+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 13 12345611 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 181

Thread: The TRUE Reason for the Civil War...

  1. #1

    Default The TRUE Reason for the Civil War...

    ... and why the wrong team won. zg

    ----------------

    The Hampton Roads Peace Conference During the War Between the States

    by John V. Denson | lewrockwell.com

    Most establishment historians today might as well be the Orwellian historians writing for the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s novel 1984, especially in relation to the War Between the States. They rarely, if ever, mention the Hampton Roads Peace Conference which occurred in February of 1865, because it brings into question most of the mythology promoted today which states that Lincoln and the North fought the war for the purpose of abolishing slavery and the South fought for the purpose of protecting it, and therefore, it was a great and noble war.

    ...In a debate in England, two notable British citizens, Charles Dickens and John Stuart Mill, took opposing views on the cause of the American War Between the States with Mill stating that the purpose of the war was the abolition of slavery and Dickens maintained that "The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states."

    ...It is time that Americans learn the truth about the real reasons behind our wars, and particularly, the War Between the States, because of the price that we have paid in the long-term loss of liberty in that war. The deaths of over 600,000 American young men in that war is not exactly inconsequential. This high death total is more than the total of all the deaths of American soldiers in all the other wars America has fought. The Hampton Roads Peace Conference is a necessary piece to the puzzle of learning that truth.

    ... complete essay here - http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/denson6.html

  2. #2

    Default

    Time for a bump, due to recent news. zg
    "The dogs bark but the caravan moves on."
    .....................The Zengrifter Interview (PDF) |
    The Zengrifter / James Grosjean Reputation Debate
    -----------------------------------------
    “Truth, like gold, is obtained not by growth, but by washing away all that is not gold.” — Leo Tolstoy........
    "Is everything a conspiracy? No, just the important stuff." ZG

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    posting from Bethesda, MD
    Posts
    13,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zengrifter View Post
    ... and why the wrong team won. zg

    ----------------

    The Hampton Roads Peace Conference During the War Between the States

    by John V. Denson | lewrockwell.com

    Most establishment historians today might as well be the Orwellian historians writing for the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s novel 1984, especially in relation to the War Between the States. They rarely, if ever, mention the Hampton Roads Peace Conference which occurred in February of 1865, because it brings into question most of the mythology promoted today which states that Lincoln and the North fought the war for the purpose of abolishing slavery and the South fought for the purpose of protecting it, and therefore, it was a great and noble war.

    ...In a debate in England, two notable British citizens, Charles Dickens and John Stuart Mill, took opposing views on the cause of the American War Between the States with Mill stating that the purpose of the war was the abolition of slavery and Dickens maintained that "The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states."

    ...It is time that Americans learn the truth about the real reasons behind our wars, and particularly, the War Between the States, because of the price that we have paid in the long-term loss of liberty in that war. The deaths of over 600,000 American young men in that war is not exactly inconsequential. This high death total is more than the total of all the deaths of American soldiers in all the other wars America has fought. The Hampton Roads Peace Conference is a necessary piece to the puzzle of learning that truth.

    ... complete essay here - http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/denson6.html
    Quote Originally Posted by zengrifter (words are quoted from the posted article)
    In summary, the South wanted independence, not the protection of slavery, and the North wanted reunion rather than abolition of slavery.
    Interesting read. But part of the South's reason for wanting "independence" had to do with slavery, which was inextricably tied to their economic well being. With a strong federal government, the South would never be in control of its own destiny (states rights).
    Last edited by aslan; April 8th, 2010 at 02:13 PM.
    Aslan 11/1/90 - 6/15/10 Stormy 1/22/95 -8/23/10
    “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church,
    but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”
    Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

    “It takes a very long time to become young.” Pablo Picasso

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,111

    Default

    It reads like one of Newt's revisionist history novels.
    Wecan believe that the true accounts of the so-called Hampton Roads peace Conference have been hidden for 150 years and all the scholars that studied it were mistaken, or we can believe this author is streching his imagination in ways the imagination was never meant to stretch.
    Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out just how far one can go.


    We cannot direct the wind, we can only adjust our sails.

  5. #5

    Default Huh?

    Quote Originally Posted by zengrifter View Post
    Time for a bump, due to recent news. zg
    I was taught the Civil War was fought to preserve the Union. No question. Slavery was a fundamental issue behind the secession, but the war was fought over the attempt of the Southern states to secede. And they didn't try to secede just for the fun of it. They had lost badly in the election and faced a future with anti-slavery Republicans calling the shots for the Union. And yes, slavery was one of the bell-weather issues in the regional conflict between the industiralized North and more agrarian South.

    The writer makes a false dichotomy when he sums up:

    "In summary, the South wanted independence, not the protection of slavery, and the North wanted reunion rather than abolition of slavery. This is what President Lincoln had stated in the very beginning before the war and again what he had stated near the end of the war."

