What was the "American Civil War" really about?
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
Hi everyone, especially the USA citizens,
since I am not a USA citizen and not all that familiar with many details of USA history, I was wondering what those among you who are knowledgeable of USA history could comment on the following article by P.C. Roberts in which he does refer to that particular time
Erasing History, Diplomacy, Truth, and Life on Earth
I admit, looking at things from a little different perspective (and perhaps because of being married to a lady from Texas ? 
), that I have wondered about the official story we were taught in school in Germany about that matter in USA history ... especially so, since a war between a country and citizens who have seceded from that country and formed their own country can really not even be called "a civil war", because the seceded party does not even seek control over the government of the country of which they rather desire not to even be a part.
What are your comments to points mentioned in the linked article? Please, do not just "shoot at the messenger (Roberts, or me)" but address with historical facts any points that may be incorrect in the article.
Comments
-
@Wolfgang said:
Hi everyone, especially the USA citizens,
since I am not a USA citizen and not all that familiar with many details of USA history, I was wondering what those among you who are knowledgeable of USA history could comment on the following article by P.C. Roberts in which he does refer to that particular timeErasing History, Diplomacy, Truth, and Life on Earth
I admit, looking at things from a little different perspective (and perhaps because of being married to a lady from Texas ?
), that I have wondered about the official story we were taught in school in Germany about that matter in USA history ... especially so, since a war between a country and citizens who have seceded from that country and formed their own country can really not even be called "a civil war", because the seceded party does not even seek control over the government of the country of which they rather desire not to even be a part.What are your comments to points mentioned in the linked article? Please, do not just "shoot at the messenger (Roberts, or me)" but address with historical facts any points that may be incorrect in the article.
It was essentially about state's rights and what power the Federal Government should have over the States.
-
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
I admit, looking at things from a little different perspective (and perhaps because of being married to a lady from Texas ? ), that I have wondered about the official story we were taught in school in Germany about that matter in USA history ... especially so, since a war between a country and citizens who have seceded from that country and formed their own country can really not even be called "a civil war", because the seceded party does not even seek control over the government of the country of which they rather desire not to even be a part.It was essentially about state's rights and what power the Federal Government should have over the States.
So then, what actually happened? Certain States decided to leave - secede from - the Union and form their own country because the Federal government actually overstepped its powers? Or did those States endeavor to overthrow the Union? Who declared war on whom? or was something else altogether going on for which this war was only "a fake front"?
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
I admit, looking at things from a little different perspective (and perhaps because of being married to a lady from Texas ? ), that I have wondered about the official story we were taught in school in Germany about that matter in USA history ... especially so, since a war between a country and citizens who have seceded from that country and formed their own country can really not even be called "a civil war", because the seceded party does not even seek control over the government of the country of which they rather desire not to even be a part.It was essentially about state's rights and what power the Federal Government should have over the States.
So then, what actually happened? Certain States decided to leave - secede from - the Union and form their own country because the Federal government actually overstepped its powers? Or did those States endeavor to overthrow the Union? Who declared war on whom? or was something else altogether going on for which this war was only "a fake front"?
Really not interested in discussing conspiracy theories.
But for the historical nature, Yes, states lead by SC left the union to form their own country because they believed the Federal Government overstepped its powers. Technically the Confederacy fired the first shots.
-
@reformed said:
Really not interested in discussing conspiracy theories.I am not interested in just discussing conspiracy theories but rather in learning the truth in order to discern conspiracy theories from truth (and perhaps real conspiracies, if there were any involved).
But for the historical nature, Yes, states lead by SC left the union to form their own country because they believed the Federal Government overstepped its powers.
So then, what are the facts? There was a secession resulting in a war between two independent countries? There was a war for who was going to rule one country?
Technically the Confederacy fired the first shots.
I am not familiar with such details .... Immediately though, a question arises from your statement => Did the Confederacy fire the first shots in order to start a war of agression against the Union? or did they fire the first shots in defense against a looming attack of aggression by the Union?
