Friday, August 25, 2017

Just So We Are Clear (BUMPED )

Jeffery's post below has gotten over 30,000 views.

 

 

 

The Ten Causes Of The War Between The States

By James W. King and LtCol Thomas M. Nelson

Image result
Historians have long debated the causes of the war and the Southern perspective differs greatly from the Northern perspective. Based upon the study of original documents of the War Between The States (Civil War) era and facts and information published by Confederate Veterans, Confederate Chaplains, Southern writers and Southern Historians before, during, and after the war, I present the facts, opinions, and conclusions stated in the following article.
Technically the 10 causes listed are reasons for Southern secession. The only cause of the war was that the South was invaded and responded to Northern aggression.
I respectfully disagree with those who claim that the War Between the States was fought over slavery or that the abolition of slavery in the Revolutionary Era or early Federal period would have prevented war. It is my opinion that war was inevitable between the North and South due to complex political and cultural differences. The famous Englishman Winston Churchill stated that the war between the North and South was one of the most unpreventable wars in history. The Cause that the Confederate States of America fought for (1861-1865) was Southern Independence from the United States of America. Many parallels exist between the War for American Independence (1775-1783) and the War for Southern Independence.
There were 10 political causes of the war (causes of Southern Secession) ---one of which was slavery--- which was a scapegoat for all the differences that existed between the North and South. The Northern industrialists had wanted a war since about 1830 to get the South's resources (land-cotton-coal-timber-minerals) for pennies on the dollar. All wars are economic and are always between centralists and decentralists. The North would have found an excuse to invade the South even if slavery had never existed.
A war almost occurred during 1828-1832 over the tariff when South Carolina passed nullification laws. The U.S. congress had increased the tariff rate on imported products to 40% (known as the tariff of abominations in Southern States). This crisis had nothing to do with slavery. If slavery had never existed --period--or had been eliminated at the time the Declaration of Independence was written in 1776 or anytime prior to 1860 it is my opinion that there would still have been a war sooner or later.
On a human level there were 5 causes of the war--New England Greed-New England Radicals--New England Fanatics--New England Zealots--and New England Hypocrites. During "So Called Reconstruction" ( 1865-1877 ) the New England Industrialists got what they had really wanted for 40 years--THE SOUTH'S RESOURCES FOR PENNIES ON THE DOLLAR. It was a political coalition between the New England economic interests and the New England fanatics and zealots that caused Southern secession to be necessary for economic survival and safety of the population.

1. TARIFF

Prior to the war about 75% of the money to operate the Federal Government was derived from the Southern States via an unfair sectional tariff on imported goods and 50% of the total 75% was from just 4 Southern states--Virginia-North Carolina--South Carolina and Georgia. Only 10%--20% of this tax money was being returned to the South. The Southern states were being treated as an agricultural colony of the North and bled dry. John Randolph of Virginia's remarks in opposition to the tariff of 1820 demonstrates that fact. The North claimed that they fought the war to preserve the Union but the New England Industrialists who were in control of the North were actually supporting preservation of the Union to maintain and increase revenue from the tariff. The industrialists wanted the South to pay for the industrialization of America at no expense to them. Revenue bills introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives prior to the War Between the States were biased, unfair and inflammatory to the South. Abraham Lincoln had promised the Northern industrialists that he would increase the tariff rate if he was elected president of the United States. Lincoln increased the rate to a level that exceeded even the "Tariff of Abominations" 40% rate that had so infuriated the South during the 1828-1832 eras (between 50 and 51% on iron goods). The election of a president that was Anti-Southern on all issues and politically associated with the New England industrialists, fanatics, and zealots brought about the Southern secession movement.

2. CENTRALIZATION VERSUS STATES RIGHTS

The United States of America was founded as a Constitutional Federal Republic in 1789 composed of a Limited Federal Government and Sovereign States. The North wanted to and did alter the form of Government this nation was founded upon. The Confederate States of America fought to preserve Constitutional Limited Federal Government as established by America's founding fathers who were primarily Southern Gentlemen from Virginia. Thus Confederate soldiers were fighting for rights that had been paid for in blood by their forefathers upon the battlefields of the American Revolution. Abraham Lincoln had a blatant disregard for The Constitution of the United States of America. His War of aggression Against the South changed America from a Constitutional Federal Republic to a Democracy ( with Socialist leanings ) and broke the original Constitution. The infamous Socialist Karl Marx sent Lincoln a letter of congratulations after his reelection in 1864. A considerable number of European Socialists came to America and fought for the Union (North).

3. CHRISTIANITY VERSUS SECULAR HUMANISM

The South believed in basic Christianity as presented in the Holy Bible. The North had many Secular Humanists (atheists, transcendentalists and non-Christians). Southerners were afraid of what kind of country America might become if the North had its way. Secular Humanism is the belief that there is no God and that man, science and government can solve all problems. This philosophy advocates human rather than religious values. Reference: Frank Conner's book "The South under Siege 1830-2000."

4. CULTURAL DIFFERENCES

Southerners and Northerners were of different Genetic Lineage's. Southerners were primarily of Western English (original Britons), Scottish, and Irish lineage (Celtic) whereas Northerners tended to be of Anglo-Saxon and Danish (Viking) extraction. The two cultures had been at war and at odds for over 1000 years before they arrived in America. Our ancient ancestors in Western England under King Arthur humbled the Saxon princes at the battle of Baden Hill (circa 497 AD --516 AD). The cultural differences that contributed to the War Between the States (1861-1865) had existed for 1500 years or more.

5. CONTROL OF WESTERN TERRITORIES

The North wanted to control Western States and Territories such as Kansas and Nebraska. New England formed Immigrant Aid Societies and sent settlers to these areas that were politically attached to the North. They passed laws against slavery that Southerners considered punitive. These political actions told Southerners they were not welcome in the new states and territories. It was all about control--slavery was a scapegoat.

6. NORTHERN INDUSTRIALISTS WANTED THE SOUTH'S RESOURCES

The Northern Industrialists wanted a war to use as an excuse to get the South's resources for pennies on the dollar. They began a campaign about 1830 that would influence the common people of the North and create enmity that would allow them to go to war against the South. These Northern Industrialists brought up a morality claim against the South alleging the evils of slavery. The Northern Hypocrites conveniently neglected to publicize the fact that 5 New England States (Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and New York ) were primarily responsible for the importation of most of the slaves from Africa to America. These states had both private and state owned fleets of ships.

7. SLANDER OF THE SOUTH BY NORTHERN NEWSPAPERS

This political cause ties in to the above listed efforts by New England Industrialists. Beginning about 1830 the Northern Newspapers began to slander the South. The Industrialists used this tool to indoctrinate the common people of the North. They used slavery as a scapegoat and brought the morality claim up to a feverish pitch. Southerners became tired of reading in the Northern Newspapers about what bad and evil people they were just because their neighbor down the road had a few slaves. This propaganda campaign created hostility between the ordinary citizens of the two regions and created the animosity necessary for war. The Northern Industrialists worked poor whites in the factories of the North under terrible conditions for 18 hours a day (including children). When the workers became old and infirm they were fired. It is a historical fact that during this era there were thousands of old people living homeless on the streets in the cities of the North. In the South a slave was cared for from birth to death. Also the diet and living conditions of Southern slaves was superior to that of most white Northern factory workers. Southerners deeply resented this New England hypocrisy and slander.

8. NEW ENGLANDERS ATTEMPTED TO INSTIGATE MASSIVE SLAVE REBELLIONS IN THE SOUTH

Abolitionists were a small but vocal and militant group in New England who demanded instant abolition of slavery in the South. These fanatics and zealots were calling for massive slave uprisings that would result in the murder of Southern men, women and children. Southerners were aware that such an uprising had occurred in Santa Domingo in the 1790 era and that the French (white) population had been massacred. The abolitionists published a terrorist manifesto and tried to smuggle 100,000 copies into the South showing slaves how to murder their masters at night. Then when John Brown raided Harpers Ferry, Virginia in 1859 the political situation became inflammatory. Prior to this event there had been more abolition societies in the South than in the North. Lincoln and most of the Republican Party (68 members of congress) had adopted a political platform in support of terrorist acts against the South. Some (allegedly including Lincoln) had contributed monetarily as supporters of John Brown's terrorist activities. Again slavery was used as a scapegoat for all differences that existed between the North and South.

