|
What Caused the Civil War?
What Caused the Civil War: Slavery, States' Rights, or Secession?
First Viewpoint presented by Abraham Lincoln
What Caused the Civil War?
Was President Abraham Lincoln moot or silent about What Caused
the Civil War? No. However, one will never hear the Abraham Lincoln admirer quote Lincoln (aka Honest Abe or Father
Abraham) on what he literally stated regarding what caused the Civil War. Why does the Lincoln fanatic always
insist on quoting anything, everything and anyone else? Simple. Because the truth doesn't adhere to the person's
view of Lincoln. Regarding the Lincoln worshipper, just ask one question: Why doesn't said person quote
President Lincoln on what he literally said and wrote relating to what caused the Civil War? The Lincoln lover will
always quote one or two Southern documents, out of context, in order to support and purport flawed views and ideologies. And
why do they intentionally avoid Lincoln's very own documents, letters, and speeches? Because everything indicts Lincoln.
Remember, Lincoln, as commander-in-chief, went to war, the bloodiest war in America's history and without the consent
of Congress, so Lincoln is accountable and his words must be considered. Whether it be referred to as a war, rebellion
or conflict, the reader will examine Lincoln's very own words regarding what caused the Civil War.
| What Caused the Civil War, Secession or Slavery? |
|
| President Abraham Lincoln, Slavery, States' Rights, Secession |
Regarding what caused the Civil War, the President of the United States—as
commander-in-chief and chief executive—declared that the sole cause of the Civil War was secession. Lincoln never stated
that slavery caused the Civil War. Lincoln chose war to suppress what he deemed a rebellion in the Southern states. If the
South embraced and espoused slavery and if the South stated that the institution, alone, justified war, it was ultimately
the President of the United States, possessing absolute responsibility and duty as chief executive for the nation, who, to
the contrary, declared war on the Southern states because of secession. As President, Lincoln declared that the South was
guilty only of rebellion, and, without the consent of Congress and contrary to pleas
from the Supreme Court, Lincoln raised an army and subsequently invaded the Southern states. Moreover, the decision to declare
war or to suppress a rebellion, and to state what caused the Civil War, was proclaimed by President Abraham Lincoln himself;
and he stated his position for war clearly. See also Civil War Causes, Southern States Secede, and Secession of the
South History.
Prior to April 15, 1861, seven Southern states, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, had seceded from the Union. On April 15, 1861, Lincoln stated in his Call For Troops that the only cause of the Civil War was secession in the Southern states,
and that troops were being called upon in order to "suppress the rebellion" and force the states back into the Union. Just
2 days after Lincoln's Call for Troops to raise an army and invade the South, Virginia seceded (April 17), followed by Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee. Kentucky, meanwhile, refused to recruit a single soldier for Lincoln's "wicked cause," and Maryland, a free state, was invaded by U.S. troops and placed under martial law, while
Delaware, though of divided loyalty, did not attempt it. In Missouri, on October 31, 1861, a pro-CSA remnant of the General Assembly met and passed
an ordinance of secession.
The Five Civilized Tribes even aligned themselves with the
Confederacy, and the Cherokee Nation in its formal declaration to unite with the Southern states leveled, among many, the
following blistering accusations against Lincoln and the Union: “But in the Northern States the Cherokee people saw
with alarm a violated Constitution, all civil liberty put in peril, and all the rules of civilized warfare and the dictates
of common humanity and decency unhesitatingly disregarded. In States which still adhered to the Union a military despotism
has displaced the civil power and the laws became silent amid arms. Free speech and almost free thought became a crime. The
right to the writ of habeas corpus, guaranteed by the Constitution, disappeared at the nod of a Secretary of State or a general
of the lowest grade. The mandate of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was set at naught by the military power, and this
outrage on common right approved by a President sworn to support the Constitution.…Lincoln sent armies into Southern
States to aid in subjugating a people struggling for freedom, to burn, to plunder, and to commit the basest of outrages on
women; while the heels of armed tyranny trod upon the necks of Maryland and Missouri, and men of the highest character and
position were incarcerated upon suspicion and without process of law in jails, in forts, and in prison-ships, and even women
were imprisoned by the arbitrary order of a President and Cabinet ministers; while the press ceased to be free.”
President Lincoln on Slavery, Black Race, States' Rights,
Secession
| What caused the Civil War? |
|
| What were the causes of the Civil War? |
The 13th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified after President Lincoln's death in 1865. Seven years before said ratification, in his 1858 debate with
Stephen Douglas, Lincoln exclaimed:
"I will say, then, that I am
not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races
– that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to
hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between
the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political
equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must
be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned
to the white race." (President Abraham Lincoln: Race, Slavery, Emancipation, States' Rights, Southern Secession, and What Caused
the Civil War?)
In a speech on October 15, 1858, Lincoln went even further:
"We profess to have no taste for running and catching niggers -- at least I profess no taste for that job at
all."
Just before Lincoln was inaugurated
in 1861, Congress proposed an amendment, commonly referred to as the Corwin Amendment, to the Constitution that would have protected slavery:
In his First Inaugural Address, Lincoln specifically mentioned this amendment,
and voiced no objection to it:
"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution – which
amendment, however, I have not seen – has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere
with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what
I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision
to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." (President Abraham Lincoln: Emancipation, Corwin Amendment, 13th
Amendment to the Constitution.)
Lincoln's solution to Blacks in the United States, since the
1840s, was to colonize the entire Black Race. Lincoln had been an advocate of the American Colonization
Society program of colonizing blacks in Liberia, Africa. Lincoln, in a speech in Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854, transcribed
after the fact by Lincoln himself, exclaims the immense difficulties of such a task are an obstacle to finding an
easy way to quickly end slavery:
Lincoln mentioned colonization favorably in his first Emancipation
Proclamation, and continued to support efforts at colonization throughout his entire presidency. As late as February 1865,
Congress was debating funding to ship blacks to Africa (Congression Record Feb 1865).