-
@Wolfgang said:
I am not interested in just discussing conspiracy theories but rather in learning the truth in order to discern conspiracy theories from truth (and perhaps real conspiracies, if there were any involved).
Good! Wolfgang, you don't have to be an American to know the truth of the matter. A cross section of good history books would do the job. The so-called "New World" founders were determined to make with it, with freedom of religion and financially, by "any means necessary." They started with lies and the massacre of the Native Americans. The true Americans. Proof, I can't come to your house and say I discovered your children. Christopher Columbus didn't discover America. Besides, he landed in the Caribbeans. Greed, death, and power, all under the name "freedom of religion" drove the Early Settlers. Abused people abuse. What was the treatment of people before the early travelers to America?
The truth of the matter is 'the "American Civil War" was really about' MONEY! The South had land and very cheap, if not, free labor and the North didn't. They claimed to have a conscience, it was more about power, control, and money. This is the foundation of all wars, all the way back to biblical times. There is a price to pay for conscience. The Southern States had no heart. This is why several southern states wanted to leave America led by SC away "from the union to form their own country because they believed the Federal Government overstepped its powers". The North had the law and power and South had land, crops, and a free hand to do as it pleased. SLAVERY was the fulcrum. Abraham Lincoln signed the Proclamation Emancipation to free the slaves, but the driving force behind it all was money and power. Of course, "God can bless any mess, but He doesn't need mess to bless."
Leaping forward, the North appeased the South is why we have the "Electoral College" today. Read all about it. I hope this unbias snapshot of history helps. More at another time later, if needed. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@Wolfgang said:
I am not interested in just discussing conspiracy theories but rather in learning the truth in order to discern conspiracy theories from truth (and perhaps real conspiracies, if there were any involved).
Good! Wolfgang, you don't have to be an American to know the truth of the matter. A cross section of good history books would do the job. The so-called "New World" founders were determined to make with it, with freedom of religion and financially, by "any means necessary." They started with lies and the massacre of the Native Americans. The true Americans. Proof, I can't come to your house and say I discovered your children. Christopher Columbus didn't discover America. Besides, he landed in the Caribbeans. Greed, death, and power, all under the name "freedom of religion" drove the Early Settlers. Abused people abuse. What was the treatment of people before the early travelers to America?
The truth of the matter is 'the "American Civil War" was really about' MONEY! The South had land and very cheap, if not, free labor and the North didn't. They claimed to have a conscience, it was more about power, control, and money. This is the foundation of all wars, all the way back to biblical times. There is a price to pay for conscience. The Southern States had no heart. This is why several southern states wanted to leave America led by SC away "from the union to form their own country because they believed the Federal Government overstepped its powers". The North had the law and power and South had land, crops, and a free hand to do as it pleased. SLAVERY was the fulcrum. Abraham Lincoln signed the Proclamation Emancipation to free the slaves, but the driving force behind it all was money and power. Of course, "God can bless any mess, but He doesn't need mess to bless."
Leaping forward, the North appeased the South is why we have the "Electoral College" today. Read all about it. I hope this unbias snapshot of history helps. More at another time later, if needed. CM
Um, you have a few facts out of whack. That is not the reason we have the Electoral College.
-
What facts were IN whack? I couldn't find much.
-
@GaoLu said:
What facts were IN whack? I couldn't find much.Short answer: NONE! Above are the facts without the "whack'! I challenge you, GaoLu, to disprove what I said above. I don't know how much interest and time you want to dedicate to this subject, but the truth I stated above can be uncovered or unveiled anew if you have read it before. I don't have a high-interest in rehashing well-established facts when they are found in books, videos, journals, documents, libraries, etc. I don't know it all, but I assure you I have the basic facts of the matter at hand. I have no interest or desire to re-write history or a history book here. So, check it out for yourself. The truth is waiting to embrace you with its history. Enjoy! CM
-
@reformed said:
Um, you have a few facts out of whack. That is not the reason we have the Electoral College.
