Had President Buchanan taken action when supplies were restricted to Fort Sumpter, it could have been averted. It might have been averted if President Lincoln had taken South Carolina to court to remove their troops instead of engaging in war.

You are right in one sense. It’s very hard to say that the Civil War was “about slavery” if the war is considered an act of Northern aggression. As a Civil War historian, I’m sure you are well aware that in the decades leading up to the conflict, slavery was constitutionally protected and reinforced through legislation such as the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and Supreme Court rulings such as Dred Scott v Sandford. I’m sure you are also aware that President Lincoln’s sole objective was to restore the Union and that the emancipation was issued as an article of war rather than an amendment to the constitution. It is a fact of record that slavery did indeed exist in border slave states that did not secede from the Union as Lincoln had no constitutional power to abolish slavery without Congress. With all of that being said, I would agree that the Civil War was not “about slavery” for the North. That is not to say that Lincoln Republicans supported slavery or did not try to end it legally without bloodshed (a very important point that most people ignore). What is most ironic is that the current view of “states rights” as a Southern battle cry holds very little water except as a means of propaganda for Southern secession (or as you state, “to be free from you”.) After all, as a historian, I’m sure you will see the hypocrisy of Southern slave states and owners seeking federal relief that invalidated the “states rights” of free states (i.e. Federal Slave codes and Dred Scott). I’m sure you’ll also agree that Southern Jim Crow states had no problem seeking federal relief that authorized de jure racial segregation (Plessy). Just to be fair to another point of view Mr. Thompson, I ask you to consider this. The Civil War was fought between two opposing sides for two opposing reasons. For the North and Lincoln, the reason was simple, secession. In fact, Lincoln would have been in dereliction of duty had he not gone to war and would have been impeached. After all, all presidents take an oath to protect and maintain the union. From this point of view, the war was not an act of northern aggression but preservation. Remember this when you consider that the heroism of D-Day may not have been possible with a fractured union. Southern states seceded from the union to protect the institution of slavery and therefore their way of life. The issues of free trade and protectionist tariffs at the time were divided along sectional lines for a reason. Before shouting “states rights!” from the rooftop consider why the division? Free trade strengthened the institution of slavery and protectionist tariffs weakened it. In essence, the entire Southern way of life was built on the backs of slaves. Consider why Southern slave holders fought so politically hard to ensure the Wilmot Proviso was not enacted. Consider the threat that newly acquired federal land being governed as free states had on the “Federal Ratio” (three-fifth compromise). All of these politically charged topics of the time revolved around slavery. To deny this is to turn our backs from history. Southern secessionists knew that secession was considered an act of War and they counted on it (Fire-Eaters). They hoped to achieve through violence what they could not achieve politically. To that end, they sought not to be “just left alone,” but to acquire new territory under more favorable treaties that protected the rights of few and subjugated the many. Respectfully, Mr. Thompson, I can understand why any Southerner would defend the honor of relatives past, but please keep in mind the terrible toll that slavery has had on our country and the national conscience. It is not a legacy we should forget and we should always hold in our hearts the debt we owe to those (slaves) that helped to build this country. As a fellow Southerner, I wish you well.

Race is very interesting in this country; it matters yet doesn’t matter. I try to overcome all the prejudices I’ve been socialize with. I began primarily by critically examining the media that is shoved down my throat at every turn.

Tezuka Fan, it happens to the best of us.

http://www.newser.com/story/85.....month.html

I agree, it is state-sponsored racism! In Europe and Canada, everyone is just that, example, Canadian. In fact, in the Cayman Islands, a british OT, when a crime is committed, the paper will say, “the suspect was described as brown…”

Here in the U.S. race is factored in everything you do-employment, school, home loans…..you are asked to identify your ethnicty – insurance policies are based on ethnicity,therefore, communities, kinda like ‘red-lining.’

PS: Did you know Lincoln’s wife inherited two slaves. Did she free them? NO They were sold to finance his new law practice!!! Fact ; And I’m a revisionist.

“That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.

“That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on that day be, in good faith, represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States.”

Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.

And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all 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.

And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.

And I further declare and make known, that such persons of suitable condition, will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.

And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the eighty-seventh.

By the President: ABRAHAM LINCOLN
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.

If you think slavery was not a central issue for the civil war then you are not a civil war historian. You are a civil war revisionist. No one is trying to keep you or any of your confederate buddies in this country. You’re free to leave anytime you want.

Technically, writing in Confederate Southern American is legal. One suspects, as a long time government worker, that they will be simply listed as White/Caucasian when the census is put into the computer.