USA vs. CSA

Discussion in 'History Forum' started by KenH, Aug 29, 2003.

  1. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Instead of having to leap around several threads, why don't we just use this one thread I am starting to discuss our disagreements on the War Between the States(1861-1865)?

    I believe the Confederacy had just as much right to form a new nation as the the thirteen colonies did. Now one may not like the idea of the Confederacy being formed, but that does not mean there was no right to form it.

    The Declaration of Independence begins by stating:

    "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."

    Now, if you agree that these words spoke the truth for the thirteen colonies(which had slavery), why would anyone say that these words do not speak the truth for the Confederacy(which had slavery)?
     
  2. Bartimaeus

    Bartimaeus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2002
    Messages:
    909
    Likes Received:
    0
    Slavery is never right, especially the child slavery that was prevailing in the north when the underground railroad was open.

    My vote is for the CSA. May my relation rest in peace. Fought for the CSA from Arkansas and buried in Ash Flat.

    Thanks -------Bart
     
  3. Tanker

    Tanker
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    Messages:
    215
    Likes Received:
    0
    Some years ago, I was in Europe and listened informally to a young man, in his 30s, whose father was in Hitler's army. He expressed a great deal of remorse about Germany's conduct during the second world war, and indicated that even his father, fighting for Germany, was quite troubled by the war. He said his father, who was on the Russian front and survived, never had a bad word to say about the Russians, probably because he knew about the cruel treatment of Russians during the early part of the war. How different this young adult's attitude compared to many of the descendents of the CSA veterans! I also have relatives who were in the south and one ancestor was a slave owner, who sold all his slaves just before the war. The fact that I had one ancestor who was an owner of slaves does not color my thinking in the slightest to cause me to think that the institution was anything other than a cruel and inhuman practice. It seems to me that any apologist for the Confederacy assumes part of their guilt for this peculiar institution. Maybe the leaders of the Confederacy can be excused to some extent, because they never knew a situation where slavery did not exist. But their descendents have no such excuse and it is rather remarkable that these spirtual descendents are so glib about slavery, and excuse it so easily. You might as easily excuse Hitler's actions as well, since slavery is very similar and in fact he did resort to slavery in some cases. There are some apologists for Hitler, who claim that the Holocaust never happened. They are of course, liars and kooks without any redeeming moral fiber in their body. Apologists for the Confederacy may also be perceived in the same light by some. At least that is what these apologists are risking.
     
  4. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'll take the risk because I believe in the original intent of the Founding Fathers of this country.

    I noticed you did to deal with the point I made about the Revolutionary War and the War for Southern Independence.

    Can we stop these silly comparisons between Nazi Germany and the CSA? The same silly comment could be made about General Sherman and what he and his army did in rampaging through the CSA. It seems like any time someone wants to poison the well in debate nowadays, regardless of the subject, one likens their opposition to Hitler and/or Nazi Germany. It cheapens the debate.
     
  5. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is some info on Abraham Lincoln and his friends -

    "The great historian of the American west, Dee Brown, describes the historical origins of political insider trading in his book, Hear that Lonesome Whistle Blow: The Epic Story of the Transcontinental Railroads, which was recently brought to my attention by John Denson. The book tells the story of a group of men who might be called the founding fathers of political insider trading, the most prominent of which was Abraham Lincoln. The rest were some of the founding fathers of Lincoln’s Republican Party; many of them served as generals in the Union army.

    In the mid to late 1850s Lincoln was a prominent railroad lawyer. His clients included the Illinois Central, which at the time was the largest corporation in the world. In 1857 he represented the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad, which was owned by four men who would later become infamous as "robber barons" for receiving – and squandering – millions of dollars in federal subsidies for their transcontinental railroad. Granting these men their subsidies would become one of the first orders of business in the Lincoln administration.

    These men – Thomas Clark Durant, Peter Dey, Grenville Dodge, and Benedict Reed – were easterners from New England and New York State who had "a store of hard experience at canal and railroad building and financing," writes Dee Brown. And they must also have been quite expert at stealing taxpayers’ money for useless government-funded boondoggles. Prior to the War between the States, government subsidies for railroad and canal building were a financial disaster. So disastrous were these government pork barrel projects that by 1860, according to economic historian Carter Goodrich, Massachusetts was the only state in the union to have not amended its constitution to prohibit taxpayer subsidies to private corporations (Carter Goodrich, Government Promotion of American Canals and Railroads, 1800–1890, p. 231).

    In a dispute with a steamship company the above-mentioned men "sought out a first-rate lawyer, one who had a reputation for winning most of his cases," writes Dee Brown. "They found him in Springfield, Illinois and his name was Abraham Lincoln." The jurors in the case failed to reach a decision, but Lincoln’s performance "won him a considerable amount of attention in the Chicago press and among men of power, who two years later would push him into the race for President of the United States." One of those "men of power" was Chicago newspaper editor Joseph Medill, whose newspaper trumpeted the Lincoln candidacy on behalf of the railroad interests of Illinois.