Mr. Reformed,
You've taken a more intelligent position on my post. However, no facts are out of "whack". Challenge yourself to read the backstory behind the "Electoral College". CM -
@C_M_ said:
@reformed said:
Um, you have a few facts out of whack. That is not the reason we have the Electoral College.
Mr. Reformed,
You've taken a more intelligent position on my post. However, no facts are out of "whack". Challenge yourself to read the backstory behind the "Electoral College". CMI have, another time when you mentioned this, and it is just flat wrong. https://www.lawliberty.org/2017/01/03/no-the-electoral-college-was-not-about-slavery/
-
@C_M_ said:
@GaoLu said:
What facts were IN whack? I couldn't find much.Short answer: NONE! Above are the facts without the "whack'! I challenge you, GaoLu, to disprove what I said above. I don't know how much interest and time you want to dedicate to this subject, but the truth I stated above can be uncovered or unveiled anew if you have read it before. I don't have a high-interest in rehashing well-established facts when they are found in books, videos, journals, documents, libraries, etc. I don't know it all, but I assure you I have the basic facts of the matter at hand. I have no interest or desire to re-write history or a history book here. So, check it out for yourself. The truth is waiting to embrace you with its history. Enjoy! CM
As a former teacher, I know that history quite well. Your version is so absurd that I have no interest in engaging it, only to affirm with @reformed that, put in the most generous terms, it is out of whack. Same deal with the electoral college.
-
@reformed said:
I have, another time when you mentioned this, and it is just flat wrong. https://www.lawliberty.org/2017/01/03/no-the-electoral-college-was-not-about-slavery/The case in support of the argument that slavery played a critical role in the creation of the electoral college is quite strong. I encourage you to read the informed and helpful discussion that follows below the article you cite, reformed. Some of the weaknesses in the author's argument are cogently presented there.
As for the case itself, it makes perfect sense that southern states, which had higher slave populations - i.e. people who could not vote - would raise objections to direct electoral processes that essentially highlighted their demographic disadvantages. The system Madison proposed - see THIS EXCELLENT ANALYSIS - allowed southern states to count their human property, albeit at a 3/5 rate. The Time magazine piece identifies some of the favorable electoral outcomes that resulted from the system.
You're of course entitled to disagree with the research's conclusion, reformed, but it's clearly true - as any objective review of that research will show - a strong and reasonable case can be made to show slavery's consequential role in the development of the electoral college.
-
Enlighten me, Mr. Teacher, GaoLu. My mind is not closed.
If not me, do it for Mr. Wolfgang. I think you know that I am right on all the major points. Even what you think is a low-hanging fruit-- "Electoral College", I am right also.There is nothing "absurd" about what I said and you know it. However, what appears to be "absurd" is that you have read and taught a sanitized version of the true American History. America has been blessed as a nation, but they're much bloodiness, hatred, ugliness, and broken promises in her past. It's not my intention to hang out America's "dirty laundry", but don't ask me to "Whitewash" her history when her hands are soiled with an enigma of bloody contradictions. No, I don't hate America. I am just holding up a mirror to her past. CM
Post edited by C Mc on -
@GaoLu said:
As a former teacher, I know that history quite well.I know several high school teachers here in my village, some even taught history classes ... and now, after retirement, they admit that what they "knew and what they taught" was not necessarily what were the facts to bring to light objectively what was going on but were "only those facts selectively written in the official history books" in order to portray and make the students believe a certain picture .... (in particular, this concerned German and European history from 2nd half od 19th century to the time after WWII)
-
@C_M_ said:
Enlighten me, Mr. Teacher, GaoLu. My mind is not closed. If not me, do it for Mr. Wolfgang. I think you know that I am right on all the major points. Even what you think is a low-hanging fruit-- "Electoral College", I am right also.From the little I have read thus far, it seems that what I've been told in the past in one lines format as "doing away with slavery was the (righteous) reason for the Civil War" is definitely NOT what that war was about ... for even the Union, who supposedly fought against the "slavery promoting" Confederacy kept slavery in tact after that war for quite some time, did they not? And, as was already mentioned, that war obviously was not even "a civil war" (that is, a war within one country where two or more sides fight to be the ruling power), but a war between two countries. These facts seem to have been done away with in "official USA history" and most people I have met had basically no idea about these 2 simple facts.
There is nothing "absurd" about what I said and you know it. However, what appears to be "absurd" is that you have read and taught a sanitized version of the true American History. America has been blessed as a nation, but they're much bloodiness, hatred, ugliness, and broken promises in her past.
Taking a look at the history since, it was not only in the past ... and it is even questionable to attribute some of what is said to be "God has blessed us and given us this position as the exceptional nation" to God's doing at all. It has mostly been the doing and results of the type of actions you mention as well .. or does someone want to claim that - just for starters - the genocide of the American native population was something with which God had anything to do???
It's not my intention to hang out America's "dirty laundry", but don't ask me to "Whitewash" her history when her hands are soiled with an enigma of bloody contradictions.
I appreciate your honest approach ...
No, I don't hate America. I am just holding up a mirror to her past. CM
I understand .... but, as you have seen a few times here in the forums, when I mention some things about the present which are no better but almost a worse continuation, I am treated likewise. I am said to "hate America", when in reality I am trying to wake up some Americans to reality and truth, something many Americans don't seem to want ... and they don't even realize that waking up would be in their interest, at least to the point of realizing what their rulers (the real ones and their puppets) are actually doing.
-
Wolfgang,
When a little research, unbias resources, a teachable spirit, and the ability to connect a few historical dots, America's past is exposed; too many, chagrins, her achievements, opportunities, trends, her darks, potentials, and shame. Keep studying and you can write your own ticket to better understanding. Until then, let's hear what the "former teacher [GaoLu], Who knows "that history" [U.S.A] "quite well". Some who tells America's stories do so with the belief of Adolf Hitler: “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”A historian is like a witness on the stand in a court of law before an astute prosecutor: Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is a Latin phrase meaning "false in one thing, false in everything."[Enying Li v. Holder, 738 F.3d 1160, 1165 (9th Cir. 2013) (defining phrase).]
Let America's truth be told, warts and all. CM
See also:
-- "Cotton to Blumenthal: You don't have the credibility to question Kavanaugh" by Megan Keller, The Hill, September 27, 2018 -
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
I have, another time when you mentioned this, and it is just flat wrong. https://www.lawliberty.org/2017/01/03/no-the-electoral-college-was-not-about-slavery/The case in support of the argument that slavery played a critical role in the creation of the electoral college is quite strong. I encourage you to read the informed and helpful discussion that follows below the article you cite, reformed. Some of the weaknesses in the author's argument are cogently presented there.
As for the case itself, it makes perfect sense that southern states, which had higher slave populations - i.e. people who could not vote - would raise objections to direct electoral processes that essentially highlighted their demographic disadvantages. The system Madison proposed - see THIS EXCELLENT ANALYSIS - allowed southern states to count their human property, albeit at a 3/5 rate. The Time magazine piece identifies some of the favorable electoral outcomes that resulted from the system.
You're of course entitled to disagree with the research's conclusion, reformed, but it's clearly true - as any objective review of that research will show - a strong and reasonable case can be made to show slavery's consequential role in the development of the electoral college.
The timeline doesn't fit your analysis.
-
@reformed said:
The timeline doesn't fit your analysis.
"Timeline or not, the principle truth remains. CM
-
@reformed said:
The timeline doesn't fit your analysis.
Single sentence replies aren't as dispositive to me as they are to you, reformed. Please specify how "the timeline doesn't fit (my) analysis."
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
The timeline doesn't fit your analysis.
