defending the governments of the states of the South.

I don't know where you get the idea that I am "defending the governments of the states of the South." I am instead looking at the motivations of the government of the North.

 

[diver]

You are not reading the actual declaration of secession from South Carolina but instead a statement of justification. This is like citing the declaration of independence. Yes, it's informative and persuasive information about the Constitution, but not actually the Constitution.



Again, that makes NO SENSE when the North published an amendment to the CONSTITUTION to make slavery inviolate.



You mean other than the fact they proposed an amendment to the Constitution to make slavery the law of the land and failed to free slaves under their actual control??



I don't know where you get the idea that I am "defending the governments of the states of the South." I am instead looking at the motivations of the government of the North.

To your first point...that is like picking fly shiit out of pepper. Good luck with the difference.

I just think a position that slavery wasn't a main factor in the war is just ridiculous. But you certainly may disagree.

 

[Steeltime]

Or the American version of WWII

What percent of Americans know the truth about the causes of WWII and the number of civilians the Allies killed? Maybe 0.1%?

 

[Steeltime]

To your first point...that is like picking fly shiit out of pepper. Good luck with the difference.

Uhh, you claimed to cite a document that was in fact not the document you claimed. That's the difference.

I just think a position that slavery wasn't a main factor in the war is just ridiculous. But you certainly may disagree.

From "the reason for the war" to "a main factor in the war."

Okaaaay.

 

[diver]

Uhh, you claimed to cite a document that was in fact not the document you claimed. That's the difference.



From "the reason for the war" to "a main factor in the war."

Okaaaay.

Oh cmon. It's a discussion forum. Do I have to watch every word I use at all times to make sure they are consistent in your eyes?

If I say, "I hate ice cream," the next thing I will probably be asked is..."What are your reasons, i.e. justification for that?" That is ultimately what is most important. You are trying to divert because you know the justifications did discuss slavery.

Again, these are their words. Not mine. Theirs. Back a few months ago during this I put up a quote by a Confederate officer I believe, who stated it was his understanding throughout the war that it was about slavery and very little else. Are you saying the people that where there and experienced it just don't know what they are talking about?

I think one of the problems with this whole discussion is we look through it through our lens. We can't help it. The present political climate has made us lose our common sense to a degree. The lunacy of the left has made us just balk at anything that could be remotely construed as agreeing with a more liberal position. I kinda laugh because I would bet I am one of the more conservative people on this forum...because not only am I conservative politically, I also am socially. But I'm not gonna lie to myself, either. I am keeping it simple...I am taking what the people who lived during that time and wrote down at their word. Argue with them.

 

[diver]

Col. John S. Mosby in 1894 expressed surprise at a recent speech in which the orator dismissed “the charge that the South went to war for slavery” as a “‘slanderous accusation.’” “I always understood that we went to War on account of the thing we quarreled with the North about,” Mosby observed. “I never heard of any other cause of quarrel than slavery.”

 

[Steeltime]

Col. John S. Mosby in 1894 expressed surprise at a recent speech in which the orator dismissed “the charge that the South went to war for slavery” as a “‘slanderous accusation.’” “I always understood that we went to War on account of the thing we quarreled with the North about,” Mosby observed. “I never heard of any other cause of quarrel than slavery.”

Why do you think the winners of wars invent reasons for their behavior? Serious question.

 

[diver]

Why do you think the winners of wars invent reasons for their behavior? Serious question.

John Singleton Mosby was a Confederate officer. Also, is it only the winners that do that?

 

[diver]

I will answer that. They, to use your term, "invent" reasons for their behaviors to avert attention from those behaviors. But the losers of wars do the same thing. That is exactly what Mosby was responding to.