    Added note: I just looked at South Carolina's declaration of secession and the first example they cite of the Northern states violating SC's soveriegnty was their refusal to return runaway slaves. In the first paragraph, they identify SC in relation to the "other slaveholding States."

    One way of looking at the Civil War is that it was a completion of the bourgeois democratic revolution which began to establish capitalism over feudalism as the dominant socioeconomic system in for the United States in breaking free of the Crown. Establishing individual democratic rights (particularly the right of any citizen to own private property) has been the cornerstone of those revolutions everywhere they toppled the old feudal regimes which afforded property rights only to the Crown and land-owning nobility. Clinging on to remnants of feudalism in the form of slavery was simply a morally repugnant example of how that section of the country was not fulfilling the purpose of the War of Independence.

    Added note: I just looked at South Carolina's declaration of secession and the first example they cite of the Northern states violating SC's soverignty was their refusal to return runaway slaves. In the first paragraph, they identify SC in relation to the "other slaveholding States." So this issue of slavery seem pretty highly connected with secession in their mind. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
    Last edited by Diver; April 8th, 2010 at 03:38 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    posting from Bethesda, MD
    Posts
    13,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Diver View Post
    I was taught the Civil War was fought to preserve the Union. No question. Slavery was a fundamental issue behind the secession, but the war was fought over the attempt of the Southern states to secede. And they didn't try to secede just for the fun of it. They had lost badly in the election and faced a future with anti-slavery Republicans calling the shots for the Union. And yes, slavery was one of the bell-weather issues in the regional conflict between the industiralized North and more agrarian South.

    The writer makes a false dichotomy when he sums up:

    "In summary, the South wanted independence, not the protection of slavery, and the North wanted reunion rather than abolition of slavery. This is what President Lincoln had stated in the very beginning before the war and again what he had stated near the end of the war."

    Added note: I just looked at South Carolina's declaration of secession and the first example they cite of the Northern states violating SC's soveriegnty was their refusal to return runaway slaves. In the first paragraph, they identify SC in relation to the "other slaveholding States."

    One way of looking at the Civil War is that it was a completion of the bourgeois democratic revolution which began to establish capitalism over feudalism as the dominant socioeconomic system in for the United States in breaking free of the Crown. Establishing individual democratic rights (particularly the right of any citizen to own private property) has been the cornerstone of those revolutions everywhere they toppled the old feudal regimes which afforded property rights only to the Crown and land-owning nobility. Clinging on to remnants of feudalism in the form of slavery was simply a morally repugnant example of how that section of the country was not fulfilling the purpose of the War of Independence.

    Added note: I just looked at South Carolina's declaration of secession and the first example they cite of the Northern states violating SC's soverignty was their refusal to return runaway slaves. In the first paragraph, they identify SC in relation to the "other slaveholding States." So this issue of slavery seem pretty highly connected with secession in their mind. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
    There was another form of slavery prevalent during the 17th and 18th centuries, indentured servitude. The 13th amendment abolished any involuntary form of servitude, but the indentures were voluntary.
    Last edited by aslan; April 8th, 2010 at 04:43 PM.
    Aslan 11/1/90 - 6/15/10 Stormy 1/22/95 -8/23/10
    “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church,
    but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”
    Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

    “It takes a very long time to become young.” Pablo Picasso

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    In Bound
    Posts
    478

    Default

    Slavery was not confined to the South.
    There Is No Second Place Winner ...even if your not brusque and merely informative.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    posting from Bethesda, MD
    Posts
    13,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by daddybo View Post
    Slavery was not confined to the South.
    The first official legal recognition of chattel slavery as a legal institution in British North America was in Massachusetts, in 1641, with the “Body of Liberties.” Slavery was legalized in New Plymouth and Connecticut when it was incorporated into the Articles of the New England Confederation (1643). Rhode Island enacted a similar law in 1652. That means New England had formal, legal slavery a full generation before it was established in the South.

    http://www.slavenorth.com/slavenorth.htm
    Aslan 11/1/90 - 6/15/10 Stormy 1/22/95 -8/23/10
    “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church,
    but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”
    Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

    “It takes a very long time to become young.” Pablo Picasso

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    9

    Default

    Slave ownership was also not confined to whites. According to the 1830 census, 3,777 free blacks were listed as owning slaves themselves. This meant that in the south about 2% of all free blacks were slave owners, compared to just 1.4% of all southern whites.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    posting from Bethesda, MD
    Posts
    13,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sucker View Post
    Slave ownership was also not confined to whites. According to the 1830 census, 3,777 free blacks were listed as owning slaves themselves. This meant that in the south about 2% of all free blacks were slave owners, compared to just 1.4% of all southern whites.
    But I can guess there weren't many free blacks, which gives new meaning to the 2% number you cite.
    Aslan 11/1/90 - 6/15/10 Stormy 1/22/95 -8/23/10
    “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church,
    but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”
    Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

    “It takes a very long time to become young.” Pablo Picasso

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    1,347

    Default

    The true reason for the War Between the States was none of these things. It was over control of the export cotton trade and the fabulous wealth it produced.

