War for Southern Independence

I made some YouTube videos about the war and what caused it. Their all just a little under 10 minutes. Hopefully I wasn't too boring. Let me know what you think.

Why the South Had the Right to Secede

How Economic Policies Led to Southern Secession

Clearing Up Misconceptions About Slavery in America

I only had a chance to listen to a little, nice work. It's good to see a young person take such an interest in history and facts.

Have you read the DiLorenzo books?  Highly recommended and very readable. Two reviews I wrote of them last year ...
Lincoln Unmasked
The Real Lincoln

I believe the Tariff of Abominations had an average rate of 50%, not 30.

Nice. Mainstream history is everywhere...

The "great enmancipator" was a great mass murderer.

DBratton:

I believe the Tariff of Abominations had an average rate of 50%, not 30.

speedmaster:

I only had a chance to listen to a little, nice work. It's good to see a young person take such an interest in history and facts.

Have you read the DiLorenzo books?  Highly recommended and very readable. Two reviews I wrote of them last year ...

Lincoln UnmaskedThe Real Lincoln

The books I read for my information were A Constitutionl History of Secession, The South Was RIght, and The Politically Incorrect Guide to the South. I've read some of DiLorenzo's stuff on Lew Rockwell's blog which I read every morning. I actually used a 30ish page excerpt from his book The Real Licnoln which I found in PDF format somewhere online for information too. I think I'm all Civil War'd out for now though after spending the last 3 months doing research for my school paper. I still have Jefferson' Davis's own The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government Volume 1 which I haven't gotten around to reading yet and probably won't.

I dont like Lincoln, but the south did some pretty brutal things to it's citizens during the war which I can't defend.

banned:

I dont like Lincoln, but the south did some pretty brutal things to it's citizens during the war which I can't defend.

Well of cousre defending the souths right to leave the union and defending their domestic policies are two completely different things. 

CopperHead:

banned:

I dont like Lincoln, but the south did some pretty brutal things to it's citizens during the war which I can't defend.

Well of cousre defending the souths right to leave the union and defending their domestic policies are two completely different things. 

 

 It is interesting to consider two divergent historical possibilities:

1.  The South stayed in the Union in spite of Lincoln's election and the proposed amendment regarding "domestic institutions" had been ratified.

2.  The South, either by combat or by peaceful acceptance of the North, successfully gained its independence.

I think you would have seen peaceful emancipation occur earlier under option 2, rather than option 1.  An independent south would have had to rapidly take steps to industrialize itself.  In addition, it would have lost the operation of the fugitive slave law.  With intensive labor needed, slavery would rapidly have become an untenable situation.  I think under option 2 you would have had an effective end to slavery in the south by 1885.  Under option 1 I think slavery would have been gone by 1900 at the latest.

Slavery was a dying institution, even in 1860.  It's end was near and it did NOT require the deaths of 600,000 men to bring about.

Mark B.:

Slavery was a dying institution, even in 1860.  It's end was near and it did NOT require the deaths of 600,000 men to bring about.

That point just seems to roll off the Lincoln idolators. Slavery was ended peacefully in every other Western nation, but so what? The deaths of 600,000 poor white boys and a lot of poor black boys as well is a GOOD thing!

Sometimes I think statists have a literal fetish for bloodshed.

MacFall:

Mark B.:

Slavery was a dying institution, even in 1860...

That point just seems to roll off the Lincoln idolators. Slavery was ended peacefully in every other Western nation...

 

It's worse than that. 

Before the war most southern farmers owned their land debt free, but after reconstruction most farm land was heavily mortgaged and chopped up into penny packets worked by sharecroppers (most of whom were white).  The destruction of the war and the thefts and taxation during reconstruction caused a collapse in the division of labor so that all across the south people who once bought things like clothing, tools, and so on now had to make their own. The war caused a severe and persistent reduction in both the size and the efficiency of the southern economy.

The first mechanical wheat harvesters appeared in the American midwest in the 1830's. The first mechanical cotton harvesters didn't appear in the American south until the 1930's. Modernization of southern agriculture was delayed by at least half a century because there was no capital to invest and not enough large farms to allow for economies of scale.

So you see not only was the war unnecessary, it prolonged and intensified the suffering of the blacks. They were freed from slavery, but  they paid for it with three generations of starvation and poverty.

Just to stir things up in this choir:

http://www.no-treason.com/archives/2003/05/18/making-a-fetish-of-the-confederacy-at-lewrockwellcom/

http://www.no-treason.com/archives/2004/10/19/dilorenzo-responds/

Keep in mind that I believe there is truth in both the sides presented and that I think at times both are talking past one another.

ThorsMitersaw:

Just to stir things up in this choir:

http://www.no-treason.com/archives/2003/05/18/making-a-fetish-of-the-confederacy-at-lewrockwellcom/

http://www.no-treason.com/archives/2004/10/19/dilorenzo-responds/

Keep in mind that I believe there is truth in both the sides presented and that I think at times both are talking past one another.

Atleast it was less hypocritical for the Confederate States to institute federal conscription as slavery was already a recognised and protected system in their contitution. The United States on the other hand claimed to be fighting against slavery but at the same time forced men to join the military and fight.

Do not get me wrong friend, I do not support the north or claim no right to secede or the common men of th esouth o defend themselves from the northern terrorists. And I recognize that there were movements and even attempted legislation in the south that were growing to eliminate slavery from within.

I just do not wish to support ANY government, confederate or federal.

which is why stars and bars is black and yellow.

ThorsMitersaw:

Do not get me wrong friend, I do not support the north or claim no right to secede or the common men of th esouth o defend themselves from the northern terrorists. And I recognize that there were movements and even attempted legislation in the south that were growing to eliminate slavery from within.

I just do not wish to support ANY government, confederate or federal.

I agree. But if the south had either won or if the North hadn't invaded, the principle of secession would have been legitimized in the American theory of government. We are coming to the logical conclusion of American Statism - that is, the state owns everyone and everything in its jurisdiction. And the logical conclusion of a system that accepts secession is the eventual death of the state.

which is why stars and bars is black and yellow.

Market Anarchist Gadsden flag

Credit: Rich333

MacFall:

Market Anarchist Gadsden flag

Credit: Rich333

/right clicks, save as/

BWF89:

MacFall:

Market Anarchist Gadsden flag

Credit: Rich333

That's awesome.

/right clicks, save as/

heres my stars and bars, I also have a much more elaborate and decorative one which I apparnetly have never uploaded onto photobucket so I will have to post that one when I return home from work

http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n314/thorsmitersaw/ancaprebel.gif

New video where I reviewes a few books I read on the war: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ivcc8mnaeB4