Some Southern politicians did indeed defend slavery, but not as strongly as Abraham Lincoln did in his first
inaugural address, where he supported the enshrinement of Southern slavery explicitly
in the U.S. Constitution (the "Corwin Amendment") for the first time in history. Coming from the president of the United States,
this was the strongest defense of slavery ever made by an American. (President Abraham Lincoln in his own words from "What Caused the
Civil War to Civil Rights.")
| President Abraham Lincoln |
|
| "I'm Father Abraham, kneel for thy blessing..." |
"The First, Second, Ninth, and Tenth amendments [to the Constitution] and States' Rights have
been unlawfully trampled upon by the Federal government since the early days of the republic...The Civil War was not principally
about slavery, and Abraham Lincoln was no friend to the slaves." Professor Thomas E. Woods, Jr., author of bestselling
The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History . About Thomas E Woods, Jr.: He holds an AB from Harvard and a Ph.D. from Columbia. He teaches American
History, is the associate editor of The Latin Mass Magazine, and is a prolific essayist on historical subjects. He lives with
his family in Coram, New York.
(Right) Statue of President Abraham Lincoln, while towering over a kneeling black man, giving a blessing. Is
he really Father Abraham? Can Lincoln also walk on water?
The Southern states never sought to overthrow the U.S. government and its institutions; they merely
wanted independence from Washington. They did not seek war, but, to the contrary, they desired a peaceful withdrawal from
the Union.
In the midst
of the secession crisis that would lead to the Civil War, President James Buchanan, in his final State of the Union address
on December 3, 1860, acknowledged the South would "after having first used all peaceful and constitutional means
to obtain redress, would be justified in revolutionary resistance to the Government of the Union."
"Chief Justice Roger B. Taney blamed the entire Civil War on President Abraham Lincoln."
As president, Lincoln exercised unprecedented, unconstitutional war powers, including the arrest
and detention, without trial, of thousands of suspected secessionists. (President Abraham Lincoln and War Powers.)
In 1861, Lincoln, wielding powers that the Constitution does not grant him and without a formal declaration of war,
drastically enlarges the Union’s army and navy, blockades Southern ports, spends money not appropriated by Congress,
and arrests thousands of Northern citizens suspected of being Confederate sympathizers. All of these steps exceed his authority
under the Constitution and under Federal law.
In his First Inaugural Address, President Lincoln voiced his opinion
that the South had no legal right to secede. Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Roger B. Taney, who administered
the oath of office to Lincoln, on the other hand, believed strongly that the South's secession was legal,
not forbidden by the Constitution, and in the best interests of both sections of the country. (President Abraham Lincoln and the Chief Justice and President Lincoln and the Supreme Court.)
Chief Justice Taney also believed that secession - its decision - was the
perfect case reserved exclusively for the Supreme Court, the Judiciary, and not reserved for the President,
the Executive, to decide himself. Lincoln strongly disagreed, and broadly overstepped his constitutional powers as commander in chief to prosecute the war, suspending the writ of habeas corpus, censoring
the mails, and even authorizing military courts to try civilians for treason. (President Abraham Lincoln and Ex Parte Merryman: Slavery, South Secedes,
Civil War Causes and President Lincoln and Ex Parte Milligan: Supreme Court, Civil Rights,
and Civil War.)
| States' Rights, Secession, Constitution |
|
| Secession, States' Rights, What Caused the Civil War |
| What Caused the Civil War, Slavery, States' Rights |
|
| South, Southern Secession, Abolition of Slavery |
Taney opposed every presidential wartime initiative and openly challenged
Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. Taney even accused the president of assuming dictatorial
powers in violation of the Constitution. Lincoln, who ignored Taney's protests and brushed aside the Supreme
Court, was convinced that only his sole actions and decisions were both constitutional and necessary to preserve
the union. Separation of Powers had now been 100 percent trumped and replaced by [total] despotism.
(Secession Caused the Civil War and Cherokee Nation Declaration of Secession: What Caused
the Civil War.)
Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, often
referred to as the War Powers Clause, furthermore, also vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war, in the following
wording: [Congress shall have Power...] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures
on Land and Water[.]" Notice that the Executive branch, the President, is not reserved the power to declare
war, period.
With the Mexican-American War
looming in 1846, (then) Congressman Lincoln believed and stated that only Congress possessed absolute authority for war powers
or war-making power. He referred to any president who declared any war without the consent of Congress as an oppressive king.
Congressman Lincoln then moved for a Resolution issuing the President (Polk) interrogatories (questions) so the Congress could
determine and declare war against Mexico. Years later as president, Lincoln, however, without the consent of Congress,
declared war on the rebellion in the Southern states.
“The provision of the Constitution
giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been
involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the
object. This our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved
to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But
your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood.” ---1846
Congressman Abraham Lincoln addressing President James K. Polk
The Southern states never sought to overthrow the U.S. government or its
institutions; they merely wanted independence from Washington. They did not seek war, but, to the contrary, they desired a
peaceful withdrawal from the Union.
"The right to the writ of habeas corpus, guaranteed by
the Constitution, disappeared at the nod of a Secretary of State or a general of the lowest grade. The mandate of the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court was set at naught by the military power, and this outrage on common right approved by a President
sworn to support the Constitution." October 28, 1861, Cherokee Nation Declaration of Secession and War Against
the United States of America
| President Abraham Lincoln, Secession, Civil War |
|
| "I murdered 620,000, and now I am 'Lincoln the God!'" |
| Southern Secession, States' Rights, Slavery |
|
| Abraham Lincoln, What Caused the Civil War |
President Abraham Lincoln made it clear that the North was fighting the Civil War to preserve the Union, and that the principal
or paramount cause of the Civil War was secession itself.
What is secession? It is the withdrawal of a state (or states) from
the Union.
(Right) In 1865, 'Apotheosis of Lincoln' images were created en masse.