9. SLAVERY

Indirectly slavery was a cause of the war. Most Southerners did not own slaves and would not have fought for the protection of slavery. However they believed that the North had no Constitutional right to free slaves held by citizens of Sovereign Southern States. Prior to the war there were five times as many abolition societies in the South as in the North. Virtually all educated Southerners were in favor of gradual emancipation of slaves. Gradual emancipation would have allowed the economy and labor system of the South to gradually adjust to a free paid labor system without economic collapse. Furthermore, since the New England States were responsible for the development of slavery in America, Southerners saw the morality claims by the North as blatant hypocrisy. The first state to legalize slavery had been Massachusetts in 1641 and this law was directed primarily at Indians. In colonial times the economic infrastructure of the port cities of the North was dependent upon the slave trade. The first slave ship in America, "THE DESIRE", was fitted out in Marblehead, Massachusetts. Further proof that Southerners were not fighting to preserve slavery is found in the diary of an officer in the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia. He stated that "he had never met a man in the Army of Northern Virginia that claimed he was fighting to preserve slavery". If the war had been over slavery, the composition of the politicians, officers, enlisted men, and even African Americans would have been different. Confederate General Robert E. Lee had freed his slaves (Custis Washington estate) prior to 1863 whereas Union General Grant's wife Julia did not free her slaves until after the war when forced to do so by the 13th amendment to the constitution. Grant even stated that if the abolitionists claimed he was fighting to free slaves that he would offer his services to the South. Mildred Lewis Rutherford (1852-1928) was for many years the historian for the United Daughters Of The Confederacy (UDC). In her book Truths Of History she stated that there were more slaveholders in the Union Army (315,000) than the Confederate Army (200,000). Statistics and estimates also show that about 300,000 blacks supported the Confederacy versus about 200,000 for the Union. Clearly the war would have been fought along different lines if it had been fought over slavery. The famous English author Charles Dickens stated "the Northern onslaught upon Southern slavery is a specious piece of humbug designed to mask their desire for the economic control of the Southern states."

10. NORTHERN AGGRESSION AGAINST SOUTHERN STATES

Proof that Abraham Lincoln wanted war may be found in the manner he handled the Fort Sumter incident. Original correspondence between Lincoln and Naval Captain G.V.Fox shows proof that Lincoln acted with deceit and willfully provoked South Carolina into firing on the fort (A TARIFF COLLECTION FACILITY). It was politically important that the South be provoked into firing the first shot so that Lincoln could claim the Confederacy started the war. Additional proof that Lincoln wanted war is the fact that Lincoln refused to meet with a Confederate peace delegation. They remained in Washington for 30 days and returned to Richmond only after it became apparent that Lincoln wanted war and refused to meet and discuss a peace agreement. After setting up the Fort Sumter incident for the purpose of starting a war, Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to put down what he called a rebellion. He intended to march Union troops across Virginia and North Carolina to attack South Carolina. Virginia and North Carolina were not going to allow such an unconstitutional and criminal act of aggression against a sovereign sister Southern State. Lincoln's act of aggression caused the secession of the upper Southern States.
On April 17th 1861, Governor Letcher of Virginia sent this message to Washington DC: "I have only to say that the militia of Virginia will not be furnished to the powers of Washington for any such use or purpose as they have in view. Your object is to subjugate the Southern states and the requisition made upon me for such a object-an object in my judgement not within the purview of the constitution or the act of 1795, will not be complied with. You have chosen to inaugurate civil war; having done so we will meet you in a spirit as determined as the administration has exhibited toward the South."
The WAR BETWEEN THE STATES 1861-1865 occurred due to many complex causes and factors as enumerated above. Those who make claims that "the war was over slavery" or that if slavery had been abolished in 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was signed or in 1789 when The Constitution of the United States of America was signed, that war would not have occurred between North and South are being very simplistic in their views and opinions.
The following conversation between English ship Captain Hillyar and Capt. Raphael Semmes-Confederate Ship CSS Sumter (and after 1862 CSS Alabama) occurred during the war on August 5th, 1861. It is a summary from a well-educated Southerner who is stating his reasons for fighting. Captain Hillyar expressed surprised at Captain Semme's contention that the people of the South were "defending ourselves against robbers with knives at our throats", and asked for further clarification as to how this was so, the exchange below occurred. I especially was impressed with Semmes' assessment of Yankee motives - the creation of "Empire"!
Semmes: "Simply that the machinery of the Federal Government, under which we have lived, and which was designed for the common benefit, has been made the means of despoiling the South, to enrich the North", and I explained to him the workings of the iniquitous tariffs, under the operation of which the South had, in effect, been reduced to a dependent colonial condition, almost as abject as that of the Roman provinces, under their proconsuls; the only difference being, that smooth-faced hypocrisy had been added to robbery, inasmuch as we had been plundered under the forms of law"
Captain Hillyar: "All this is new to me", replied the captain. "I thought that your war had arisen out of the slavery question".
Semmes: "That is the common mistake of foreigners. The enemy has taken pains to impress foreign nations with this false view of the case. With the exception of a few honest zealots, the canting hypocritical Yankee cares as little for our slaves as he does for our draught animals. The war which he has been making upon slavery for the last 40 years is only an interlude, or by-play, to help on the main action of the drama, which is Empire; and it is a curious coincidence that it was commenced about the time the North began to rob the South by means of its tariffs. When a burglar designs to enter a dwelling for the purpose of robbery, he provides himself with the necessary implements. The slavery question was one of the implements employed to help on the robbery of the South. It strengthened the Northern party, and enabled them to get their tariffs through Congress; and when at length, the South, driven to the wall, turned, as even the crushed worm will turn, it was cunningly perceived by the Northern men that 'No slavery' would be a popular war-cry, and hence, they used it.
It is true that we are defending our slave property, but we are defending it no more than any other species of our property - it is all endangered, under a general system of robbery. We are in fact, fighting for independence. The Union victory in 1865 destroyed the right of secession in America, which had been so cherished by America's founding fathers as the principle of their revolution. British historian and political philosopher Lord Acton, one of the most intellectual figures in Victorian England, understood the deeper meaning of Southern defeat. In a letter to former Confederate General Robert E. Lee dated November 4, 1866, Lord Acton wrote "I saw in States Rights the only available check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy. I deemed you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization and I mourn for that which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo (defeat of Napoleon). As Illinois Governor Richard Yates stated in a message to his state assembly on January 2, 1865, the war had "tended, more than any other event in the history of the country, to militate against the Jeffersonian Ideal ( Thomas Jefferson ) that the best government is that which governs least.
Years after the war former Confederate president Jefferson Davis stated "I Am saddened to Hear Southerners Apologize For Fighting To Preserve Our Inheritance". Some years later former U.S. president Theodore Roosevelt stated "Those Who Will Not Fight For The Graves Of Their Ancestors Are Beyond Redemption".
James W. King
Past Commander Camp 141
Lt. Col. Thomas M. Nelson
Sons of Confederate Veterans
PO Box 70577 Albany,
Georgia 31708

142 comments:

  1. N2N- Google The "GHOST AMENDMENT" or http://ghostamendment.com/
    It read as follows:
    "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." --Joint Resolution of Congress, voted on an Adopted March 2, 1861

    This was a Northern written and submitted Constitutional Amendment aka Corwin Amendment, which was passed by The US Congress and approved by Lincoln and the previous president. It clearly states ANY State North or South would be able to keep their slaves. It was aimed at keeping the South from seceding from the Union and taking $$$ Millions in TAX Revenues and cheap material along with them.

    So it by itself, could be used to clearly show the Northern States primary goal was never Anti-Slavery.


    Also to add spoilage to the false claim that the war was over slavery.
    We must remember the Emancipation Proclamation was issued the FOLLOWING year, after the war started, and only free slaves in the CSA not the UNION. The Union allowed union states to keep their slaves even a year AFTER the Civil War Ended.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The last state to free its slaves was DE, home of our own Halo Joe Biden.

      Delete
    2. i thought south carolina to stop succession

      Delete
    3. The vast majority of slaves in the North were not freed until the Constitution was amended 10 years after hostilities had ended.