Single sentence replies aren't as dispositive to me as they are to you, reformed. Please specify how "the timeline doesn't fit (my) analysis."
See my original post that you said had some solid arguments. The Electoral College was suggested before slavery was even discussed.
-
@reformed said:
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
The timeline doesn't fit your analysis.
Single sentence replies aren't as dispositive to me as they are to you, reformed. Please specify how "the timeline doesn't fit (my) analysis."
See my original post that you said had some solid arguments. The Electoral College was suggested before slavery was even discussed.
Reformed,
You seem to have little or no knowledge of slavery in America, its role, context, birth, growth, and development of the country. This is not to shame you, but to open your eyes to a history you may have been denied or deprived in the early years of your schooling and/or upbringing. Again, I am not blaming you. You may have been a victim of a bias school system, authors of one-sided history textbooks, or a community committed to sanitized versions of American History. Now, that you are grown, don't repeat America's half-truths and embrace the full truth, ugliness and all. In short, "The Electoral College" exist in a context. It didn't just pop up out of thin air. It was a compromise for Southern vote and support. Please, I invite you to read widely and deeply. An unintended benefit, you may be able to trace the intervening hands of God in the midst of ungodliness. CM -
@C_M_ said:
@reformed said:
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
The timeline doesn't fit your analysis.
Single sentence replies aren't as dispositive to me as they are to you, reformed. Please specify how "the timeline doesn't fit (my) analysis."
See my original post that you said had some solid arguments. The Electoral College was suggested before slavery was even discussed.
Reformed,
You seem to have little or no knowledge of slavery in America, its role, context, birth, growth, and development of the country. This is not to shame you, but to open your eyes to a history you may have been denied or deprived in the early years of your schooling and/or upbringing. Again, I am not blaming you. You may have been a victim of a bias school system, authors of one-sided history textbooks, or a community committed to sanitized versions of American History. Now, that you are grown, don't repeat America's half-truths and embrace the full truth, ugliness and all. In short, "The Electoral College" exist in a context. It didn't just pop up out of thin air. It was a compromise for Southern vote and support. Please, I invite you to read widely and deeply. An unintended benefit, you may be able to trace the intervening hands of God in the midst of ungodliness. CMTrust me, I know my history. I don't partake in liberal history revisionism.
-
@reformed said:
See my original post that you said had some solid arguments. The Electoral College was suggested before slavery was even discussed.
What WAS discussed, however, was the very different electoral impacts slave populations would have on the north and the south. As noted in the discussion that follows the article to which you linked, while the author chose to reference Madison's concern for the population differences, north and south, interestingly he chose NOT to mention that in his 1787 speech, Madison specified the impact of slavery on the south's electoral impact were the country to adopt election by national popular vote: (emphasis added)
"The people at large was in his opinion the fittest in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.”
Translation: Southern states had far more non-voting slaves than did northern states, so election winners would more often come from northern states. An electoral system would give more power to small voting population states, particularly, small voting population states in the south with a lot of slaves.
It's thus not a surprise that an electoral college system, enhanced by the 3/5 compromise of Article I in the original constitution, contributed to southerners' winning nine of the first eleven presidential elections.
All that considered, I continue to contend there is a strong, reasonable argument in favor of the proposition that slavery was a consequential factor in the development of the electoral college.
For the record, I didn't comment on the solidity of your original post's arguments. Instead, I only invited you to review what I called the "informed and helpful discussion" that followed the article, a discussion which, I claimed, showed "some of the weaknesses in the author's argument" (e.g. the fact that the author chose not to mention Madison's emphasis on slavery's impact in a national popular vote).
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
See my original post that you said had some solid arguments. The Electoral College was suggested before slavery was even discussed.
What WAS discussed, however, was the very different electoral impacts slave populations would have on the north and the south. As noted in the discussion that follows the article to which you linked, while the author chose to reference Madison's concern for the population differences, north and south, interestingly he chose NOT to mention that in his 1787 speech, Madison specified the impact of slavery on the south's electoral impact were the country to adopt election by national popular vote: (emphasis added)
"The people at large was in his opinion the fittest in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.”