This one depicts Lincoln as a Christ-like figure in the heavens (note the cap of Mithra/Nimrod hanging from the pole in the
foreground).
On
March 4, 1861, President
Lincoln uses his First Inaugural Address to attempt to reassure the Southern states that he will protect their interests
regarding slavery. He warns, however, that any attempt to secede from the Union will be viewed as a violation of law and met
with appropriate consequences. (Lincoln's Call For Troops.)
Lincoln stated in his First Inaugural Address:
President Abraham Lincoln was quite vocal and very adamant about "What Caused
the Civil War?" Notice that Lincoln made his "paramount object" very clear - secession, not slavery.
On August 22, 1862, President
Abraham Lincoln again stated: "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..." (Abraham Lincoln: What Caused the Civil War?)
The North believed it was losing the Civil War (1861-1865), so Lincoln
drafted this desperate measure, known as the Emancipation Proclamation. It was designed to keep England and France from
siding with the South, but the racist proclamation only freed those slaves that were under the control of the Confederate
government, which means that it basically freed no one. Lincoln declared that only "persons held as slaves within said designated
States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States,
including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons." (American Civil War and International Diplomacy, The Trent Affair, and Preventing Diplomatic Recognition of the Confederacy.)
The U.S. Constitution and U.S. or Federal laws (not the South or Southern states) protected, and even promoted, the entire slave trade.
| States' Rights and Constitution |
|
| I am so sick and tired of that Constitution! |
Regarding the entire institution of slavery, all slave
laws (The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 for example) were all “Federal laws, not State's laws.”
If the Northern states had wanted to change slave and slavery laws they would have had to challenge the United
States (Union) not the Southern states. (Slave Trade: Questions and Answers.)
If slavery was really the cause of the Civil
War (1861-1865), the United States could have averted the entire conflict. The United States could have proposed
and passed a bill or constitutional Amendment before the Civil War witnessed its first shot. Why didn't
the United States abolish slavery prior to the Emancipation Proclamation (1863) or the 13th Amendment (1865)?
Because slavery had nothing to do with the cause of the Civil War, but secession did.
Slavery only became an issue, a political decision, when the United States feared that it was losing the Civil War in
late 1862, and that both England and France were about to become allies with the South and her states. (Complicity: How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery and Civil War Questions and Answers:
Confederacy, Confederate Army, Blacks, African Americans, Slaves, and Slavery.)
Lincoln's refusal to allow Secession caused the Civil War
President
Abraham Lincoln believed or thought that secession was illegal and strongly opposed and obstructed the U.S. Supreme Court
convening and rendering a decision regarding whether or not any state had the right to secede.
Chief Justice Roger B. Taney said that President Abraham Lincoln's actions were illegal, criminal
and unconstitutional. Taney further proclaimed that Lincoln was to blame for the Civil War and its outcome.
Was President Lincoln guilty of the following criminal acts:
- Violation of the Constitution and his oath of office by invading and waging
war against states that had legally and democratically withdrawn their consent from his government, inaugurating one of the
cruelest wars in recent history.
- Subverting the duly constituted governments of states that had not left the
Union, thereby subverting their constitution right to "republican form of government."
- Raising troops without the approval of Congress and expending funds without
appropriation.
- Suspending the writ of habeas corpus and interfering with the press without
due process, imprisoning thousands of citizens without charge or trial, and closing courts by military force where no hostilities
were occurring.
- Corrupting the currency by manipulations and paper swindles unheard of in
U.S. history.
- Fraud and corruption by appointees and contractors with his knowledge and
connivance.
- Continuing the war by raising ever-larger bodies of troops by conscription
and hiring of foreign mercenaries and refusing to negotiate in good faith for an end to hostilities.
- Confiscation of millions of dollars of civilian property by his agents
in the South, especially cotton, without legal proceedings.
- Waging war against women, children, civilians and civilian property
as the matter of policy (rather than as unavoidably incident to combat), e.g., Sherman's March.
| Supreme Court Chief Justice |
|
| Chief Justice Roger B. Taney |
The
lawful and constitutional right for a state to secede (secession) from the Union (United States) has been debated from Civil
War buffs to constitutional scholars. Regarding Southern secession, however, it had never been discussed before the United States Supreme Court, which was the nation's highest court and final
lawful arbiter.
(Right) Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney. He personally administered
the oath of office to Lincoln, his most prominent critic, on March 4, 1861. When the Civil War commenced, he continued to
trouble Lincoln during the three years he remained Chief Justice. After President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus in parts of Maryland, Taney ruled as Circuit
Judge in Ex parte Merryman (1861) that only Congress had the power to take this action (Maryland Civil War History). Lincoln allegedly made an aborted attempt to arrest Taney himself in response to his habeas corpus decision. Lincoln
also ignored the court's order and continued to arrest prisoners without the privilege of the writ, though Merryman was
eventually released without charges.
Why wasn't the lawful and constitutional right for any state to secede
or withdrawal from the Union decided by the highest court? Because President Lincoln believed and opined that secession was illegal and therefore strongly opposed
and obstructed the U.S. Supreme Court from convening and rendering a decision.
When U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice
Roger B. Taney stated that "Southern secession must be decided by the Supreme Court," President Lincoln simply rebuked and even threatened Taney with
imprisonment. Taney, himself, believed that "secession, not forbidden by the Constitution, was therefore legal."
The Judicial Branch (also known as the Judiciary) was equal, separate, and not subject to the Executive Branch (known
as Separation of Powers). When the Executive Branch oversteps its constitutional powers, then the nation becomes
a despotism.
In the midst
of the secession crisis that would lead to the Civil War, President James Buchanan, in his final State of the Union address
on December 3, 1860, acknowledged the South would "after having first used all peaceful and constitutional means to obtain
redress, would be justified in revolutionary resistance to the Government of the Union."
| Southern Secession Map |
|
| States' Rights and Southern Secession Map |
The Union (United States)
had been compared to a compact or agreement between the states as referenced in the Declaration of Independence, and
the Federal government had been stated as having limited powers with the states as referenced in the 10th Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution.