    The South was looking for palatable ways to get out of slavery by the time of the secession. For the Federal government to purchase every slave in the US at market prices and then emancipate them would have cost 2-3 billion dollars. The war cost 8 billion. Since no new slaves could be imported, this mass purchase would have permanently ended the problem of slavery in the US and was actually suggested, but dismissed, usually for reasons that it would be wrong to reward sin or some such crap. The real reason was that northern interests wanted war and the spoils it would bring, in the form of King Cotton.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aslan View Post
    The first official legal recognition of chattel slavery as a legal institution in British North America was in Massachusetts, in 1641, with the “Body of Liberties.” Slavery was legalized in New Plymouth and Connecticut when it was incorporated into the Articles of the New England Confederation (1643). Rhode Island enacted a similar law in 1652. That means New England had formal, legal slavery a full generation before it was established in the South.

    http://www.slavenorth.com/slavenorth.htm
    and that pertains to the issue of slavery 200 years later or to the matter of secession just how? Things do change, as you know.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Automatic Monkey View Post
    The true reason for the War Between the States was none of these things. It was over control of the export cotton trade and the fabulous wealth it produced.

    The South was looking for palatable ways to get out of slavery by the time of the secession. For the Federal government to purchase every slave in the US at market prices and then emancipate them would have cost 2-3 billion dollars. The war cost 8 billion. Since no new slaves could be imported, this mass purchase would have permanently ended the problem of slavery in the US and was actually suggested, but dismissed, usually for reasons that it would be wrong to reward sin or some such crap. The real reason was that northern interests wanted war and the spoils it would bring, in the form of King Cotton.
    So you're saying the clever northerners tricked the slow-witted southern bumpkins into seceding so the Union would have a pretext to invade? Goodness gracious Beauregard, them damn Yankees sure are clever, so ya better keep an eye on 'em before they steal the britches right off ya. Mmm hmm. But hey, we can set up our own country and everyone in the whole wide world will want our cotton, right? Right? India? That's up by Ohio, ain't it? Egypt? Yeah, they got pyramids, what's that have to do with cotton.
    Last edited by Diver; April 8th, 2010 at 06:53 PM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    1,347

    Default Paul Hill's Body!

    Quote Originally Posted by Diver View Post

    So you're saying the clever northerners tricked the slow-witted southern bumpkins into seceding so the Union would have a pretext to invade? Goodness gracious Beauregard, them damn Yankees sure are clever, so ya better keep an eye on 'em before they steal the britches right off ya. Mmm hmm.
    It wasn't a matter of anyone being slow-witted. Just a gamble for both sides. The CSA thought they would get more help from Europe than they actually did. There is no question that many in the North had been spoiling for a war for a long time, and for self-interested reasons.

    The slavery issue was interesting in that it was the emotional issue used to sell the conflict to the public, and structured very much like the abortion issue is today, complete with vigilante assassins like John Brown. The WBS was very unpopular in the Union, resulting in the first draft and the first draft riots. The public had figured out that war could have been avoided. And there is also no doubt that Lincoln needed to prolong the war in order to ensure his 1864 reelection; he had a difficult time winning just in the Union, and would have been utterly crushed if the former CSA states had been able to send delegates to the Electoral College. In retrospect, Lincoln was a horrible President.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    posting from Bethesda, MD
    Posts
    13,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Diver View Post
    and that pertains to the issue of slavery 200 years later or to the matter of secession just how? Things do change, as you know.
    Check it out. My post was in response to Daddybo's post and nothing more. His post was, as follows:
    Quote Originally Posted by Daddybo
    Slavery was not confined to the South.
    Last edited by aslan; April 8th, 2010 at 08:54 PM.
    Aslan 11/1/90 - 6/15/10 Stormy 1/22/95 -8/23/10
    “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church,
    but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”
    Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

    “It takes a very long time to become young.” Pablo Picasso

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. The Reason JFK Jr. Was Murdered
    By zengrifter in forum ZenZone General Discussion
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: December 15th, 2014, 04:07 AM
  2. One reason you should be a Christian
    By moo321 in forum Religious Cults & Spirituality
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: March 22nd, 2014, 07:15 PM
  3. Thoreau: On the Duty of Civil Disobedience
    By zengrifter in forum ZenZone General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: January 20th, 2010, 10:36 PM
  4. Is Obama Really Preparing For Civil War?
    By zengrifter in forum ZenZone General Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 12th, 2009, 03:23 PM
  5. The New American Civil War
    By zengrifter in forum ZenZone General Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 12th, 2008, 03:10 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts