150 years after the Civil War little is resolved

[theaustinescorts]

Controversy continues because the side that won wrote the history. Using brut force to impose one side's beliefs settles the issue only in that the opposition must submit, but it doesn't change their minds.

Here's what I think based on what I know of the FACTS, opposed to fanciful notions that the right side won and everything that happened was well worth it.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN

Never told the truth to the public about any topic...ever. Nothing he said on any topic can be believed.

Illinois was among the most racist states in the Union. Not only could blacks not own property or vote, BUT THEY COULDN'T EVEN SET FOOT IN THE STATE.

Lincoln had to say whatever people there wanted to hear, and that meant that he advocated for all slaves to be sent back to Africa. Today these statements are falsely used by some to "prove" that he was a racist also.
The second pillar of the Republican platform he ran under in 1858 and 1860 was ANT-CATHOLICISM. Yes, the two major issues the Republicans were founded on was anti-slavery and to expell or disinfranchise all Roman Catholics from the Republic [hardly a tolerant perspective]. Most of the people who voted for him in 1860 did so because they thought they were losing their jobs to Catholic immigrants. Did Lincoln himself believe any of the blather he said about Catholics? No. He lied. He always lied.

He spoke out against slavery on several very limited grounds, but what he really advocated for was a final solution to the crisis, which his own rhetoric was fueling. He never revealed what he would really do until the war was won, and then he did exactly what he said he would never do - emancipate them all and give the males the right to vote, something white women couldn't even do. The laws passed to effect this [even the ones after his death] only came into being because half of the country wasn't allowed to participate in the process. If they had it would have taken many more years to come about.

THE CAUSES OF THE WAR

It's true that slavery was the only thing that the north and south passionately disagreed about, but that doesn't mean that the war was about slavery [as most historians would like to believe].

The point of disagreement could have been anything. But once it clear that the north [under Lincoln's orders] was going to use ANY AMOUNT of force to prevent their self-determination they resisted to the bitter end.

Most of the leaders of the American revolution were from the south - Madison, Jefferson, Washington.

They fought for the right of each state to break away from a central power once that power's rule became unwanted. This is the reason why most of the southern states left in 1961. It is the single reason why southern soldiers fought - it was because the northern army was THERE - in their homes seeking to impose their will on them by force....period.

To the people of the south they were fighting for the same right of self-determination that their fathers or grandfathers had fought for.

Regarding slavery, it was the product of the Constitution. It was the system of franchise, checks and balances, or republicanism itself, which the founders fought for. It was passed into law by many statutes which were recognized by numerous court rulings. When Lincoln was elected many in the south concluded that he would use illegal means to limit or end slavery by force. They were right.

To some Lincoln is a hero. To others he is a villain; a madman. To many historians he is a "genius." In the end he was a winner. He got everything he wanted. But millions had to pay with unmeasurable suffering. For that reason he lost his life.

[DRorchia]

TAE, I find myself in the curious position of agreeing with most of what you wrote above. No truer statement has ever been uttered than "History is written by the victors". In the case of the Civil War this is certainly the case. Both sides have tried desperately over the years to make their cause more "righteous" than the other.
To give you an example....recently the Washington Post tried to explain the fact that 60% of Southerners at the time of the civil war did NOT hold slaves like this: 60% may not have owned slaves but they ASPIRED to and simply were too poor to afford them. This is the kind of drivel "journalists" and "historians" put forth in rags like the Washington Post.
It never occurred to them that some simply chose to farm themselves without the assistance of slaves. Robert E. Lee was vehemently against secession. Yet, when it came down to his native Virgina being forced into war, he could not envision raising his sword against his fellow Virginians. Lincoln actually had runaway slaves returned to the South during the EARLY stages of the Civil War. Lee owned no slaves himself prior to inheriting 63 of them after his father-in-law passed away.
I'm not making Lee out to be a hero simply pointing out some of the contradictions that existed among men like Lincoln, Lee, etc.
Lincoln lied as every single U.S President for the last 150 years or more has done.

It's sad to me that so many people today accept the Federal Governments absolute authority over everything as a matter of fact or as a necessity. As you stated, to many of the Southerners, the values and ideals of the founding fathers were still very much fresh in their minds. A powerful central/federal government is exactly what our founding fathers did NOT want.
It can't be ignored however that many Southern politicians used the North's opposition to slavery as a rallying cry. Many of the records from debates in the various Southern legislatures point to this fact. In other words, just like today, big business (large plantation owners) drove the agenda for the South. In the North it was the bankers. Today it's Wall Street. Nothing every really changes until the people take matters into their own hands.

[theaustinescorts]

German Texans [like my own family in New Braunfels] were opposed to slavery. But New Braunfels voted 90% in favor of secession because the north was sending an army of "volunteers" into the southern states to impose unity by force, regardless of the LEGAL nature of secession. If Texas today were to LEGALLY leave the union what would people here do if faced with an invasion of thousands of "volunteers" from Indiana or New York?

It's true that all politicians lie, but the problem with Lincoln is that "historians" use his statements, rather than his actions, to define what his intentions were.
IMHO he was a crafty, violent revolutionary who used horrific levels of violence and law-breaking to achieve his privately-held abolishonist views. He was a pathologically sick man prone to extreme bouts of narssistic self-pity. He suffered a serious head injury when he was a child which damaged his brain and malformed the growth of his cranium. He was totally absorbed in his own sufferings, but appeared to feel NO EMPATHY WHATSOEVER for the suffering of others.

All of the greatest evils pose themselves as benevolent remedies to the evils of others. The evils of slavery were clear to most, but they didn't justify the use of any form of destruction and law-breaking. That was clear to most people then because they had to live with that suffering, but today historians merely conclude that whatever the cost it was a noble thing.

Perhaps the biggest lie Lincoln ever told was embodied in the Gettysburg address. Therein he makes the perposterous claim that if any state were to leave the union that the American experiment in democracy will have failed, and that democracy itself will have "perished from the earth." This is of course EXACTLY the opposite of the truth. It was democratic principles, self-governance and self-determination, which led the Confederate states to form their own government.

[DRorchia]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

German Texans [like my own family in New Braunfels] were opposed to slavery. But New Braunfels voted 90% in favor of secession because the north was sending an army of "volunteers" into the southern states to impose unity by force, regardless of the LEGAL nature of secession. If Texas today were to LEGALLY leave the union what would people here do if faced with an invasion of thousands of "volunteers" from Indiana or New York?

I'm curious about this "army of volunteers" premise. At the outbreak of the civil war there were already 2700 federal troops throughout Texas in various federal forts. Most of these troops had been sent during the 1850's to protect westward traveling settlers. The Comanche and Kiowa were raising quite a ruckus in Texas with their constant raids on settlements. These Federal troops were very ineffective in any kind of fighting but particularly in Indian fighting. The point is though, that a couple of thousand of Federal troops were already in Texas so I'm not sure how large of an impetus this was to Texans rising up and fighting. Throughout the 1850's and up to the outbreak of the civil war, Texas had asked for more federal troops and equipment to help fight the Indians. I simply don't see this as a large catalyst for taking up arms. Other causes discussed such as slavery, possible admittance of more slave free states into the Union, states rights, etc were much larger driving forces behind the war in my opinion rather than a perceived invasion by Union volunteers.

It's true that all politicians lie, but the problem with Lincoln is that "historians" use his statements, rather than his actions, to define what his intentions were.
IMHO he was a crafty, violent revolutionary who used horrific levels of violence and law-breaking to achieve his privately-held abolishonist views. He was a pathologically sick man prone to extreme bouts of narssistic self-pity. He suffered a serious head injury when he was a child which damaged his brain and malformed the growth of his cranium. He was totally absorbed in his own sufferings, but appeared to feel NO EMPATHY WHATSOEVER for the suffering of others.

By all accounts Lincoln suffered from bouts of depression. However many, many accounts also exist about his high level of intelligence. I certainly don't view Lincoln as a "hero" but I do view him as an intelligent leader who had views opposed my many. He believed strongly in the preservation of the Union. Whether his views were correct or not, I don't put him in the category of "evil" by any means. He believed in a strong federal/central government. He started the dreaded income tax by signing the Revenue Act. There's many reasons to dislike him but I certainly don't view him as evil. IMHO he believed he was doing the right thing for the country overall.

All of the greatest evils pose themselves as benevolent remedies to the evils of others. The evils of slavery were clear to most, but they didn't justify the use of any form of destruction and law-breaking. That was clear to most people then because they had to live with that suffering, but today historians merely conclude that whatever the cost it was a noble thing.