Many analogies have also been used or applied to the Union and secession.
Perhaps one of the best analogies regarding secession is divorce. When a couple divorces, there is dissolution of the union
or agreement between two parties. The cause or causes which led to the divorce may vary, but the end result is that the two
parties are no longer in union. When the parties are engaged in a contested divorce, consequently, it must then proceed to
court. What led to the divorce is now irrelevant and moot; the principal fact is that the divorce itself is being contested.
If the divorce is denied the right to a hearing, then the divorce itself is now the sole subject in question and it leads
to the core and greatest question: Why do we have courts and laws and the Constitution? Regarding said subject, to resolve
disputes between parties.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, often
referred to as the War Powers Clause, also vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war, in the following wording:
[Congress shall have Power...] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on
Land and Water[.]" Remember that Lincoln had stated that the President is not reserved "war-making power." Lincoln
further opined that only Congress had that right and authority, period. (President Abraham Lincoln and War Powers and What was the Main Cause of the Civil War? A Study of Slavery, States' Rights, Secession, State and Federal
Governments, Supreme Court, and President Abraham Lincoln.)
Furthermore,
what are the roles and responsibilities of the three branches of government and what is the purpose of Separation of Powers?
When the Executive Branch obstructs the Judiciary,
or Judicial Branch, it also denies the Supreme Court's existence, essence, and purpose. We then become a lawless nation. Secession, like divorce, was denied the most basic and fundamental
right to the nation's legal system and process. Secession was therefore the principal
or main cause of the Civil War. (President Abraham Lincoln and the Chief Justice and President Abraham Lincoln and Ex Parte Milligan.)
"What caused the Civil War?" Refusal to allow any Southern state to secede led to more than 10,500 battles and skirmishes. The war produced an estimated 1,030,000 casualties (3%
of the U.S. population), which today would equate to nearly 9,000,000 souls, including approximately 620,000 deaths—two-thirds by disease. Let's take a moment and think about
it on today's terms. To put it into perspective, 3% of the U.S. population equates to the combined population of
the present-day states of New Hampshire, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota,
Vermont and Wyoming. The war accounted for more casualties than all previous
U.S. wars combined. Presently, the causes of the war, the reasons for its outcome, and even the name of the war itself are
subjects of lingering controversy. The main result of the war was the restoration of the Union. (President Lincoln on Secession)
| Lincoln Refused Southern Secession = 620,000 Dead |
|
| Secession, not Slavery, Killed 620,000 Americans |
The Southern states never sought to overthrow the U.S. government and its institutions; they merely
wanted independence from Washington. They did not seek war, but, to the contrary, they desired a peaceful withdrawal from
the Union.
Chief Justice Roger B. Taney ruled that President Abraham Lincoln's actions were illegal, criminal
and unconstitutional. Taney further proclaimed that Lincoln was to blame for the Civil War and its outcome.
Unknown to most Americans today, President Abraham Lincoln threatened the chief justice and obstructed the U.S. Supreme Court
from convening and rendering a decision on the subject of secession. After the Civil War, Confederate President Jefferson Davis never received a trial for treason, although
he demanded a trial to prove the legitimacy of secession. The North, moreover, feared Davis's acquittal and merely set
the former Confederate president free.
| What Caused the Civil War? |
|
| Civil War Causes, States' Rights, South and Secession, Southern Slavery Map |
Slavery was already on its way out - and without Lincoln's Civil War.
(Map) Animation showing which areas
of the United States did and did not allow slavery between 1789 and Lincoln's inauguration in 1861. The animation includes
a 5 second frame on 1789, 1800, 1821, 1837, The unrealized 1846 Wilmot Proviso, 1846, 1858, and 1861. New York (1799) and
New Jersey (1804) adopted laws gradually freeing enslaved people, but some people in these states remained enslaved until
1824 (NY) and 1865 (NJ). Territories and states which had not specifically banned slavery are colored red/pink.
Lincoln intentionally "trashed" the Constitution and went so far as
to provoke a war that killed more than 620,000 Americans (2% of the total U.S. population). A "great" president,
or even mediocre president, would have prevented and avoided war. Abraham Lincoln, furthermore, was the worst president
in United States history. His hype as the greatest president in history is totally without merit. Regarding blacks, slaves,
and the subjugation of free and independent states, Lincoln qualified all his motives
on August 26, 1863, in a letter to Hon. James C. Conkling:
Recommended Reading: The Politically Incorrect
Guide to American History. Review: Claiming that most textbooks and popular history books were written
by biased left-wing writers and scholars, historian Thomas Woods offers this guide as an alternative to "the stale and predictable
platitudes of mainstream texts." Covering the colonial era through the Clinton administration, Woods seeks to debunk some
persistent myths about American history. For instance, he writes, the Puritans were not racists intent on stealing the Indians'
lands, the Founding Fathers were not revolutionaries but conservatives in the true sense of the word, the American War Between
the States (to even call it a civil war is inaccurate, Woods says) was not principally about slavery, and Abraham Lincoln
was no friend to the slaves. Continued below...
FDR's New Deal policies actually made the Depression worse. He also covers
a wide range of constitutional interpretations over the years, particularly regarding the First, Second, Ninth, and Tenth
amendments, and continually makes the point that states' rights have been unlawfully trampled upon by the federal government
since the early days of the republic. Though its title is more deliberately provocative than accurate, Woods' attack on what
he sees as rampant liberal revisionism over the past 25 years proves to be an interesting platform for a book. He's as biased
as those he rails against, of course, but he does provoke thought in an entertaining way even if he sometimes tries to pass
off opinion as hard facts. This quick and enjoyable read is packed with unfamiliar quotes, informative sidebars, iconoclastic
viewpoints, and a list of books "you're not supposed to read." It is not a comprehensive or detailed study, but that is not
its aim; instead, it offers ideas for further research and a challenge to readers to dig deeper and analyze some basic assumptions
about American history--a worthy goal that Woods manages to reach.