      Delete
    4. The tax i.e. tariff on southern state being raised from 20% too 47% was the catalyst for the southern states to agree to succeed from the union. Washington said they could not and that lit the powder that brought on the conflict. Typical taxation with out reciprical economic representation.

      Delete
    5. I've always been puzzled about the history we were taught in the 1940's. Wow.certainly article was long time coming. I wonder what my generation
      Feels about this t today. Born in 1936

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. The Corwin Amendment was indeed perfectly consistent with the view of most of those in the North who opposed slavery and sought its end. It simply stated clearly what they already understood the Constitution to say, viz., that the FEDERAL government had no authority to free slaves or regulate slavery except in the national capital and in the territories. They believed that the proper way for slavery to end - and they DID seek to end it - was for the individual slave states to do exactly what non-slave states had done and end it themselves, by STATE legislation (providing, most likely, for a GRADUAL emancipation of their slaves). However, the Republican Party (like various other "free soil" parties before them) ALSO sought to restrict the SPREAD of slavery into the territories, and thereby (as Lincoln and many others argued) to put it on the road to ultimate extinction (this was stated point-blank in his "House Divided" Speech, and many times thereafter). Both sides actually understood by this time that restricting slavery to the states where it was then practiced would weaken it until ending it became the better economic and practical strategy.

      Again, the Republicans, etc., did not believe the FEDERAL government itself had much authority to end slavery (outside D.C. and the territories), unless they could, with the cooperation of the states, pass a Constitutional Amendment to do so... and they did not, for some time, think they would be able to do that. The only other way federal authority could free slaves would be as an exercise of "war powers" if states should rebel against the national authority (this notion was first suggested in the 1840s by John Quincy Adams). Thus the Emancipation Proclamation was - and specifically represented itself as - an exercise in WAR powers, depriving the "enemy combatant" of an important "resource" for the South's war effort. It specifically listed states and parts of states in rebellion ON January 1, 1863, the date the Proclamation was put into effect, and directed the MILITARY to free the slaves of each area as they were able to take control of it. (This military directive, incidentally, puts the lie to the claim that the Proclamation "freed nobody" because it only applied to areas not then controlled by the Union forces. The whole point was that, AS the Union Army advanced they would put it into effect. ALSO, any slaves that escaped from areas under rebellion would NOT be returned.)

      Delete
    8. Given all this, there was no way Lincoln COULD directly free "Northern" slaves (that is, those in the FOUR border states that had not seceded - KY, MO, DE, MD) - though in his first months in office he had already lobbied Delaware to end slavery, offering to reimburse them for the economic cost (just as Congress provided for when they freed the slaves in D.C. in April 1862). They rebuffed him, but ended up voting to end slavery before the war ended (though by then no reimbursement was offered).

      Meanwhile, Lincoln looked for the best way to SECURE the end slavery throughout the nation, eventually agreeing that a Constitutional Amendment was needed for that (not only to end slavery in the North, but to avoid an unfriendly Supreme Court [under Roger Taney, of Dred Scott Decision fame] possibly deciding against the Emancipation Proclamation, or at least that it only applied *during* that war, and that thereafter slaves should be returned to their former masters.

      So it was that, in January of 1865 the 13th Amendment finally passed - with ratification being completed in December, at which point it went into effect, and the final border state slaves (in Kentucky) had to be freed.

      The point of all this is that the "free-soil" effort to end slavery had a variety of strategies, based partly on current conditions, and used them ALL to secure its end. They had, in fact, discussed all of these for years, and argued that these were the proper *Constitutional* means to achieve their end. Most criticisms completely ignore their arguments and explanations (which, again, were not simply issued at the time, or thereafter, but well beforehand), and make counter-arguments that ignore the Constitutional issues. (So, for example, it makes no sense to fault the Emancipation Proclamation for not freeing slaves in states NOT in rebellion. Since it was an exercise of war powers, and there was NO federal authority to simply declare slaves free in a state NOT in rebellion, the President COULD not free Northern slaves by this action... though he could push for it by other means, and had already begun to do so.)

      Delete
  2. Nice to see they got the order right.

    The Northern industrialists, among whom were many Abolitionists, had all manner of wage slaves, sl slavery was less a cause than an excuse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry you are just as full of shot as the guy that wrote the article. First reason the tariffs he speaks of were not created and adopted until March 1861 which was AFTER 7 states had already seceded. Second if you want to know every states reason. Just go to every states archives and read their "articles of secession" which they submitted to the U.S. as they seceded and overwhelmingly the ONLY reason they give is SLAVERY.

      Delete
    2. You are also over simplifying. Just because the states that voted to secede wrote as their main reason the issue of slavery, that doesn't mean that it was the only reason. It was simply the reason that they chose to enumerate. This posting here is quite explicit in showing several other compelling reasons. And there are also a few others, not included in his argument. If you, like many others chose to not see it, you are of course, entitled to your own opinion, but, like always, you are not entitled to your own facts.

      Delete
    3. I'm looking at all the ordinances of secession in civil-war.net, and none of them mention slavery as the cause for secession. -GL

      Delete
    4. Are you sure you can read?

      Delete
    5. http://www.civil-war.net/pages/southcarolina_declaration.asp
      You didn't look very far. Seems that the reason (SC) wanted to demand states rights was because the north didn't like their slavery and wouldn't turn in the escaped slaves. Boo Hoo. So they seceded. Notice they refer to themselves and the other states in the south, NOT as southern states but as "SLAVE HOLDING STATES"!!!! It was all about slavery.

      Delete
    6. Couldnt be because the northern industrialists forced legislation through that forced Southern States to sell cotton to them at bankruptcy prices

      Delete
  3. Thank you for posting this well written article. It explains it better than I ever could and with your permission I will copy portions to use for my own blog. Credit given of course. I am southern. My family is from Virginia and western Virginia (some people call it Kentucky!) I never thought about the differences in culture going all the way back to Europe. For Dixie Land I'll Take My Stand!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are certainly welcome mohaverat and feel free.

      Delete
    2. 8:55 AM
      Sorry you are just as full of shot as the guy that wrote the article. First reason the tariffs he speaks of were not created and adopted until March 1861 which was AFTER 7 states had already seceded. Second if you want to know every states reason. Just go to every states archives and read their "articles of secession" which they submitted to the U.S. as they seceded and overwhelmingly the ONLY reason they give is SLAVERY

      Delete
  4. What a steaming crock!
    " Lincoln increased the rate to a level that exceeded even the "Tariff of Abominations" 40% rate that had so infuriated the South during the 1828-1832 eras (between 50 and 51% on iron goods)"
    6 Dec 1860 - South Carolina Secedes
    9 Feb 1861 - Confederacy formed
    4 Mar 1861 - Lincoln inaugurated as 16th President
    HOW did he "raise the tariff" so egregiously if HE WASN'T EVEN PRESIDENT?!?!?!?!?
    Anything to spur division.
    The Civil War was about EXACTLY what the division in the nation is today: Democrats love democracy, except when it doesn't go their way. It was DEMOCRATS who started secession, it was DEMOCRATS who wanted slavery, it was DEMOCRATS the created the Klan, it was DEMOCRATS that created Jim Crowe, just as it is DEMOCRATS that think Trump (and W Bush before him) illegitimate and want to get rid of the Electoral College.
    Spare me these 'after the fact' justifications!
    "States Rights!" Rights to do what? Keep slaves. Period. Nothing else.
    Oh, these two 'authors' are so stupid they can't even get the map right: Kentucky never seceded.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Evidently your reading comprehension is nil. Go reread it and come back with a comment related to the article

      Delete
    2. and you might want to look at the map again while your at it.

      Delete
    3. another 3rd grade drop out,if he can read,go back ad try again or go to a library and find out for yourself,Abe had a choice,remove the tax man from the fort or war,he chose war because the industrialist wanted it that way to be sure the south stopped selling cotton oversea's for more that the asshole Yankee's wanted to pay,dummy...

