You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Collective Salvation and the War of Northern Aggression”.
« Previous Post Marc Faber: Massive Money Printing By October
To “Nudge” Away Religion Next Post »
What say you?
The Civil War was, like most other things in human history, and somewhat more so in the case of the US, a matter of competing economic interests. The South was strongly bound to an agricultural economy and the North, a more industrial and banking economy. There was aggression on both sides, so don't kid yourself.
It is so convenient to try to forget that the economic base of the south was built upon the ownership of black slaves and the denial of their person-hood by the U.S. constitution (our "Founding Fathers" saw these same "Negroes" as only 3/5's of a human being). The "War of Northern Aggression", as this deluded author calls it begun to right this wrong that our "Founding Fathers" created.
There is no way you can whitewash slavery and the injustice the United States committed against non-white people. Glen Beck's faux-history seems to be working it's magic in a Joseph Goebbels kind of way.
Well, I should have made it more clear in the post that Beck sees it the way you do. He loves Lincoln. And nobody is defending or white-washing the atrocities of slavery here either.
The north was as much (if not more) racist than was the south. Yet slavery ended peacefully in the north, not through bloodshed. Same for countless countries all across the globe ... The so-called "civil" war started over tariffs, not slavery. Lincoln used the slaves as pawns to gain support his war.
The "3/5's" you're referring to was designed to limit the power of slave-holding states, not to denigrate anyone.
“The so-called “civil” war started over tariffs, not slavery. ”
-Not so!
Read South Carolina’s Article of Secession…….
“The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States.”
“The right of property in slaves….”
“Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution”
Sounds like South Carolina is piss’d off that they can’t have slaves any longer! So much for revisionist history.
To David:
You really should read more about what your precious Abe Lincoln really thought about the horrors of slavery as well as blacks themselves. Remember - history is written by those that win.
[...] The Classic Liberal has a post about ‘Collective Salvation.” This is what happens when Marxism and Religion combine. [...]
The 3/5's rule was instituted to give the slave states more voice in the House of Representatives.
“The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.
"The so-called “civil” war started over tariffs, not slavery. "
-Not so!
From South Carolina's Article of Secession.......
"The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States."
"The right of property in slaves...."
"Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution"
So much for revisionist history.
All wars are about economics. The Civil War was no exception. There were three main causes for the Civil War: slavery, sectionalism, and states's rights. Slavery was not the primary issue BEFORE the Civil War, but it has become that today. The war was promoted as saving the Union, which was essentially a states rights issue. Most of those fighting for the Confederacy were fighting to conserve their Southern culture. Why was important to save the Union? The Nothern industries need Southern resources. Again, we are back to economics.
I think too many gross generalizations have been made in the article and by subsequent posts. "Post-millennialism" beliefs did not cause the civil, er War of Northern Aggression, any more than neo-conservatism caused the Iraq war. To say that all "Yankees" were post-millennial believers is to show a gross lack of understanding of the Christians inhabiting our dear country. Christians can't all agree on most anything, let alone what the bible says will happen in the end days. There are at least four different basic understandings about what will occur. Most church buildings contain some people holding some or all of the different views. That said, Christian worldviews did lead directly to the push to end slavery, just as Christian thought leads to opposition to abortion today.
The typical southern male did not fight to retain the right to own slaves--most did not own slaves. They fought to defend their homes. The south then (and now) does not like northern know-it-alls to dictate how they run their lives. Southerners were fiercely independent. I happen to agree with their view that the North had no right to stop them from seceding if that was their desire. The union was a voluntary agreement of individual states, and thus as with any other voluntary agreement can be annulled.
Both ClL and Mr. Walters glom on to a particular writer or a particular quotation from a state constitution and jump to the conclusion that they know what motivated all persons involved on both sides of the conflict.
I've gone back and actually read some of the newspapers written in the time leading up to the election of Lincoln, and the swift rush to secession from the union thereafter. The southerners, at least those writing in the Richmond Times, hated Lincoln for what he stood for, his ideas. He had not done anything yet. It took days and weeks to learn who won. Shortly after learning who won, and before he could do anything to justify their anger, they seceeded.
The war ultimately was fought over the right to decide--does the federal government have the right to dictate how the individual states run their lives. Unfortunately, the answer was decided in the affirmative. I say that not because I support slavery--I wish that issue had been decided peacefully before this issue had arisen, as it clouds the issue. Let's say instead that it was fought over the issue of abortion, or prohibition, or even the federal income taxes. I for one would come down vehemently on the side of the individual states having the power to run their own affairs without having outside interference from know it alls from other states being involved. Often, the federal government stands up to individual states for the right "reasons" (slavery, racial biggotry, discrimination) and forces them to back down. But that begs the issue: do other states have the right (not the power--we already decided they have the power) to tell other states what they can and cannot do? Or OUGHT the other states--through the federal government--exercise the power to tell other states what they can and cannot do? No, a million times no. Butt out. MYOB. Classic Lib, that's the libertarian streak in me talking. Or at least the limited government part of me talking.
[...] did all this lead? Libertarian author Murray Rothbard described the evolution of what might be called the Yankee ethos, based in large part on their view of collective salvation and the importance of “good [...]
One can argue that the primary reason SC seceded was the slavery issue (though without the tariff issue I seriously doubt SC would have left the Union). However, that is not to say that the War started over slavery. Secession and war are two entirely different things. Southern Sudan just voted to secede from Sudan. They have US support in this and the secession is expected to be largely peaceful. When SC seceded, she became an independent republic and resumed total sovereignty over all her lands (including the small island in Charleston harbour where the Feds based a military force for the purposes of collecting the tariff tax their regime so dependend upon). Once the Feds military was removed (without death) from SC lands, there was no reason that SC and the Union couldn't have traded and prospered in peace. But Old Abe called up a huge invasion force and sent it into Virgina, prompting the Upper South states to leave the Union and starting the war. The war was started by Lincoln then and fought over the issue of invasion and independence (just like the Revolutionary War) - not slavery.