Perhaps the biggest lie Lincoln ever told was embodied in the Gettysburg address. Therein he makes the preposterous claim that if any state were to leave the union that the American experiment in democracy will have failed, and that democracy itself will have "perished from the earth." This is of course EXACTLY the opposite of the truth. It was democratic principles, self-governance and self-determination, which led the Confederate states to form their own government.

I mostly agree with your last paragraph. Although I doubt our country would have been better off had the South won the war or even had they been allowed to peacefully secede, I also believe that the idea of a powerful central government, supreme over the individual states, has failed us miserably.

[theaustinescorts]

After the first southern states left Lincoln used the situation to illegally call for 75,000 volunteers to form a force to invade those states. Over 90,000 "enthusiasts" who hated the south volunteered. Of course the courts had nothing to say about any of this, any more than they could impose the rule of law on any of Lincoln's other illegal acts, not only to create the war but to assert dictatorial powers under the pretext of carrying it out.* Was he intelligent? Perhaps crafty and full of guile like Musollini, or Charles Manson for that matter. Was he motivated by the preservation of the union? I think not. He only SAID that was his motive because at the time it was the only one the people of the north would accept, but his ACTIONS revealed that he was really interested in destroying the south and it's social system.** In this regard simply consider that he maintained communication throughout the war with the Confederate Vice President [who was a friend of his] and he always refused to negotiate...he only wanted war. His problem was that he couldn't find any northern officers who were motivated to fight until Grant and Sherman [both similar psychos] showed up on the scene, and then the full weight of northern might was brought to bear. When that happened the south was laid waste. This happened because the sane members of the union officer corps had been disposed of under the pretext of "incompetence" and the war was now in the hands of three people who all suffered from anti-social personality disorder and other psychotic tendencies.

Historians have casually accepted that Lincoln was "prone to depression," but a closer examination reveals that he was merely fond of extreme self-pity, and obsessed with any suffering which might come his way. He loved the attention from others these episodes brought him, in which he would threaten to kill himself and played on others' sympathies. Everything about his life and career reveal him to be an extremely ambitious narcissist. The head injury he had when eleven damaged his left frontal lobe, and this usually leads to anti-social tendancies.***

Lincoln, Hitler, Stalin, and to a lesser extent Saddam Hussein, George W. Bush, and Barak Obama all have the same thing in common - very traumatic childhoods in which they were rejected by their families. Most psychologists accurately point to this a key factor in the formation of anti-social personality disorder and the inability to be able to feel empathy toward others. If such people are intelligent they often become highly manipulative and socially ambitious. In the cases of Lincoln, Hitler and Stalin there were also severe head injuries which effected the left frontal lobe.

To me the Civil War is typical of all modern wars. Both sides are usually wrong in some way. But the side that loses is usually less wrong than the side that wins.**** In this case the real cause of the war was northern aggression on the south. Like most wars it was sparked by one psycho, in this case Lincoln, who were then joined by other psychos, in this case Grant and Sherman.

*The wartime powers he claimed were of course intended for an executive when the country was invaded from without and dictatorial powers were necessary, NOT for an executive to CREATE a war with other members of the country.

**At first the north was motivated by the actions at Ft. Sumpter and simple nationalism. But once the carnage piled up there were second thoughts. By the time of Gettysburg Lincoln had to craft a whole new justification for the "unity" argument beyond simple nationalism. If you look to the argument he used in the Gettysburg address you will see that his case for preserving the union at that point was the false claim that democracy itself for all time would be lost if any state left the union. It's clearly an argument that he himself and no one else believed. That's why no one at Gettysburg who heard it reacted with any enthusiasm. It wasn't until after the war that this ridiculous argument was ressurected to justify the war.

***This would have to be supported by a whole treatise on it's own. I became aware of this when working with a forensic psychiatrist in a government monitoring program. Young people who have suffered a blow to the frontal lobes almost always become criminals if the injury is severe. In Lincoln's case a horse kicked him, and his cranium never developed on that side - one side of his face was smaller than the other.

****The case I point to most is WWII. The Germans may have been wrong in starting it, but once began what the Russians did was worse. Unlike the Germans, for example, the Red Army used the war as an excuse to rape and murder women as a matter of policy. Not only German women were raped, but women in all the "liberated" countries were raped and murdered as well. This occurred because all the Soviet leaders and Red Army commanders, from Stalin, Beria, etc. on down were serial rapists of women. The Germans sought to conquer the Soviets because their system was barbaric. They were right about at least that much.

p.s. The Federal armies present in Texas when it left the union were forced to surrender to Texas militias at the outset. This is what happened to all Federal units present in the Confederate states because these units failed to recognize the new soverignty of their host states.