      Delete
    4. Lincoln was elected President Nov.6th 1860. South Carolina succeeds Dec.20th 1860. The Confederacy was formed in February of 1861.
      Lincoln was inaugurated March 4th 1861. The reason for succeeding was to perserve the southern States Constitutional rights to govern their own economies. Both North and South owned slaves however it was such a small percentage that it was not the main reason for succession.
      They suceeded after Lincoln was elected President although he hadn't been inaugurated yet...The writing was on the wall.
      Yes the Constitution was set up giving the individual states sovereignty and no Federal gov't was not set up to have the most power. We the People were to have the most power.Then the individual states and then the Federal gov't was to have the least power. The Civil War wasn't about slavery but the states right to govern its own affairs. It was a power grab by the northern supported federal gov't. The North supported the National gov't having more power but the South wanted what the Constitution afforded the individual states to have,FREEDOM TO DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES and the power to run its own economy the way they saw fit.
      They lost and the north got what it wanted. The all powerful Federal Gov't.
      Many southern people migrated to the north after the war for jobs. Many northerners migrated to south, a.k.a. Carpetbaggers. They used unscrupulous methods to profit off reconstruction after the civil war.They sought political candidacy in areas where they had no local connections. Another reason southerners went north. So now we have many northern people who are Democrats and many southern people who are Republicans.If you read each states reason for succession you will see they wanted their constitutional right to govern their individual states economies. Yes slavery was a small part of that but it was never just about keeping slaves. The north used that propaganda well.Yes the Democratic Party started the KKK.And now it uses racism as a means to an end,to remove its soiled history and to stir the pot. I'm a Republican but I also believe in historical truth and the fact of the matter is the Constitution did give individual states the right to govern their own economies and the north wanted to put that power into the Federal or National govt's hands. Now we all see what happens when the Federal gov't has that much power,,,TYRANNY. They fought for their Constitutional rights and they lost. Unfortunately it looks like we too will have to do that because the Democrats of today are bent on the destruction of our Constitution and our individual rights. They are a socialist/communist party. Slavery is wrong. Race baiting is wrong. If they(Liberal Progressive Democratic Socialists) win, our country will cease to exist as the free nation our founders fought for. We will become part of a OWG.
      Give me Liberty or give me death...

      Delete
    5. Rich, have you had a chance to go back and re-read the article yet ? It is pretty well written and full of accurate facts that you missed. Based on your post, I'm not sure you're even commenting on the right article.
      Meds, Rich. Get back on them.

      Delete
    6. The word is spelled 'secede' not succeed. Just saying so you do not confuse Rich more than he already is.

      Delete
    7. I guess they succeeded in seceding, eh?
      ;D

      Delete
    8. if they seceded in december it appears like it would have been because lincoln was elected in november.. And the war was fought over the southern land which the north wanted all along. Lincoln "the union is dissolved" :( boo hoo. As with previous wars, indian wars, war of 1812, war between the states, war of montreal however thankfully they didn't succeed in the invasion, and if france wouldn't have sold the lousiana purchase I would assume it would have been taken from them also just like with the indians and mexican wars..

      Delete
  5. So we can do a General Sherman on Calijuana when they succeed right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. N2N- Actually California leaving is a good thing.
      Over $14 Billion in debt already,
      The largest ILLEGAL Population of any state in the USA.
      Uses More Federal Money than any other State, over $343 billion in federal spending a year.
      The most documented illegally registered voters.
      The Most Illegal with US Driver licenses.
      No more 9th District Appeals court.
      Requests to obey Federal Laws.
      The Most liberal and Nut Jobs of any State.
      The Most Anti-FA members.
      Anti-GUN
      Anti-White Male
      So why not allow them to join Mexico and become Mexican Citizens

      Delete
    2. Secede.

      Under Democrats, CA will never succeed.

      Delete
    3. Just one thing. They can't have San Diego. Pacific Fleet.

      Delete
    4. San Diego is the only Republican stronghold in the state.

      Delete
    5. Respectfully Sherman was trying to reduce the duration and death in the war.

      Both Grant and the de facto southern "aristocracy" were content to fight to the last drop of poor white blood in the south.

      Delete
    6. I don't think California will succeed at seceding.

      Delete
    7. God speed California. Will ease the way for Texit.

      Delete
    8. Odysseyus,
      Sherman was gleefully following Lincoln's orders via Grant. The goal was quite the opposite of what you stated. It was a change in strategy to open a front on the Civilian population of the South. If you recall Sherman's quote "I will make Georgia howl".

      Even though acting under orders, he did so gladly. He remains the greatest war criminal in American history.

      Delete
    9. Sorry, San Diego City and County is majority Democrat, Republicans second and Independents catching up to them.

      Delete
    10. The Anon above with all the facts is wrong on at least one point. California is a donor state (by Pew latest analysis CA gets 99 cents back for every dollar they send to DC. Check your facts. They are also nearly 15 % of the economy & population. From a conservative independent living amongst leftist, liberal communists.

      Delete
    11. The only one the author got right was number 9. Slavery. It was clearly the root of the War. States rights to do what?...to own slaves. The South was Christian, and the North wasn't as Christian? No true Christian would accept owning another human. He also made it sound like the North had as many slaves as the South. Yeah, there were plenty of cotton fields in New York. 150 years is more than enough time to get over the fact that the South lost the war. They fought gallantly, but ultimately got thoroughly defeated, by a superior Army. The North was morally right and Loncoln was our best president. Get over it! Those statues have to go too. Who wants to see Statues of LOSERS?

      Delete
    12. Sigh you must be one of Fienstein's trolls. She believes that the bill of rights only applies to folks of certain social stature. And only recognizes HISTORICAL FACT if it conveniently fits her views

      Delete
  6. Excellent narrative on the history of the War Between the States (aka: The Civil War). Written from a factual historical perspective, and not the text of the revisionist history textbooks which have been taught to school children since 1965. (I personally remember when they were changed!)

    In the 32 years since I moved out of Miami to Alabama, I have personally visited dozens of Civil War historical sites (US National Parks, etc.) and have read the actual documents on display, written by the people who lived and fought on BOTH sides of that conflict. What I have personally seen agrees 100% with this short narrative, and not the politically correct garbage which is taught to our school aged children since the start of "revisionist history" during the term of LBJ.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I graduated in 1978. I guess I was lucky because I was taught the truth. We didn't receive the "rewritten" history. I try to educate others about some of the things in this article but they have been brainwashed. Thanks for posting so I stop doubting what I was taught. Hard to believe I was educated in Baltimore County MD. I'm sure the teachings of the civil war in Baltimore City was quite different.

      Delete
    2. I graduated in '78 also. I was educated in the Deep South, and earned a MA from a Southern university. I've read original records from Southern sources (journals, letters, newspapers, government records, speeches).
      This "article" is absolute bull feces.
      It ignores the facts, the laws of the period, and the Southern society's complete and total reliance on the institution of slavery to maintain their "way of life".
      Bluntly put- no slavery, no reason for war.
      But believe any revisionist crap you wish. Your right; just don't insult my intelligence by asking me to share your delusional worldview.

      Delete
    3. You are not from the south liar,you don't know anything about the south because you would not posted this false bs ,you should ray for forgiveness for such a liar you are..

      Delete
    4. Trolls doing what they do best, nothing.

      Yankee's hate the truth and have never been able to deal with it when confronted with it, save making posts like this freakin' rat bastard of a lying sack of Yankee scum did.

      Delete
    5. Class of '77 here, one thing the author missed missed, power in congress would be offset if more terrotories applying for statehood, we're "slave" states....history 1976

      Delete
    6. Jeffrey in Alabama (Feral Irishman): This sounds like your opinion based on your research. Can you cite some reliable resources which explain the causes of the Civil War in more objective and less prejudicial terms? I have my opinion and you have yours. Do you have objective information to support your views (something other than your views submitted on a blog?) I don't have such information, so I would submit my findings based on unsubstantiated information. You present your case as though it is factual and historically accurate. I didn't see one of the causes as a feeling of white supremacy which still exists and is admitted by those who believe the white race is supreme. Why did you leave this out? I do not disagree with your right to express your opinion, but you need to be clear that it is just that.

