Harper's Weekly from 1861 - Why the Civil War was fought

[azminuteman]

Slavery never would have lasted past the industrial revolution, period.

 

[Alex Libman]

Slavery didn't end immediately anyway, people needed time to adjust. Maybe with a more free-market solution the descendants of slaves would have been better in the long run...

 

[Politeia]

1) South Carolina seceded on Dec. 20th, 1960, before Lincoln took office. My point was that Lincoln faced a divided Union before he took office. The secession was pre-emptive based upon assumptions about what Lincoln would do as President.

2) My statement: "The fact that the Civil War was really fought to preserve the Union only serves to show that Ron Paul does not have his facts straight."

You misunderstood. I was saying that this exerpt from Harper's Weekley does not vindicate Ron Paul's statement:

"This war is prosecuted for the maintenance of the Union and of the indivisible nationality of the United States. It is not, as foreigners suppose, a war for tariffs, or on account of slavery. The United States Government has no other object in view than the assertion of its authority over the whole of its dominion, and the practical refutation of the subversive doctrines of secession and State sovereignty."

You know more about the historical details than I do, but I don't think that was the point of Dr. Paul's (rather hurried and harassed) statement on MTP: He was responding not to the actual facts of history, but to the common, deliberately (as in "the winners write the history") misguided view -- pushed repeatedly by Russert in the interview -- that the "Civil" War's purpose was to end slavery. All he was saying was that if that was its purpose, there were other, far more peaceful and less harmful ways it could have been done. He didn't say that was its purpose, as he certainly knows better: both what its "official" purpose was, and what its real purpose was. In any such event, there are at least these three levels.

Of course, the clip from Harpers (the MSM of its day) does not "support" what Ron Paul said, because "ending slavery" was not the "official" reason for the war -- any more than getting control of Iraq's oil, or doing Israel's dirty work, is the "official" reason for the present war. But the War Party of that time had certainly done its best to pump up the slavery issue, as the War Party of our time pumps up anti-Muslim hatred. That's what War Parties do.

3) I think its pretty arrogant of you to call me a "newcomer", as if an individual's support of Dr. Paul begins at the point in time when they register on this forum.

Your jumping to conclusion in this matter seemed to me sophomoric, nor do I think you would have done so if you'd been around Dr. Paul for any length of time and were familiar with his thinking. If you "support" someone, seems to me it makes sense to get to know him a little.

4) In 1869 in the case Texas v. White, the U.S. Supreme Court declared secession unconstitutional.

Of course they did, just as the Supreme Court in the 1930s/40s cooperated with Roosevelt's crimes. I believe Lincoln threatened the Court, as Roosevelt did, to bring them into line with his plans. The Court can rule that the sun rises in the west, but that won't make the sun rise in the west. The Court is at least as corrupt as the other two branches. Even Hercules had to work pretty hard to clean out the Augean Stables.

 

[Politeia]

Lincoln was a Fascist

I don't follow the MSM, so was unaware that apparently just now there is a crescendo of criticism therein of RP's remarks re the "Civil" War -- as I learn from the cascade of responses being posted this evening on the LRC blog: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog.

One thing I'd never noticed before (I've never visited the Lincoln Memorial in Wash DC) but Lew Rockwell points out, is that the Imperial-style statue of the Great Man is "festooned with fasces" --

http://www.destination360.com/north...images/s/washington-dc-lincoln-memorial-s.jpg

-- the two standing bundles of rods on which His hands are resting. Interesting, in that in Lincoln's time most educated people would know what they stand for, though hardly anyone does now. Hint: the word "fascism" is derived from "fasces":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces

 

[johngr]

Though I'm sure Woods' book is excellent (haven't seen it yet), to be precise it wasn't even a "War Between The States", the usual term used by those who understand that it wasn't a Civil War (a civil war is a conflict over who will rule a nation; the Confederate States didn't want to rule the United States, they had seceded). It was actually an aggressive war by the Washington, D.C. political entity (the federal government) to conquer the theretofore sovereign states, in which the Northern (non-seceding) States were duped (mostly due to anti-slavery passion) into helping Lincoln and the federal entity conquer themselves as well as the Southern states. The end result was to turn the governmental system on this continent upside-down, placing the federal government above the states, who'd originally created it. If it weren't so tragic, it'd be pretty funny.

Actually, many in the northern states saw what was happening and objected, which was why Lincoln "suspended" habeas corpus and jailed thousands of dissenters -- as well as draft resisters. He was a tyrant and a madman. (And, BTW, I am not a Southerner, nor were any of my ancestors.)

The War of Northern Aggression is what I've seen it called that seems most apropos and have taken to calling it. It is interesting that references to the United States before the war were plural and after the war it was referred to as a singular entity.