    This powerful clique of New England/New York/Chicago business interests "aroused the suspicions of the South," says Brown, since they were so vigorously lobbying Congress to allocate huge sums of money for a transcontinental railroad across the Northern states. Southern politicians wanted the route to pass through their states, naturally, but they knew they were outgunned politically by the political clique from "the Yankee belt" (New England, Pennsylvania, Ohio, the upper Midwest).

    These Northern political insiders, who would form the core of leadership of the Republican Party and later, in some cases, of Lincoln’s army, positioned themselves to earn great riches from the proposed railroad subsidies. John C. Fremont, who would be a general in Lincoln’s army, was a wealthy California engineer who conducted an extensive engineering survey "to make certain that the most favorable route would end up not in San Diego but in northern California, where Fremont himself claimed sizable land holdings." Another wealthy Yankee, Pierre Chouteau, "put his money into a St. Louis factory to make iron rails and went to Washington to lobby for the 38th parallel route."

    Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas "owned enough strategically located land in Chicago to be a millionaire if his favored route westward through Council Bluffs and Omaha was chosen . . ."

    And "Abraham Lincoln, the future President evidently agreed with his debating partner that the route through Council Bluffs-Omaha and the South Pass was the most practical. Lincoln acquired land interests at Council Bluffs" (emphasis added). A short time later, after the Chicago/New England/New York "men of power" propelled him into the White House, Lincoln began signing legislation giving these men millions of acres of public lands and other subsidies for their railroads.

    Virtually all of the "leading lights" of the Republican Party got in on the political insider trading game by demanding bribes for their votes in favor of the subsidies. Pennsylvania congressman Thaddeus Stevens "received a block of . . . stock in exchange for his vote," but he also demanded "insertion of a clause [in the subsidy legislation] requiring that all iron used in the construction and equipment of said road to be American manufacture." In addition to being a congressman, Stevens was a Pennsylvania iron manufacturer. At the time, British iron was far cheaper than Pennsylvania iron, so that Stevens’s "restrictive clause" placed a bigger burden on the taxpayers of the North who, at the time, were already being taxed to death to finance the war.

    Congressman Oakes Ames, "who with his brother Oliver manufactured shovels in Massachusetts, became a loyal ally [of the subsidy-seeking railroad companies] and helped to pressure the 1864 Pacific Railway Act through the war-corrupted Congress." (It took a lot of shovels to dig railroad beds from Iowa to California).

    During the post-war Grant administration the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives, Schuyler Colfax (later Grant’s vice president) visited the western railroad routes to attend a ceremony in his honor but, writes Dee Brown, "he preferred cash above honors, and back in Washington he eagerly accepted a bundle of Credit Mobilier stock from his follow congressman Oakes Ames, and thus became a loyal friend of the Union Pacific."

    Another of Lincoln’s generals, General John Dix, was the Washington lobbyist for the railroads who "spent most of his time strutting about Washington in a general’s uniform." (Dix was the same general who Lincoln ordered in 1862 to shut down all the opposition newspapers in New York City and arrest and imprison the editors and owners).

    General William Tecumseh Sherman was also sold land at below-market prices and, after the war, he would be in charge of a twenty-five year campaign of ethnic genocide against the Plains Indians, which was yet another form of veiled subsidy to the railroad corporations. After the war Grenville Dodge, who was also a Union Army general despite his lack of military training, proposed making slaves of the captured Indians and forcing them "to do the grading, with the Army furnishing a guard to make the Indians work, and keep them from running away."

    These men – the founding fathers of insider trading – were responsible for the massive corruption of the Grant administrations which was only the beginning of what historians call "the era of good stealings."

    August 30, 2003

    Thomas J. DiLorenzo [send him mail] is the author of the LRC #1 bestseller, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War (Forum/Random House, 2002) and professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland."

    --www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo51.html
     
  6. Bro. James Reed

    Bro. James Reed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2002
    Messages:
    2,992
    Likes Received:
    0
    You're sure using this phrase a lot in these discussions. and, that's funny because I don't recall any of us apologizing for the war.

    Would it make you feel better if we all said we are in favor of slavery and we wish we could have slaves today? :rolleyes:

    The fact of the matter is, while I do not support slavery, I would have been in support of each state deciding that factor on their own. As the Constitution did not allow the Federal gov't. to become involved in such matters, it was legally a state matter. So, regardless of whether the so-called "issue" of the war was slavery, the deeper fact was that the federal government was impeding on the rights of each state to decide that for themselves.

    A question. Would you have been against the war if the south had no slaves?
     
  7. Taufgesinnter

    Taufgesinnter
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would agree in principle that neither the colonies nor the South had the right to rebel against the rulers God had placed over them. The right to revolt was implied by the social contract and the idea that governments existed by the consent of the governed--all of which come out of Enlightenment rationalism and its political philosophy, and seems repugnant to Scripture.
     
  8. Taufgesinnter

    Taufgesinnter
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    0
    You're sure using this phrase a lot in these discussions. and, that's funny because I don't recall any of us apologizing for the war.