      Delete
    7. to: Deep South Anonymous August 26, 2017 at 7:33 PM - So, you were born in the “DEEP SOUTH?” Where exactly is the Deep South? And you earned a MA from a Southern university – “a Southern university?” … Really? Down here we all refer to our Colleges and Universities – as “a Southern university”. Just like up North – where you just walk around and refer to your Universities as “Northern universities”! I know this because I earned my degree from “a Northern University”. In fact, from the most Northern University of all Northern Universities – which makes my Northern degree a more knowledgeable degree about Northern stuff than any other Northern degree!! I too, read original records from Northern sources (journals, letters, newspapers, government records, speeches). I also attended and earned a Masters from “a Southern university” and I've read original records from Southern sources (journals, letters, newspapers, government records, speeches), which now makes me a subject matter expert on all things Southern!
      And … neither University gave me the absolute insight to state “It ignores the facts, the laws of the period, and the Southern society's complete and total reliance on the institution of slavery to maintain their "way of life".
      I say the crap in the above paragraph – sarcastically … But, I really did attend multiple Universities, and received multiple degrees – and I truly state that I didn’t receive “absolute insight”!
      I am a Educational Research Scientist (ERS, Wave 6, IERG - (Independent Educational Research Group), http://www.indedresgroup.com) – and I know that ‘true information’ is acquired by gathering empirical evidence; Researching ‘Primary sources’ authored by individuals, respected in their field for dedication to deep research, fact gathering, and verification of data in materials pertaining to a given subject.
      For anyone to say that there was only one reason for the South to secede from the Union – is foolish! There are very few things in life, of any level of importance – that solely rely on a single item or event – to base a decision. It would make better sense to state “The main reason” was this or that. But, unsupported statements like “the civil war was ‘only’ or ‘mainly’ fought over slavery – Just doesn’t hold up to facts. Contrary to your belief or piss poor education, there are loads and loads of written documentation, tons of data, that exist, that defines most, if not all of the reasons for the Civil War. And ‘Yes’, slavery is one of the reasons! Slavery is not the most important reason, it’s not the main reason, but it is a cause … one of many the South held that the federal government had no right to order or interfere with.
      As far as this article reads; it’s fairly close to accurate, although it is ‘very heavily biased’ by the author. Every subparagraph is mixed with truth and opinion. No support is sighted where true facts are presented and opinions are stated as facts. It’s for these reasons alone that I call down on this article. If the author would sight support; the Authors, Books, Documents, Legal References, or Historic Materials that some of these quotes and references were drawn from, and remove some of the inflammatory personal remarks – this Article would be excellent.

      Delete
  7. Kentucky and Missouri did not secede. They acted as buffer zones but did send troops to fight for the Confederacy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You and Rich are correct M977, nor did the western territories. The map represents an early example of what was considered to states aligning with the South. It is just a stock photo that came from Wiki and was not part of the original article. As most well know, the map looked very different at the end of the war. I will correct it.

      Delete
    2. Kentucky did join the Confederacy,but it was taken by the union shortly afterwards, and the Confederate government was forced out. I read this in the book Southern History of the War by Edward Pollard

      Delete
    3. I'm a Kentuckian, and had great-great-grandfathers who fought on both sides. Kentucky did not join the Confederacy; it declared neutrality, then stated that if either army (North or South) crossed the KY border, whichever army crossed the border first, KY would declare for the other side. As it happens, KY was also strategically useful to the South (think: Morgan's Raiders), so Kentucky ended up declaring for the Union. However the Kentucky Militia (largely composed of wealthy young scions) was pro-Southern, so when the state declared for the Union, the Militia (refusing to fight for the North) joined the South. This military group became known as "The Orphan's Brigade" because none of its members could go home before the war ended, as they would have been arrested. My great-great-grandfather was one of the few survivors.

      Delete
    4. KY and MO militia most certainly did fight for the CSA. The States of MO and KY never seceded, and left their Senators and Reps in Congress, where as Georgia, for instance as well as the other 13 CSA states, called their Congressional members home from Congress. But, the state militias of both of those states fought with the CSA. Some of the greatest of the Rangers... mercenary calavary units... were from MO. Lincoln issued an Ex Order calling for the assassination of any pro- CSA men in MO. One of those lynched was the step-father of Frank and Jessie James, which prompted them to ride with William Quantrill, and later, Bloody Bill Anderson.

      Delete
  8. I have tried to explain to some that slavery was one of many reasons for the civil war, but with no success. I will use much of this, if not all of it, to hopefully show some of the other reasons that I have missed. However, someone on the left is usually not willing to learn something that goes against their preconceived notions. But this is a very good post. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ...and that is why liberalism truly is a mental disorder. It isn't that they aren't willing to learn, it's that they are incapable of learning.

      Delete
    2. Please don't go overboard. None of the other differences (which by the way were not even mentioned by the seceding states--they only mentioned slavery) were serious enough to cause secession, much less fight a war over. Slavery was the singular unresolvable issue.

      Delete
  9. Just wish the South wouldn't have kicked the Yankees butt, but we all are paying for it now. Southerners to this day are more nicer people than the Northerners.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Wouldn't have"? I think you mistyped. "Cuz the South did not win. But about the "nice" part...I have lived in the northeast, the northwest, overseas, and now +10 years in the southeast. One of my daughter's former college teachers (from Georgia) just drove to Canada and back for a vacation. He said that he was sorry to say that the customer service back in his home state was the worse he'd experienced. Not all of them are bad, but my kids have worked with people that can't get off their cell phones to serve you.

      Delete
  10. I wrote both these pieces just over two years ago.

    https://theeveningchronicle.blogspot.com/2015/06/southern-conservatives-and-complaining.html

    https://theeveningchronicle.blogspot.com/2015/07/self-inflicted-wounds-part-ii.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the links. I read both and they were very well written.

      Delete
    2. Yet no one makes a counter argument. Just like no one wants to acknowledge that all but two of the Confederate States specifically declared "interference with the institution of slavery" as a reason in their secession documents.

      Delete
    3. That is like saying that the reason that the U.S. entered the second world war is because Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Of course, that was the reason given, and what caused the final blowup, but there were dozens of other things at play in the war then, just as there were many other things at play during the beginning of the civil war. Just because the south chose to list slavery as their main point of contention, make no mistake, there were many other reasons that the south wished to dissolve the union. Most wars are fought for at least partial economic reasons, but usually there are more involved and intricate reasons for the beginning of the hostilities. No one is trying to say that slavery was not a very real issue with the civil war, but the attempts by some to hide other valid reasons is not historically faithful.

      Delete
    4. The United States has perpetrated a war environment for years. We have continually stuck our nose where it does not belong. Strongly encouraged by the Military Industrial Complex which continues to flourish the more wars continue. How can we stop the ongoing carnage that may not be necessary. NO ONE (except the MIC) COMES OUT A WINNER.. Then we spend Trillions more $ to rebuild what we have(so proudly) destroyed. When attacked we are forced to defend. This I understand. Yet we continue to be the aggressor in so many places. Yes it certainly helps to keep the economy moving but the price is so much considering the carnage we create.

      Delete
    5. Did you bother to read the linked posts or were they just beyond your comprehension?

      Delete
    6. JWMJR - read them both and they are not nearly as good as you think them to be. You should read more history from a broader range of sources then try again. Look up, 'Nullifiers' as another subsection to help your understanding of the bigger picture.
      Good luck.

      Delete
    7. The reason the majority were opposed to centralized power and banking cartels are the same reason the Majority are today and for good reason.

      Delete
    8. JWMJR ... You claim no one rebuts your account of history on the links - but it looks like your screening the posts. Maybe there are more counter arguments than you let on?! Ether way - you articles aren't really that good, you blame the South, you blame England, but no responsibility of the north?!? Then you pepper the document with weak insults about southerns being whiners - I wouldn't use you're writings as references or recommend any of it as reading for students - No, not impressed.

      Delete
    9. JWMJR - Oh ... Though part ii was better in an attempt to make a very valid point. It was still just a simple read. Something everyone should already know - just wish they would apply it.

      Delete
    10. JWMJR, well-written. I especially like and agree with the 2nd one. But, as the author of the article sates, the cause of the war, was the attack on the southern states by the north. What people tend to overlook, is the fact that the 13 states that that formed the loose association of states...and all subsequent states voluntarily joining this association, had a guaranteed and Constitutionally protected right ..to leave this voluntary association any time they wanted to. The Constitutional United States of America, was not a country, per se, like France. or Spain. It was more like NATO, or the UN, or the European Union...individual states coming together for the common defense, and for trade. like the UN is with nations. Any country can withdraw..secede.... the UN anytime it wants to, without fear of the UN declaring war and attacking it. If Belgium wants to withdraw from the European Union, it can without fear of France, Spain, England, etc, launching an attack. And so it was with states in the voluntary collaboration called the United States of America.