Translation: Southern states had far more non-voting slaves than did northern states, so election winners would more often come from northern states. An electoral system would give more power to small voting population states, particularly, small voting population states in the south with a lot of slaves.
It's thus not a surprise that an electoral college system, enhanced by the 3/5 compromise of Article I in the original constitution, contributed to southerners' winning nine of the first eleven presidential elections.
All that considered, I continue to contend there is a strong, reasonable argument in favor of the proposition that slavery was a consequential factor in the development of the electoral college.
For the record, I didn't comment on the solidity of your original post's arguments. Instead, I only invited you to review what I called the "informed and helpful discussion" that followed the article, a discussion which, I claimed, showed "some of the weaknesses in the author's argument" (e.g. the fact that the author chose not to mention Madison's emphasis on slavery's impact in a national popular vote).
Revisionist history. A liberal specialty.
-
@reformed said:
Revisionist history. A liberal specialty.
I quoted James Madison. In what way(s) did that quotation reflect "revisionist history"?
Please give us your non-revisionist history interpretation of Madison's words (a result which I assume you consider a "conservative specialty").
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Revisionist history. A liberal specialty.
I quoted James Madison. In what way(s) did that quotation reflect "revisionist history"?
Please give us your non-revisionist history interpretation of Madison's words (a result which I assume you consider a "conservative specialty").
Because you take his speech out of the context of the whole proceeding as I showed in my original post on the topic.
-
@reformed said:
Because you take his speech out of the context of the whole proceeding as I showed in my original post on the topic.So IN context, what did Madison mean by his reference to "negroes" in southern states when he said the following: (PLEASE be specific and explanatory)
"The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections."
-
You are barking up the wrong tree with your hyper-focused "negro" arguments. The only reason slavery enters the picture at all is because when Southerner Thomas Jefferson won the election of 1800 against Northerner John Adams in a race where the slavery-skew of the electoral college was the decisive margin of victory: without the extra electoral college votes generated by slavery, the mostly southern states that supported Jefferson would not have sufficed to give him a majority.
That is a curious and significant footnote of history and the electoral process. That is not WHY we have an electoral system. The reason is well established and highly unlikely to be changed in our constitution because it is still relevant and recognized by most Americans as a very good idea.
-
@GaoLu said:
@Bill_ColeyYou are barking up the wrong tree with your hyper-focused "negro" arguments. The only reason slavery enters the picture at all is because when Southerner Thomas Jefferson won the election of 1800 against Northerner John Adams in a race where the slavery-skew of the electoral college was the decisive margin of victory: without the extra electoral college votes generated by slavery, the mostly southern states that supported Jefferson would not have sufficed to give him a majority.
That is a curious and significant footnote of history and the electoral process. That is not WHY we have an electoral system. The reason is well established and highly unlikely to be changed in our constitution because it is still relevant and recognized by most Americans as a very good idea.
You can't reason with a liberal who likes to revise history.
-
@GaoLu said:
@Bill_ColeyYou are barking up the wrong tree with your hyper-focused "negro" arguments. The only reason slavery enters the picture at all is because when Southerner Thomas Jefferson won the election of 1800 against Northerner John Adams in a race where the slavery-skew of the electoral college was the decisive margin of victory: without the extra electoral college votes generated by slavery, the mostly southern states that supported Jefferson would not have sufficed to give him a majority.
That is a curious and significant footnote of history and the electoral process. That is not WHY we have an electoral system. The reason is well established and highly unlikely to be changed in our constitution because it is still relevant and recognized by most Americans as a very good idea.
Reformed won't answer my question, so I'll ask you, Gao Lu: What did James Madison mean when in a 1787 speech he made the following point about the electoral impact of the population of "Negroes" in the "Northern" and "Southern" states were the US to have selected its president via national popular vote?
"The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections."