[rCoder]

A couple of other points.

First, by the time of the civil war, slavery was already on the decline, mainly due to the reinvention of the rigid horse collar (a man and a horse were more economical than a team of slaves). Another generation or two and slavery would have ended peacefully.

Next was the trade economics. Basically the great trading houses (think wall street) were in a period of greed, increasing their cut of southern goods. The southerners didn't appreciate the profit loss, so started arranging their own trades with Europe. This really pissed off the trading houses who demanded their paid elected servants do something. As the only real power government has is its willingness to kill, this doing something soon escalated to war.

Finally don't believe for a second that the war was over slavery. Freeing the slaves was initially an economic threat against the South, then a tactical action during the war. The simple proof that Mr. Lincoln didn't have a problem with slavery was his introduction of involuntary servitude in the army, i.e., the draft and the crushing of the ensuing draft riots in 1863 my military force.

Sorry, Abe Lincoln's place in history should be that of an anti-hero or a villain. He did more damage to this country than FDR and Bush combined! And Obama is going to have to push us into hyperinflation to challenge Lincoln for worst president title.

[theaustinescorts]

Originally Posted by rCoder

A couple of other points.

First, by the time of the civil war, slavery was already on the decline, mainly due to the reinvention of the rigid horse collar (a man and a horse were more economical than a team of slaves). Another generation or two and slavery would have ended peacefully.

Next was the trade economics. Basically the great trading houses (think wall street) were in a period of greed, increasing their cut of southern goods. The southerners didn't appreciate the profit loss, so started arranging their own trades with Europe. This really pissed off the trading houses who demanded their paid elected servants do something. As the only real power government has is its willingness to kill, this doing something soon escalated to war.

Finally don't believe for a second that the war was over slavery. Freeing the slaves was initially an economic threat against the South, then a tactical action during the war. The simple proof that Mr. Lincoln didn't have a problem with slavery was his introduction of involuntary servitude in the army, i.e., the draft and the crushing of the ensuing draft riots in 1863 my military force.

Sorry, Abe Lincoln's place in history should be that of an anti-hero or a villain. He did more damage to this country than FDR and Bush combined! And Obama is going to have to push us into hyperinflation to challenge Lincoln for worst president title.

I agree that Lincoln is the worst President this country has ever had. He was this country's version of Stalin or Hitler. Both Hitler and Lincoln suffered frontal head injuries at the age of eleven which left them unconscious for days. Any forensic psychiatrist today would know what that can do. Hitler was elected Chancellor in 1932 with 37% of the vote; Lincoln was elected President with 39% of the vote, but only from those states in which he was on the ballot. He actually received a very small percentage of the total across the nation.

I disagree that economics played an important role however. It's true that there were important emerging financial issues between the regions, but those were not what caused Lincoln or the other actors to do what they did. Lincoln was a single-minded zealot bent on bringing the southern system to heal because he despised what he perceived as the arrogance of their elites. He actually knew no blacks and really didn't care about them. He only wanted the southern oligarcs to be humbled, and to bow and scrap to those who were formerly their servants. He was motivated by hate. Anyone would have to be in order to disregard the colossal level of suffering brought about by such actions. To those who suffered he offered only the most ridiculous, transparent and hollow platitudes as solace. The famous "letter to Mrs. Bixby" of Boston, who had FIVE SONS killed, illustrates this. Lincoln didn't bother to even write the letter himself, but had an aid pen it and arranged to have it published in the newspapers. It's full of ridiculous flourishes such as, "You have made this sacrifice upon the ALTER OF FREEDOM." As part of his PR campaign he spent weeks at a time at a military hospital near Washington where amputees and people with their faces and bowls blown off languished in horror while Lincoln himself felt absolutely nothing for them. Instead he felt only terror for himself as the stress of the first two years of the war when he was losing it took a huge toll on him. After July 4, 1863 when the tide turned and he started winning he was all smiles and his health rebounded somewhat, although he continued wasting and may have been suffering from some other serious physical illness. In this regard he also followed the pattern of Hitler, who's physical health deteriorated at the end of his war.