      Delete
    11. Now there is some hard historical fact. Here in the pacific nw,to better understand how the south felt - my history teacher told us to sub TIMBER for COTTON

      Delete
  11. 4. Cultural Differences.

    Hmm... if we are talking western Englishmen, I think you'll find that the good folk of Wessex were either Saxon and Jutish, or Britons with 1400 years worth of English culture(or a varying mixture of all three). They looked back to Alfred, the real and great king, not so much to Arthur (a nice story). These chaps were keen enough to fight Scots, Britons, Irish and Vikings at Brunanburgh; hardly a warm "Celtic" togetherness!
    This battle led to the creation of the Kingdom of England, and thereby, in the fullness of time the founding of the American Colonies.

    The presence of many Irish and Scottish settlers may well have influenced the character of the South, but the English would have had the same character as those in the North(except for differences due to environment and local Southern culture). In addition, the huge majority of "Celtic" Welsh migrants settled in Pennsylvania and Ohio, hardly "Southern" strongholds.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There were some, but your point is well taken.
      Check out this book for an insight to cultural differences in the antebellum South:

      Cracker Culture: Celtic Ways in the Old South Paperback – May 30, 1989
      by Dr. Grady McWhiney (Author), Forrest McDonald (Contributor)

      Delete
    2. Terrye Claire NewkirkAugust 29, 2017 at 3:56 PM

      The ascribing of American cultural divisions solely to regional differences in England is, I agree, simplistic.

      More important was the influence of Puritan culture in the North,and the fact that by mid-century the North had become a recent-immigrant society. Irish, Germans, Italians, and Scandinavians had migrated there to work in the mines, at building railroads, at dairy and wheat farming, etc. Although some of these fought for the South (notably, the Irish Brigade), most were drafted into the Union army to provide the raw numbers that commanders like Grant and Sherman needed to outman the Confederate troops.

      Another huge factor in the essential differences between North and South is *climate.*That affected both the economy and the temperament of the South. I hope it's not lost on anyone here that the tremendous resurgence in Southern economy, productivity, and livability happened after the invention of air-conditioning.

      Delete
  12. Even the filmmaker Ken Burns, in his Civil War series admits that Lincoln made the war about slavery after the fact, in order to stir up sentiment in the North. Blaming the war on "slavery" is the ignorant, lazy, person's way out of a conversation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Secession, led by SC, was motivated by slavery. That is their own words from the South Carolina secession declaration. There's no mention of tariffs or anything else. The war itself was to maintain the United States, not to abolish slavery. But by halfway through the war it became clear that slavery would not survive the war. Blaming the war on slavery is not "ignorant." The secessionists themselves said that was their motivation. And then the war came because of secession. Secession and slavery are inextricably linked.

      Delete
    2. There were many reasons why the South left the Union, and Slavery was one of the reasons, not the only reason. However, the War of Northern Aggression was fought for one reason; to preserve the Union. So the Southern states simply left the Union, and the Union went to war to force the South back into the Union...at a combined cost of ~750,000 causalities. What a shame.

      I think it is appropriate to review Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley, where Lincoln clearly states why he fought the war:

      Executive Mansion,
      Washington, August 22, 1862.

      Hon. Horace Greeley:
      Dear Sir.

      I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

      As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

      I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. 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. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

      I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

      Yours,
      A. Lincoln.


      Delete
    3. Preserved the union but not the one the Constitution founded. Slavery is a crime against humanity. It still is big business. We still have slavery but our constitution no longer has its intended purpose of controlling our federal govt. or guiding our state govmnt. We have states that pass laws in direct violation of Constitution & the feds encourage this. I cry for what Lincoln was not strong enough to defend. But he did his best & if had lived.....Who knows. We might still be a Constitutional Democracy instead of a Democratic Socialist based loosely on those parts they like today.....But only if you agree with them.


      Delete
  13. Thank you for publishing a cogent and correct analysis of the causes of the war. Too often, the emotional side of the argument (i.e. slavery) is used to overshadow the reasonable side.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Love this. Can you add the list of references so my Leftist aquaintences can see the research and look it up for themselves? Email me this if you put references. Too much fake news!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is nothing "Leftist" in not believing any of this "Lost Cause" b.s. This is in fact "fake history" created to justify the absurd decision to secede made by a tiny number of planters which caused 750,000 deaths. It is ignorant. And I am a conservative Republican.

      Delete
    2. Actually Rod, there is a distinct difference between a conservative and republican and you definitely sound like the latter.

      Delete
  15. This is one of the best. I have printed it off for my own reference. Thank you so much

    ReplyDelete
  16. Very well written.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'm ashamed that I didn't know my nations history this well.
    This letter is excellent and we'll worded. I will without a doubt sAve and send this often

    ReplyDelete
  18. Thank you readers! It was a very well written piece and i too enjoyed it. I've Googled Mr. James King's name paired with the Confederacy/South and found several other well written articles/editorials. I have tried to contact him, but so far have been unsuccessful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jeffery in Alabama, Mr James King is Commander of our local SCV camp, (Lt Col. Thomas M. Nelson). He frequently writes articles on this subject for various publications. He is an honor graduate of the UGA, and his knowledge of this part of our nation's history is encyclopedic. In addition he is a true southern gentleman. I'll let him know you are trying to contact him. Sorry for the anonymous title on my post but can't get it to go out under my regular email today for some reason. Deo Vindice, Ron

      Delete
  19. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Under 'Cultural Difference' it states 'Southerners were primarily of Western English (original Britons)'. Er, the words English and England refers to the Angles, not to the original Britons. Here's another crock of crap: 'Our ancient ancestors in Western England under King Arthur humbled the Saxon princes at the battle of Baden Hill'. Again, England derives from the Old English (Anglo-Saxon) word 'Englalond' - 'Land of the Angle'. The Germanic tribes such as the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, etc, are what are now generically known as the Anglo-Saxons (though known to themselves as the 'Anglecynn', the English Nation) - the Germanic people who created England (named after themselves) and gave the world (eventually) the English language. England has nothing to do with the 'Britons', and the land the Britons occupied was not England. I'm frankly amazed how many on here think this is well written. Even a cursory knowledge of the first English people and the formation of England would inform anyone how misguided this nonsense is. Dear oh Dear.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What have your left out intentionally or unintentionally?

      Delete
    2. What Mick didn't mention is that 80% of the people who settled or resided in the Southern states before 1860 were of Scottish, Irish, or Scots-Irish descent. While there were some settlers from other parts of Europe (German, English, French, Spainish, etc.) who settled in the Southern states, the culture and customs of these people of Gaelic (Celtic) descent dominated the the antebellum South.

      Delete
    3. King Arthur in many documents of yore was referred to as King Arthur of the Britons

      Delete
    4. King Arthur is a fictional character! King Alfred was king of the West Saxons - King of Wessex from 871 to 899.

      Delete
  21. There is also an inherent paradox to wrap the banner of states rights after the Dred Scott condescension basically made free states non-existant.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I really enjoyed reading this. Are there any specific references you can provide for this article? I'm asking because while I like to read articles, I'm really interested in the material that inspired the article. Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  23. Mr. James King, the fellow who wrote the piece, didn't list any references, but there is an abundance of good information out there. One has to weigh through it. Years ago when I read much on this subject, I tried to read personal journals, diaries, etc. from this period. I enjoyed (still do) learning the first person account of a time period-situation-event from someone who was there. One of the problems today with folks studying the American Civil War is that they try to apply twenty-first century diction and views to a nineteenth century happening.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is a very salient point: too many people fail to understand what life was like back in 1850, they lack perspective.