From the Inside Flap: Everything well, almost everything you know about
American history is wrong because most textbooks and popular history books are written by left-wing academic historians who
treat their biases as fact. But fear not: Professor Thomas Woods refutes the popular myths in The Politically Incorrect Guide
to American History. Professor Woods reveals facts that you won't be or never were taught in school, tells you about the "Books
You're Not Supposed to Read," and takes you on a fast-paced politically incorrect tour of American history that will give
you all the information you need to battle and confound left-wing professors, neighbors, and friends. About the Author: Professor
Thomas E. Woods Jr. holds an AB from Harvard and a Ph.D. from Columbia. He teaches American History, is the associate editor
of The Latin Mass Magazine, and is a prolific essayist on historical subjects. He lives with his family in Coram, New York.
What Caused the Civil War?
What Caused the Civil War: Slavery, States' Rights, or Secession?
Second Viewpoint are quotes and statements from James M. McPherson
December 19, 2010, interview on NPR with Dr. James McPherson titled The
Civil War Is Still Being Fought, Civilly.
Pro-Lincoln revisionist James McPherson, during said interview, postulated
that slavery was the "basic and most deep-rooted cause [main
cause] of the Civil War." McPherson adamantly believes that the sole abolition of the Southern institution of slavery
was the principal cause of why more than 620,000 Americans had fought and died. (Complicity: How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from
Slavery .)
What
does history, however, state as the cause or causes of the American Civil War? Furthermore,
what were the motives (not to be confused with cause or causes) as
to why 620,000 Southern and Northern soldiers fought, bled, died?
Why and How does Civil War Revisionism prevail?
Here is an example of how history
becomes very skewed and 'revised'. Here is a quote from a December 19, 2010, NPR interview with Dr. James McPherson:
"Well, history says, and I would say probably 98 percent of historians
would say, that the basic and most deep-rooted cause of the [Civil] War was slavery and the question of the future of slavery
in the United States."
Also, according to James McPherson, on page 79 in his (2009) book
titled The Library of Congress Civil War Desk Reference, he states:
"Many Southerners who did not own slaves hoped and expected to
be able to do so in the future."
McPherson has postulated that 1) only
abolition of the institution of slavery was the principal or main cause of the Civil War
and that 2) it was the deep-rooted cause of why more than 620,000
Americans volunteered, fought, and died, and that 3) many Southern soldiers only fought in bloody
combat in hopes of owning at least one slave in the future.
(Of course, as expected, McPherson doesn't apply a single source to any position.)
McPherson, you honestly don't believe that
In both debate and law, one is taught to use facts and sources, and
to be careful when applying the word most when referring to a group. The word most
literally infers that one is discussing the majority of the group, but, on the other hand, the word many
doesn't necessarily refer to the majority but it may refer to several. So, moreover, for
McPherson to state "98 percent" without one source is total and absolute speculation and bias.
Martin J. Weiner, of Rice University, describes much of McPherson's biased
material as "the most unprofessional I have seen in 35 years of reading..."
McPherson is so pompous and arrogant as to state that "Well, history
says, and I would say probably 98 percent of historians would say..." So now McPherson is history's spokesperson?
Furthermore, if "98 percent" of all historians agree that slavery was the deep-rooted cause of the American Civil War, then
why, oh why, on earth do we have so much division today, and throughout history, as to what caused the Civil War?
McPherson is an Extremist
Historians may state that slavery was the deep-rooted cause of the Civil
War, but wow, to state that 98% of historians agree to said statement is ludicrous at best. One must only imagine how McPherson
derived "probably 98 percent", since he has no source, neither will he ever have one.
McPherson's postulation and blatant disregard for the views of fellow historians
couldn't be clearer. He is so kind, however, and does allow 2% of the world's historians another position on what caused
the Civil War. For example, secession.
According to author, now prophet, James McPherson, on page 79 in his
(2009) book titled The Library of Congress Civil War Desk Reference:
"Many Southerners who did not own slaves hoped and expected to be able to
do so in the future." (Not one source is given, but if one is a prophet...)
Revisionist McPherson
has an Anti-Southern Agenda
In an interview with Democracy Now in 1999, (after fellow radical
and extremist Ed Sebesta had spoken) James McPherson stated adamantly:
"I think, I agree a 100% with Ed Sebesta about the motives or the hidden
agenda, not too, not too deeply hidden I think of such groups as the United Daughters of the Confederacy and the
Sons of Confederate Veterans. They are dedicated to celebrating the Confederacy and rather thinly veiled support for white
supremacy. And I think that also is the again not very deeply hidden agenda of the Confederate flag issue in
several southern states."
"The North won the Civil War in large part because Lincoln and the best
of his generals were better strategists than their counterparts in Dixie." James M. McPherson, North and South Magazine
Most scholars disagree with McPherson's opinion stating that the North won the Civil War because it
had Lincoln and his generals, the so-called "better strategists."
Most scholars emphasize that the Union held an insurmountable long-term
advantage over the Confederacy in terms of industrial strength and population. The North won the war by superior weaponry,
greater numbers in manpower (4-to-1 ratio) (21,700,000 = North; 5,600,000 = South), great bloodshed
via attrition, and the luck of the Irish. Use bing search engine, for example, because James M. McPherson has
always painted the South, with its culture, as inferior, yet slave-mongering, rednecks and racists.
The practice of espousing contemporary political beliefs in McPherson's
columns, in Perspectives, drew backlash and criticism from several American Historical Association (AHA) members
who wrote letters to the editor of "Perspectives":
David F. Krein, of Scott Community College in Iowa, responded: "McPherson
seems intent to use his 2003 term as AHA president as his own "bully pulpit" (as president of the AHA) to
promote a personal political agenda" and "implore(d) him to stop" the politicization
of his column "for the dignity of the profession of historians."
Don McArthur, of Maine South High School in Illinois, stated:
"McPherson's politics were furthering a general public mistrust of academic historians" and requested that
he "moderate his obviously intense political aversion to the (Bush) administration" when writing in official AHA publications.
Martin J. Weiner, of Rice University, described McPherson's columns
as "the most unprofessional thing I have seen in 35 years of reading Perspectives," the AHA's newsletter in which they were published, and suggested the organization's
Professional Division should consider McPherson's actions as an "abuse of his office." (Revisionist James McPherson.)
"Pulitzer Prize-winning author Dr. James McPherson, with his bias and unprofessional agenda and
his incessant and baseless bashing against all things Confederate and Southern, has brought great discord
to the entire field and study of Civil War history. McPherson has brought reproach to the Pulitzer* and perhaps exhibits
classic signs of narcissism." americancivilwarhistory.org
Conclusion
Revisionist James McPherson, consequently, further shows and declares quite clearly
his extremely pro-Northern bias and agenda, his pompous attitude, and how the sheeple are led easily to the
slaughter of ignorance.
Did McPherson conduct a poll? Is he even referring to a poll? He is referring
to which historians?
Since he also states that "history says" as well as "98 percent of historians,"
there is no wiggle room with this gross exaggerator named McPherson.
McPherson knows all too well that the conflicting lines
regarding the causes of the Civil War are not so clear as to boast that 98 percent of historians agree to slavery as its deep-rooted
cause. McPherson has shown blatantly his true blue revisionist colors. His bias, for sure, is now also 98% certain.
When making such wild and broad assumptions, we see vividly why Revisionist
McPherson is not exempt from the use of facts and sources.
One thing is 98 percent certain, we know where you stand, Mr McPherson.
*Some critics of the Pulitzer Prize have accused the organization of favoring
those who support liberal causes or oppose conservative causes. Syndicated columnist L. Brent Bozell said that the Pulitzer
Prize has a "liberal legacy," particularly in its prize for commentary. He pointed to a 31-year period in which only 5 conservatives
won prizes for commentary. The claim is also supported by a statement from the 2010 Pulitzer Prize winner for commentary,
Kathleen Parker: "it's only because I'm a conservative basher that I'm now recognized." Bozell, Brent (2007-04-22). "Pulitzers'
liberal legacy". Pittsburgh Tribune-Review; Hagey, Keach (4 October 2010). "Kathleen Parker: 'Smallish-town girl' hits cable".
Politico.
(Additional reading and sources listed below)
Recommended Reading: When in the Course
of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession. Review: As a historian, I have learned that
the heart of any great work in history lies in the ample and accurate use of primary sources, and primary sources are the
great strength of this work. While countless tomes have debated the perceived moral sides of the Civil War and the motivations
of the various actors, this work investigates the motives of the primary players in the era and in their own words and writings.
This gives the work an excellent realism and accuracy. The author, Charles Adams, has earned a reputation as one of the leading
economic historians in the field, particularly in the area of taxes. He utilizes this background to investigate the American
Civil War, and comes to some very striking conclusions, many that defy the politically-correct history of today. His thesis
postulates that the Civil War had its primary cause not in slavery or states' rights, but rather in cold, hard economic concerns.
Continued below...
He shows that the North used its supremacy in Congress to push through massive
tariffs to fund the government, and that these tariffs fell much harder on the export-dependent South than upon the insular
north. In fact, the total revenue from the "Compromise" Tariffs on the 1830s and 40s amounted to $107.5 million, of which
$90 million came from the South. The majority of the revenue, moreover, was spent on projects “far from the South.”
According to Adams, this disparity finally pushed the South to seek its own independence. Supporting this conclusion is the
fact that the South enacted extremely low tariffs throughout the war, whereas the north enacted the Morrill Tariff of 1861,
which enacted tariffs as high as 50 percent on some goods. Adams also chronicles the oft-overlooked excesses of the Lincoln
Administration, and compares them to the actions of Julius Caesar. Using the letters and reports of the times, he tells
how Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, trod roughshod over the Constitution, jailed thousands of U.S. citizens who dared disagree
with him and even wrote a warrant for the arrest of the Chief Justice of the United States. Adams also ably uses the viewpoints
of British and other Europeans to describe different contemporary views on the struggle. These provide excellent outside insight.
On the whole, readers will find the book a superb and scholarly analysis, providing fresh insights into the motivations and
causes of the defining war in American history. AWARDED 5 STARS by americancivilwarhistory.org
Recommended Reading: The Real Lincoln: A New
Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War. Description: It hardly seems possible that there is more to say about someone who has been subjected
to such minute scrutiny in thousands of books and articles. Yet, Thomas J. DiLorenzo’s The Real Lincoln manages to raise fresh and morally probing questions, challenging the image of the martyred
16th president that has been fashioned carefully in marble and bronze, sentimentalism and myth. In doing so, DiLorenzo does
not follow the lead of M. E. Bradford or other Southern agrarians. He writes primarily not as a defender of the Old South
and its institutions, culture, and traditions, but as a libertarian enemy of the Leviathan state. Continued below...
DiLorenzo holds
Lincoln and
his war responsible for the triumph of "big government" and the birth of the ubiquitous, suffocating modern U.S. state. He seeks to replace the nation’s memory
of Lincoln as the “Great Emancipator” with the record of Lincoln as the “Great Centralizer.” In DiLorenzo's work, Lincoln is exposed also
as the "Great Tyrant." Outstanding read and it also goes to the heart and soul of "What caused the Civil War?" as
well as States' Rights, Southern Secession, and related "big government" causes.
Recommended Reading: The North, The South,
and Secession: An Examination of Cause and Right. Description. "The North, the South, and Secession:
Who was in the Right?" This a unique and concise examination from a traditional-historical Christian perspective on cause
and right in relation to the pivotal conflict known as the "Civil War." Just which side –North or South- was justified
in its efforts? Who was legally (i.e., constitutionally) in the right? Was there a morally just side? Who actually began the
aggression? Is aggression determined only by gun fire? Continued below...
Were the Southern States actually rebellious, and would they have really
destroyed the Union had they withdrawn successfully? Was Abraham Lincoln the real hero as he has been portrayed? Did 'honest
Abe' distort the truth in order to justify his war effort? Was the war fought by the North to end slavery, and thus was it
a struggle for the idea of freedom, or was there some other purpose behind the war? Was it a ‘civil war’ in the
true sense of the term? These and other questions are answered in "The North, the South, and Secession" - part I of a four-part
series on the Conflict between the North and the South. About the Author: Adam S. Miller is married and is the father of eight
children. He graduated summa cum laude in earning a degree in both philosophy and theology from Mount St. Mary's College (now
University) in Emmitsburg, MD. With graduate level work done in theology and history, he is a member of both Phi Sigma Tau
(the national honor society in philosophy) and Theta Alpha Kappa (the national honor society in theology). Miller is founder
and director of Tower of David Ministry, a Catholic educational organization. He is the author of more than a dozen works
explaining Catholic teaching and on history. He is currently finishing up his four-part series on the conflict between the
North and the South.
Recommended Reading:
The South Was Right! (Hardcover). Description: Kin Hubbard said "'Tain't what a man don't know that hurts him; it's
what he does know that just ain't so." Much of what people "know" about the causes, conduct, and consequences of the Civil
War "just ain't so." The Kennedy brothers make a strong case that the real reasons and results of the War Between the States
have been buried under the myth of Father Abraham and his blue-clad saints marching south to save the Union
and free the slaves. Sure, the tone is polemical. But the "enlightened" elements of American opinion have been engaging in
a polemic against the South and its people for decades. Continued below...
This book adopts the "following the
money approach" to analyzing who profited most from slavery – a convincing argument that reflects that much of the wealth
went to the North. It also points out that slavery was not new to Africa, and was practiced
by Africans against Africans without foreign intervention. A strong case is made that the North and Lincoln held strong racist
views. Lincoln proposed shipping, or transporting, blacks back to Africa… The blacks residing in the Northern states were in a precarious predicament (e.g.
draft riots and lynchings in NY City). The authors, however, do not make any argument supporting slavery - their consistent
line is the practice is vile. The fact that many blacks served, assisted and provided material support to Union
and Confederate Armies is beyond refute. Native Americans also served with distinction on both sides during the Civil War.
“A controversial and thought-provoking book that challenges the status-quo
of present teachings…”
Recommended Reading: War for What?,
by Francis W. Springer. Description: A little known but very insightful view of the Civil War published a year before the
author died at the age of 92. He puts the African slave trade, import tariffs, the South’s two-crop economy, Lincoln,
and the true nature of the war into clear focus, anticipating Adams’ groundbreaking work by a decade. Continued below...
Review: Since there are countless books written by Northern, or pro-Union,
historians and writers, this work is a breath of fresh air, and it is written by a Mainer who asks the basic question:
"Why is all the hatred over slavery directed at the South?" Author Francis W. Springer, 1899-1991, wrote numerous magazine
& newspaper articles as well as two books: February: American Myth Month, and War for What? I highly recommend the book,
not just for it's content, but because this is one book that challenges the ever prevalent, and widely accepted, statement
that slavery was THE cause of the Civil War, and it addresses the fact that slavery was an American institution
(not Southern) protected by the U.S. Constitution.
Recommended Reading: Abraham Lincoln: Friend or Foe of Freedom? Description: The
Heartland Institute hosted its 23rd Anniversary Benefit Dinner on October 25, 2007. Nearly 500 people gathered at the Hilton
Chicago Hotel to hear outstanding presentations delivered by two remarkable individuals. Many of us grew
up and grew older regarding Abraham Lincoln as one of our greatest presidents. He preserved the Union against the rebels,
he freed the slaves, he urged reconciliation during Reconstruction, he was humble and a leader of enormous charisma, and persistent.
Continued below...
In recent years, however, others have challenged those assumptions. Yes, he preserved the Union but where
in the Constitution does it prohibit states from seceding? And by what legal right did Lincoln prosecute the Civil War or,
as one of our debaters tonight calls it, the War Between The States, or, when he gets really personal, Lincoln's War? Yes, the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves, but only the slaves in the secessionist South, where the proclamation
had absolutely no force of law. Where the proclamation could have had some force of law, in the border states that didn't
secede, such as Maryland and Kentucky and Pennsylvania, it specifically permitted slavery to continue. Humble?
Yes, Lincoln in his speeches and his personal life dramatized an innate humility. But politically, when he won the presidential
nomination in 1860 here in Chicago, he had demonstrated the political savvy and cruelty that exploited the moment of the instance
that he was nominated.
Reasonable people can discuss and disagree about Lincoln and his legacy. But we don't have to be disagreeable.
We all share a common respect for individual liberty, small government, the rule of law, and firm property rights. This book presents the remarks of two articulate and informed scholars about whether and how those values played out
in the life of Abraham Lincoln. Great read for anyone interested in Abraham Lincoln, democracy and government,
secession, states' rights, and Civil War.
Recommended Reading:
The Impending Crisis, 1848-1861
(Paperback), by David M. Potter. Review: Professor
Potter treats an incredibly complicated and misinterpreted time period with unparalleled objectivity and insight. Potter masterfully
explains the climatic events that led to Southern secession – a greatly divided nation – and the Civil War: the social, political
and ideological conflicts; culture; American expansionism, sectionalism and popular sovereignty; economic and tariff
systems; and slavery. In other words, Potter places under the microscope the root causes
and origins of the Civil War. He conveys the subjects in easy to understand language to edify the reader's
understanding (it's not like reading some dry old history book). Delving
beyond surface meanings and interpretations, this book analyzes not only the history, but the historiography of the time period
as well. Continued below…
Professor Potter
rejects the historian's tendency to review the period with all the benefits of hindsight. He simply traces the events, allowing
the reader a step-by-step walk through time, the various views, and contemplates the interpretations of contemporaries and
other historians. Potter then moves forward with his analysis. The Impending Crisis is the absolute gold-standard of historical
writing… This simply is the book by which, not only other antebellum era books, but all history books should be judged.