    Would it make you feel better if we all said we are in favor of slavery and we wish we could have slaves today? :rolleyes:

    The fact of the matter is, while I do not support slavery, I would have been in support of each state deciding that factor on their own. As the Constitution did not allow the Federal gov't. to become involved in such matters, it was legally a state matter. So, regardless of whether the so-called "issue" of the war was slavery, the deeper fact was that the federal government was impeding on the rights of each state to decide that for themselves.
    </font>[/QUOTE]In your view, the slaves in those states, as a matter of the fundamental human right not to be owned, should have had a vote on the issue, yes? (Notwithstanding the fact that slavery is a violation of common law.)
     
  9. Tanker

    Tanker
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    Messages:
    215
    Likes Received:
    0
    &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It seems to me that any apologist for the Confederacy...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    You're sure using this phrase a lot in these discussions. and, that's funny because I don't recall any of us apologizing for the war.&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;
    ..............................................
    An apologist is someone who defends a viewpoint, and not necessarily one who apologizes for it.
     
  10. Tanker

    Tanker
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    Messages:
    215
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is ironic that many southern conservatives would fight at the drop of a hat to repel encroachments on individual liberty far less serious than slavery and yet somehow find it very hard to be critical of slavery, which must be one of the most terrible attacks on liberty that it is possible to imagine. There is an inconsistency there they don't seem to recognize. Maybe it is because in regard to slavery, it is not their liberty that was being taken away.
     
  11. Tanker

    Tanker
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    Messages:
    215
    Likes Received:
    0
    &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Now, if you agree that these words spoke the truth for the thirteen colonies(which had slavery), why would anyone say that these words do not speak the truth for the Confederacy(which had slavery)? &lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

    If you think slavery is a good thing, then the southern rebellion was right and just. But if you think as I do, that slavery was a great crime and most unchristian, then the rebellion was illegal and deserves to be put down.
     
  12. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think as you do(thank God!). [​IMG]

    I defend the right of the CSA to secede based on States' rights, free markets, and limited constitutional government.
     
  13. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Slavery of blacks by themselves no longer exists. Since we worked until about July 11 this year to pay for all of federal, State, and local spending I submit that all U.S. citizens are slaves to Leviathan.

    Slavery in the 1860's was a dying institution. Do you know that the USA was the only nation to stop slavery by violent means? The European nations stopped slavery without having to resort violence. I find that to be DEVASTATING to the argument of Yankees and their supporters that invading the South was necessary in order to stop slavery.
     
  14. Taufgesinnter

    Taufgesinnter
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think as you do(thank God!). </font>[/QUOTE]Very sad.
     
  15. ChurchBoy

    ChurchBoy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2003
    Messages:
    598
    Likes Received:
    0
    KenH,

    I would agree with you that the CSA did have the right to form into a nation. However, like the original 13 colonies they needed to create their nation my defending their homeland by military force. Unlike the 13 colonies the CSA lost their war and had to suffer the consequences of their actions.
     
  16. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Agreed.
     
  17. Tanker

    Tanker
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    Messages:
    215
    Likes Received:
    0
    &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Slavery in the 1860's was a dying institution. Do you know that the USA was the only nation to stop slavery by violent means? The European nations stopped slavery without having to resort violence. I find that to be DEVASTATING to the argument of Yankees and their supporters that invading the South was necessary in order to stop slavery.&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

    I don't think anyone has ever made the argument that the south was invaded to stop slavery, at least not in the beginning of the war. The rationale was that force was necessary keep the southern states in the union. After a couple of years, emancipation was proclaimed as a war measure to aid in the prosecution of the war. Also, Lincoln made a mighty effort to push laws through Congress to compensate the slaver owners who would gradually free their slaves. Congress refused to accept this idea.
     
  18. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Aha! Thanks for admitting that. Now, let's move on. [​IMG]
     
  19. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    5,145
    Likes Received:
    25
    If I remember correctly (and this can be checked fairly easily but I don't have time right now), you should find that this was in 1862 in the "Northern" post-secession Congress and only related to the remaining slave states in the Union, therefore having nothing particularly to do with the CSA.
     
  20. Dale

    Dale
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Messages:
    246
    Likes Received:
    0
    Have any of you considered the similarities of slavery to moderen industry? You have all of your benifits etc. Very similar to slavery of before, just a different form.
    For what it is worth, I don't see a prohibition of slavery in the Bible, I see only "servants obey your masters"
    As I see it, the Bible only prohibits the obuse of slavery.
    The owner OWNS the labor of the slave and the slave is entitled to all of his needs, namely food, clothes, a place to live and any medical attention needed.
    Today, businesses own the labor of their employees for whatever amount that has been contracted, say 9-5 for instance.
    Under this contract, the owner of the company owns the labor of this person for that time. In exchange, the owner owes the worker whatever has been contracted which usually is simialr to that of the slave: sufficient monetary compensation to pay for housing, clothes, etc. ALso insurance is usually part of the deal which covers not only the employee, but his family as well in most cases.
    If you see anything wrong with what I have said, please let me know, I sure don't claim to know it all but this sems reasonable to me.
    PLease show me if slavery is Biblically wrong too.

    Thanks
     

Share This Page

Loading...