      Delete
  24. Like reading it straight from "The Lost Cause" written by the editor of the Richmond Examiner in 1867. and reprinted in modern times. Glad to see someone setting the record straight!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Great research!!!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Though I get and agree with many points of the article, it still comes off a little bit "apologetical to slavery". Northern white, free, workers being, exploited, living in the street, and working long hours, is irrelevant to whether or not slavery is justified. Pointing to their hypocrisy only reveals them being guilty of exploitation as well.... I think pointing out that the "Emancipation Proclamation" being only issued 1-1/2 years into the war, and having it only applying to states unconquered and still at war tells the story. If the war had really been about slavery, it would have been issued immediately applied to every state including the northern slave states. It's also worth noting that these self proclaimed virtuous, freedom loving liberators of slaves, proceeded to murder, displace, and inter indians all across the country after the war ended.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly Unknown. The "liberators" did this long before and long after the "War Between The States" ended. A good example is the liberation of the "slaves" at Tannehill Iron Works outside of Tuscaloosa, AL by Union Gen. Wilson and his raiders in the spring of 1865. Yes, these union raiders freed over 750 slaves at this ironworks, but not before they burned all of their houses and provisions.

      Delete
  27. I have read approximately 200 similar articles over the past 40 years, and a few books offering the same basic arguments. This is called the "Lost Cause" view of the Civil War and is simply factually inaccurate. While it is wrong to say that southern soldiers "fought for slavery," (they fought as all soldiers fight, for their fellow soldiers, or for their families or their land, not for abstract public policy questions) there is no question in any reading of American History that the issue of slavery was the cause of secession, which led to the war. We have the very words of the founders of the Confederacy to verify their motives. (Even if you could find someone willing to go to war over a tariff, you couldn't hornswoggle enough people to even temporarily follow for such a cause.) We have the Confederacy's own constitution, and the post-secession constitutions of the southern states to show this to be the case. No, secession was an idiotic and emotional and impulsive act led by a very small group of very rich people. After several setbacks they were very fortunate to finally be able to forge a majority in support. But the evidence is overwhelming that the rank and file ordinary southerner regretted the foolish act before a full year was even out. What these organizations that promote the "Lost Cause" won't tell you is that there has never been a nation in the world with a higher percentage of draft dodgers and very angry people refusing to fight for such a cause as the Confederacy's.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Is this an article from "The Onion", if so it is really funny!

    ReplyDelete
  29. It is sad that all historical scholars have not come together in agreement about the North and South. It seems obvious from the beliefs and disbeliefs of so many comments on here that schools chose to teach different reasons for this war instead of it being one true story for all to believe in, well researched by well noted historians that can come up with a consensus of truth that our children should be taught. The Nation is still so totally divided on what is truth and what is hearsay and feelings of those who took part in it from both sides with soldiers writing letters that might well be the only real accounts of the actual reasons that so many brave men lost their lives for. I gather that one school does not teach the same history as others to their students or there wouldn't be the back and forth opposing comments as to what is truth where if it was completely factual today's protests might not have erupted where one side differs in its' opinion to another. Great write up I thoroughly enjoyed all writings and comments despite it being so divided on here too.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Historians for "years" have not debated the purpose of the civil war, this article is outright wrong! Lol

    ReplyDelete
  31. Wish they taught this in schools.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Our ungloryious government has used deception and war to get what they want since the beginning. We are taught about our amazing forefathers that started this country, when actually they were a bunch of greedy white men that wanted to get wealthier and not pay taxes. I love this kind of information. Thank you!!

    ReplyDelete
  33. I have to agree with Rod. Slavery was the main cause of secession which caused Lincoln to call for troops to put down the rebellion. Slaves were the most valuable piece of the southern economy and the idea that Federal law would outlaw the institution and force the slave owners to give them up, without compensation, was the catalyst for secession. All the other situations played a part but without slavery in the US, it is unlikely there would have ever been a Civil War, which is exactly what it was, not a revolution.

    ReplyDelete
  34. What a load of nonsense. The war wasn't over tariffs -- the tariff law in effect when the cotton states seceded had passed without a single negative vote there. They had exactly the tax law they wanted. In fact, they'd written it.

    Oh, and most of the tariffs were collected in northern ports. The claim that the south paid 75% of them is an outright lie.

    Oh, and the Confederates didn't fight because the north invaded, the Confederates started the shooting to trigger a second wave of secession in the upper south -- "if you want Virginia to join you, strike a blow!" as secessionist congressmen Roger Pryor told a crowd in South Carolina.

    Northerners weren't excluding southerners from the western territories -- southern immigrants often rose to positions of tremendous power in new free states. Henry Haun and John Fremont in California, Joseph Lane in Oregon, Edward Coles and John Hardin in Illinois, William Henry Harrison in Ohio, the list goes on and on. Northerners were only bent on excluding SLAVERY, not southerners.

    In short, the whole article is tinfoil hat paranoid nonsense built on a foundation of ridiculous and easily exploded lies.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Proud an SCV member wrote this. My name appears on a camp charter. Malice towards none.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I'll read the whole thing in detail if you'll provide a source for the T. Roosevelt quote at the end. Speech, letter ...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So yeah, that Roosevelt quote is a fake as far as I can tell. Only references are in other pro-Confederate posts. So then I sampled four claims in the slavery section to check up on. First ("Lee freed *his* slaves ...) was intentionally misleading. Second (300,000 blacks "supported the Confederacy") is perhaps intentionally vaguely worded but nevertheless plainly ridiculous.

      Third (re Julia Grant) is both misleading (as with Lee, they weren't "her" slaves to release) and then it's simply false regarding when they would've been free, regarding Missouri and the 13th Amendment.

      The fourth was the Dickens quote, which is not by Dickens at all but by a biographer of his. It took maybe 30 seconds to discover this.

      So to recap: Misleading/incorrect, ridiculous and without evidence, misleading framing plus false claim, a falsely attributed quote, and then the larger piece capped off by a lie in the form of a totally fabricated quote putting words into the mouth of a dead man.

      The last word and four random earlier claims. All of them should have been easily verifiable, yet all of them contained some sort of lie or were 100% lie. I'm sure the rest is just a model of historical competence, though.

      Delete
  37. It was slavery. https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states#South_Carolina

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What many do not understand is that secession and war were two very different events in this period of American History. Many of the states seceded legally because of the reasons listed in the article. The South went to war because the United States government invaded the Confederate States of America.

      Delete
    2. 8:55 AM
      Sorry you are just as full of shot as the guy that wrote the article. First reason the tariffs he speaks of were not created and adopted until March 1861 which was AFTER 7 states had already seceded. Second if you want to know every states reason. Just go to every states archives and read their "articles of secession" which they submitted to the U.S. as they seceded and overwhelmingly the ONLY reason they give is SLAVERY

      Delete
    3. I you had earnestly read the piece you'd know that tariffs were only one of the reasons for secession. Take your blinders off Anon.

      Delete
    4. The Morrill Tariff was passed in the House of Representatives in the session of 1859-1860. Then Lincoln won the election. Then States decided to get out of the abusive relationship. The abusive boyfriend then came into his ex's house and got shot at. The abusive boyfriend then burned his ex's house down and forced the ex to stay in the abusive relationship. The South tried to leave the abusive North and got beat up for it. Now we are stuck in this abusive relationship with a controlling federal government for a boyfriend. Thanks for nothing, Yankees!

      Delete
    5. The Morrill Tariff was passed in the House of Representatives in the session of 1859-1860. Then Lincoln won the election. Then States decided to get out of the abusive relationship. The abusive boyfriend then came into his ex's house and got shot at. The abusive boyfriend then burned his ex's house down and forced the ex to stay in the abusive relationship. The South tried to leave the abusive North and got beat up for it. Now we are stuck in this abusive relationship with a controlling federal government for a boyfriend. Thanks for nothing, Yankees!

      Delete
  38. FIRST i will start with i am a 40 year SoCv. The guy that wrote the article is full of shit. First reason the tariffs he speaks of were not created and adopted until March 1861 which was AFTER 7 states had already seceded. Second if you want to know every states reason. Just go to every states archives and read their "articles of secession" which they submitted to the U.S. as they seceded and overwhelmingly the ONLY reason they give is SLAVERY. So his beliefs dont meant shit. Every states meeting they held to write their "articles of seccesion" along with the actual one they turned in states only ONE reason for seccesion and it is "their states right to own SLAVES"

    ReplyDelete
  39. I would love for this to go a year after the war. Sherman "gave" much of the Georgia and South Carolina coast to the freed slaves to form their own nation. Tunis Campbell was their "King" and lived in Button Gwinnett's old plantation home on St. Catherine's Island for the short period of the black nation until they fought among themselves and the carpetbaggers got here and took it all back...not in many books, have to go digging to find it but it is real and it did happen.