Recommended Reading: CAUSES OF THE CIVIL WAR: The Political, Cultural, Economic and Territorial Disputes Between the North and South. Description:
While South Carolina's preemptive strike on Fort
Sumter and Lincoln's subsequent call to arms started
the Civil War, South Carolina's secession and Lincoln's
military actions were simply the last in a chain of events stretching as far back as 1619. Increasing moral conflicts and
political debates over slavery-exacerbated by the inequities inherent between an established agricultural society and a growing
industrial one-led to a fierce sectionalism which manifested itself through cultural, economic, political and territorial
disputes.
This historical study reduces sectionalism to its most fundamental form, examining the underlying source
of this antagonistic climate. From protective tariffs to the expansionist agenda, it illustrates the ways in which the foremost
issues of the time influenced relations between the North and the South.
Recommended Reading:
The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War (Politically Incorrect
Guides). Description: Get ready for a rousing rebel yell as bestselling author H.W. Crocker, III (Robert E. Lee on Leadership)
charges through bunkers and battlefields in The Politically Incorrect Guide(TM) to the Civil War. Crocker busts myths and
shatters stereotypes as he profiles eminent--and colorful--military generals while taking readers through chapters such as
"The Civil War in Sixteen Battles You Should Know" and culminating in the most politically incorrect chapter of all, "What
if the South Had Won." Revealing little-known truths, like why Robert E. Lee had a higher regard for African Americans
than Lincoln did, this is the "P.I.G." that
every Civil War buff and Southern partisan will want on their bookshelf, in their classroom, and under their Christmas tree.
Continued below…
From the Inside Flap: Think
you know the Civil War? You don't know the full story until you read The Politically Incorrect GuideTM to the Civil War. Bestselling author and former Conservative Book Club editor H. W. Crocker III
offers a quick and lively study of America's own Iliad--the Civil War--in this provocative
and entertaining addition to The Politically Incorrect GuideTM series. In
The Politically Incorrect GuideTM to the Civil War Crocker profiles eminent--and colorful--military generals including the
noble Lee, the controversial Sherman, the indefatigable Grant, the legendary Stonewall Jackson, and the notorious Nathan Bedford
Forrest. He also includes thought-provoking chapters such as "The Civil War in Sixteen Battles You Should Know" and the most
devastatingly politically incorrect chapter of all, "What If the South Had Won?" Along the way, he reveals a huge number of
little-known truths, including why Robert E. Lee had a higher regard for African Americans than Lincoln did; how, if there
had been no Civil War, the South would have abolished slavery peaceably (as every other country in the Western Hemisphere
did in the nineteenth century); and how the Confederate States of America might have helped the Allies win World War I sooner.
Bet your history professor never told you:
* Leading Northern generals--like
McClellan and Sherman--hated abolitionists
* Bombing people "back to
the Stone Age" got its start with the Federal siege of Vicksburg
* General Sherman professed
not to know which was "the greater evil": slavery or democracy
* Stonewall Jackson founded
a Sunday school for slaves where he taught them how to read
* General James Longstreet
fought the Battle of Sharpsburg in his carpet slippers
This is the Politically Incorrect
GuideTM that every Civil War buff and Southern partisan--and everyone who is tired of liberal self-hatred that vilifies America's greatest heroes--must have on his bookshelf.
Recommended Reading: Nullification: How
to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century. Description: From our nation's Founding Fathers to present-day,
from big government to tyrannical government, the United States has witnessed one massive anti-states' rights extravaganza.
Tyranny has always justified its end by way of its means. Honest Abraham Lincoln, for example, merely used
blacks and slavery as a blatant lie and excuse to trample the U.S. Constitution, obstruct the Supreme Court, violate
Separation of Powers, crush all states' rights, trample Southern secession, and to shove despotism on the entire
nation. Citizens across the country are fed up with the politicians in Washington telling us how to live our lives—and
then sticking us with the bill. But what can we do? Actually, we can just say “no.” As New York Times bestselling
author Thomas E. Woods, Jr., explains, “nullification” allows states to reject unconstitutional federal laws.
For many tea partiers nationwide, nullification is rapidly becoming the only way to stop an over-reaching government drunk
on power. From privacy to national healthcare, Woods shows how this growing and popular movement is sweeping across America
and empowering states to take action against Obama’s socialist policies and big-government agenda. Continued below...
From the Inside Flap: Unconstitutional
laws are pouring out of Washington…but we can stop them.
Just ask Thomas Jefferson. There is a “rightful remedy”
to federal power grabs—it’s called Nullification.
In Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, historian
and New York Times bestselling author Thomas E. Woods, Jr. explains not only why nullification is the constitutional tool
the Founders envisioned, but how it works—and has already been employed in cases ranging from upholding the First Amendment
to knocking down slave laws before the Civil War. In Nullification, Woods shows:
* How the states were meant to be checks against federal tyranny—and
how a growing roster of governors and state attorneys general are recognizing they need to become that again
* Why the
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution reinforces the rights of states to nullify unconstitutional laws
* Why it was left
to the states to uphold the simple principle that an unconstitutional law is no law at all
* Why, without nullification,
ordinary Americans will continue to suffer the oppression of unjust, unconstitutional laws
* PLUS thorough documentation
of how the Founding Fathers believed nullification could be applied
Nullification is not just a book—it could become a movement to restore
the proper constitutional limits of the federal government. Powerful, provocative, and timely, Nullification is sure to stir
debate and become a constitutional handbook for all liberty-loving Americans.
|