    ReplyDelete
  40. If you had some historical documents as a reference it would help your position.

    ReplyDelete
  41. It seems to me that the 1800s northern republican carpetbaggers have become todays socialist democrats of today. Why and when did this transformation begin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. American Communist party this century.

      Delete
  42. so how did the south get "tricked" into firing on Ft, Sumter???...unless they wanted to fight....your logic on how Lincoln tricked them is insane.....if the south didnt want to fight, why did they fire the first shots??? the bottom line really is...they wanted to fight---and they went for it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What about the threat to Charleston from Fort Sumpter? Charleston was preparing for bombardment and invasion....

      Delete
  43. "None of us living now owned slaves, and none of us living now were slaves." That sums it up !!! Stop all of this crap of destroying history !!!

    ReplyDelete
  44. Two things:

    1. Since LBJ signed the War on Poverty Act on January 8, 1964, we have spent over twenty-two trillion on the blacks. That is three times as much as we have spent on ALL wars back to and including the American Revolution. What the f*ck did they do with this much money? That is over six hundred thousand for each and every black alive today. And they want more? A black man and woman with ten children have received over 7.8 million dollars and where is it and what did they do with it? They need to be asking their own leaders what they did with their money.

    B. Jefferson Davis, graduate of Transylvania College and West Point arrested Abe Lincoln and his entire militia for an Indian massacre in the Black Hawk War in 1832. Abe, who was elected captain of the Springfield militia, was busted to private and placed in a company of misfits. He spent the war peeling potatoes and digging latrines. Davis was sworn in on February 18, 1861, and Lincoln was sworn in March 20, 1861. Lincoln wanted revenge. He refused to meet with peace commissions and called up 75,000 men to "invade" the South. Carl Sandburg's three volume biography of Lincoln included these facts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely true about Abe lincoln and his militia. The Blackhawk warriors were starving as they had their crops stolen from them. They were mostly foraging for food for the tribe and their families. The "War" was an excuse to call up the militia and exterminate Chief Blackhawk and his tribe. It is a "black mark" on the history of Illinois and Abe Lincoln too.

      Delete
  45. First off, we don’t have to guess or debate the reasons the South seceded – they wrote Declaration of Causes explaining factors that caused their secession. I highly recommend reading them. https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

    Commenting on the reasons behind the Civil War without reading those document is like commenting on the Revolutionary War without reading the Declaration of Independence.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I recently moved to the south from California, and I have to say that irregardless of the many reasons for the civil war the fact is that southerners are still by and large friendlier, more respectful, and polite, and that includes blacks, whites, hispanics, and any other race. In California, I was persecuted for being a baptist. True Christian people are a very small minority there. Morals are almost non-existent. Gangs, drugs, immoral sex, hate and bigotry are rampant in California. It has become a socialist state. I have recently traveled all over the United States of America, and I can say that the southern states are the most patriotic, and morally upstanding of them all. However, from letters of civil war soldiers, it is obvious that most of the soldiers on each side were praying, God fearing men. The hubbub over the confederate statues and history is another phony feel good ploy of the far left. It's time to bury the hatchet people. Try loving one another. There's also no reason to use cuss words, or being disrespectful of another persons opinion, or which historians articles to refer to. I believe that the civil war could have been prevented if cooler heads and compromise would have been in greater evidence.
    Our congress, and our country are divided today, and if things keep going this way we are going down.

    ReplyDelete
  47. The ten causes of the Civil War:

    1. Slavery
    2. Slavery
    3. Slavery
    4. Slavery
    5. Southern arrogance
    6. Slavery
    7. Refusal to recognize that slavery is evil
    8. Evil
    9. Treason.
    A. Slavery.

    ReplyDelete
  48. As a person who has studied the Civil War extensively and had occasion to teach the subject a few times, I can tell you that most of those 10 reasons are complete tripe. Written BY a southerner trying to justify the South's actions by making the North look like the "bad guys" in this conflict. EVERY reason that the South names for trying to leave comes down to slavery and its preservation in the South. No if, ands, or buts.

    There is SO much wrong with the highly biased article, it could hardly be seen as any authoritve explanation as to why the Civil War happened. Yes, in some cases he makes good points. But for every good point, there are at least five bad ones, or just straight up fabrications. And he's warping ALL of them to make the South look like the innocent good guy, and the North, specifically New England, and Lincoln's administration, and evil, aggressive, tyrants. It's ALL a load of tripe!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apparently, Irish, you stepped on some toes with this post. Good for you. People still cannot get over their own bigotry, enough to at least look at the cause of the civil war dispassionately. There are reams of resources available on the war, and much of it is not pretty, and much of it describes things that the north did to provoke the south, not all related to the slave trade. Is it enough to make the cause of the war other than slavery? I am not sure that we can answer that today, no one is alive to tell us what the people saw, tasted, and experienced, and you cannot get their actual feelings in a diary, just what they were able to write. But I have followed this with much amusement. Thanks Irish, for a good topic.

      Delete
  49. Here are more thoughts about the history of 'our' Civil War.
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?125433-Real-reasons-for-the-Civil-War

    ReplyDelete
  50. A well written piece. I have also researched this topic at great length using original documents. In an earlier comment, someone mentioned the Corwin Amendment, which made it impossible for the Federal Government to EVER do away with slavery. It was passed in both houses by March 1861 and was sent out to begin ratification under Lincoln's cover letter. He mentioned it in his inaugural address, and expressed his approval with it.

    The title of this article addresses causes of the war, however many of the items set forth are really causes of secession. For the South to be fighting a war to preserve slavery, there must have been a force powerful enough to end slavery which was fighting to do so. Since the federal government was seeking to make slavery what Lincoln call "irrevocable", who was fighting to end slavery? And without the North fighting to end it, the South could not possibly be fighting to preserve it.

    If we are interested in learning what started the "war", then we have to look no further than the US Supreme Court.
    United States Supreme Court, THE PROTECTOR, (1871) Decided: December 1, 1871 http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/79/700.html

    In this unanimous US Supreme Court decision, it all becomes completely clear.

    "It is necessary, therefore, to refer to some public act of the political departments of the government to fix the dates[of the beginning of the war], and, for obvious reasons, those of the executive department which may be and in fact was, at the commencement of hostilities, obliged to act during the recess of Congress, must be taken.[They are about to refer to an act of Lincoln while congress was in recess.] "The proclamation of intended blockade by the President may therefore be assumed as marking the first of these dates..."

    So Abraham Lincoln started the Civil War single-handedly while congress was in recess when he proclaimed his intentions to blockade Southern ports. The purpose of this action is handled in the first point of this article, Tariffs. As stated, Federal tariffs were about 40% and tariffs in the CSA was 10%. Because Lincoln refused to recognize them as a nation, but consider them as states, he constitutionally could not charge a tariff on goods going from south to north. Ship's captains recognized this and numerous newspaper articles were written about it in March 1861. Every ship from Europe was expected to utilize this loophole, deliver their goods to Southern ports, pay a 10% tariff to the CSA and then transport the goods to their final destinations and pay no tariffs to the USA. This is why the Civil War started. The beginning of the war itself had absolutely nothing to do with slavery whatsoever.

    ReplyDelete
  51. It's difficult for anyone of our period to understand the motivations and fears of cultures so different than ours today. Certainly, anyone that thinks they can sum up the cause of the war in a sentence or two is not just ignorant, but programmed.
    Here is something to help some appreciate those times. There is a growing movement in CA to secede now that Trump was elected President eill very little support from CA. Whatever their stated reasons, it was Trump's election that tipped the scales toward the movement. Lincoln was not even pn the ballot in most Southern States! How do you think they felt?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Looking back at some of these comments, one thing seems to stand out. Many of these commenters prefer to remain anonymous. I wonder if that is because they are ashamed to put their names to the things that they post. I also find it strange that people seem so very certain that they are right, that they are reduced to name calling and spewing venom. Civility must not matter to many of the people when trying to prove themselves correct.

    ReplyDelete

Leave us a comment if you like...