# Civil war and the movies, North vs. South



## billc (Jan 3, 2012)

Something I have noticed in more than a few movies about the civil war and its immediate aftermath, the South is almost always shown in a positive light, and the North as the bad guys.  This subject came to me after reading a review of the show "Hell on Wheels," about building a railroad line after the civil war.  Apparently, the people who are from the North, treat former slaves horribly, while the people from the south on the show are respectful of the former slaves.  This show isn't alone.  The "Outlaw Josey Wales," shows Josey Wales as a decent guy, even having been a member of "Bloody" Bill Andersons guerilla band.  The northerners in the movie kill former p.o.w.'s and conducted the raid that killed Wales family.  Even the Mathew Broderick movie about the first Black military unit in the civil war showed the northerners as bad in most ways, except for Broderick and his fellow officers.

My question is, why does hollywood constantly show sympathy toward the slave holding south, and show the anti-slavery north in a bad light?  Is it because the North was Republican and the South was Democrat?  Is that the problem?  Any thoughts?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 3, 2012)

Well, the North did launch an illegal invasion of an independent nation, ravage the land as they went, steal property, rape with impunity and so on.


----------



## MAist25 (Jan 3, 2012)

Except the Confederacy was not an independent nation.... Abraham Lincoln and the United States never recognized the Confederate States of America to be a sovereign nation because it is unconstitutional to secede from the Union. Once you become a state, you are always a state. There is no backing out of the Union. That is why it is known as a civil war and not a war between two countries...

But the OP does bring up an interesting point. I do know that as soon as General Lee surrendered to General Grant at Appomattox Courthouse and the war was over, Lincoln wanted the south to be treated as Americans, not as a conquered people of a foreign nation and he wanted to provide them with aid and rebuilt the south, even though there were some restrictions on the people of the south such as the inability to hold governmental positions and such. Honestly, I just think it depends on the viewpoint of the writers and directors of the films. Not many of them are historians and the way they portray historical events cannot be taken as factual. People of the south often still feel as though they were victims and that they were invaded by another country (being the North) and that the north destroyed their way of life, etc. It's all about perspective.


----------



## granfire (Jan 3, 2012)

MAist25 said:


> Except the Confederacy was not an independent nation.... Abraham Lincoln and the United States never recognized the Confederate States of America to be a sovereign nation because it is unconstitutional to secede from the Union. Once you become a state, you are always a state. There is no backing out of the Union. That is why it is known as a civil war and not a war between two countries...


I guess that is the eternal argument. If states can join, why can't they leave the union?



> But the OP does bring up an interesting point. I do know that as soon as General Lee surrendered to General Grant at Appomattox Courthouse and the war was over, Lincoln wanted the south to be treated as Americans, not as a conquered people of a foreign nation and he wanted to provide them with aid and rebuilt the south, even though there were some restrictions on the people of the south such as the inability to hold governmental positions and such. Honestly, I just think it depends on the viewpoint of the writers and directors of the films. Not many of them are historians and the way they portray historical events cannot be taken as factual. People of the south often still feel as though they were victims and that they were invaded by another country (being the North) and that the north destroyed their way of life, etc. It's all about perspective.



Perspective, indeed.

And I can't say I have seen anything depicting the South as anything but sympathetic, true. It is an interesting point to ponder (since history is written by the victors) 

But the republican/democrat spiel? billi, you are silly!


----------



## MAist25 (Jan 3, 2012)

^^ I think the fact that you can join but cannot leave is very important for our nation. To give states the ability to leave destroys the system of checks and balances we have by giving states wayyyy too much power. The fact that states cannot leave strengthens the Union. We are the UNITED States of America, not the Come and Go as You Please States of America. If a territory wants to become a part of this country, then you are in for the long run, not just until you feel like it. If states could simply leave, think about what would happen during major events such as wars and elections. A few states arent happy about getting involved in a war, so they leave, the Union weakens. Some states arent happy about a president who gets elected, so they leave (Civil War), weakens the Union. If states had this much power there would be no United States of America.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 3, 2012)

MAist25 said:


> Except the Confederacy was not an independent nation.... Abraham Lincoln and the United States never recognized the Confederate States of America to be a sovereign nation because *it is unconstitutional to secede from the Union*. Once you become a state, you are always a state. There is no backing out of the Union. That is why it is known as a civil war and not a war between two countries...



I disagree.

Revisiting the Past - The Road to War : Causes
Researching the Past - An examination of the concept of Secession
Revisiting the Past : Part 3 - An re-examination of the concept of Secession
Revisiting the Past : Pt 4 - The Institution of Slavery as a cause for war. By Bob Hubbard*
*US Civil War Myths and Facts


----------



## MAist25 (Jan 3, 2012)

Ughh, I guess it is my duty as a history major to argue back, although it seems you know what you're talking about when it comes to the Civil War. I guess It's time to break out the old history books and see if I have a chance haha


----------



## MAist25 (Jan 3, 2012)

Lincoln explains that all power that a state holds is given to it by  the Union and the Constitution because they were never states "in  substance or in name" outside of the Union.   He maintains that no state has ever been sovereign because history  shows that: 1) The Union is older than any of the states; 2) The Union  created them as states; and, 3) The Union gave to them any power that  they might possess.  Lincoln argues that it was "some dependent  colonies" which made the Union; then, the Union cast off their old  dependence, making them states and now only dependent upon the Union  itself.   Therefore, no state ever existed outside, or without, the Union.   In  other words, they became states only by their coming into the Union, and  all power that they might possess is dependent upon them remaining a  part of the Union.  They have no power by virtue of being states, and  the relationship that they share with the Union is permanent and binding  for all times.  The connection that holds the states to the Union is  based principally upon the contractual agreement made at the signing of  the US Constitution.  The people of the several states, and not the  states separately, acted by means of the ballot-box to agree to the  contract that the Constitution sought to establish.  Therefore, Lincoln  brings to light two points: 1) It was the sovereignty of the people, and  not of the individual states, which was responsible for formulating the  contract; and, 2) Once the Constitution is ratified by the people of  the several states, and the contract becomes a binding law, then neither  party can absolve themselves from the contract unless a specified term  of the contract has been broken.   The United States is contracted to  both protect the natural rights of the citizens of each state and to  "guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of  Government."   The people of the states, in return, join the Union, agreeing to abide  by the laws of that Government, including the law against rebellion.   Because no terms of that contract have been broken by the federal  government, and because the people only, and not a state separately, is  sovereign, there can be no claim to Constitutional secession&#8212;only  illegal rebellion. 

This is a section written by Jason Stevens from his thesis titled, "Abraham Lincoln's Understanding of the Nature of the Union: Secession, Slavery, and the Philosophical Cause".


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 3, 2012)

Lincoln was wrong.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...vil-War-Myths-and-Facts&p=1240638#post1240638
(See posts 52 on for more)

Virginia specified at ratification:


> On June 26, 1788, Virginia&#8217;s elected delegates met to ratify the  Constitution. In their ratification document, they said, &#8220;The People of  Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the  Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be  resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury  or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them  and at their will.&#8221;



When Virginia seceded they specified:


> Now, therefore, we, the people of Virginia, do declare and ordain, That the ordinance adopted by the people of this State in Convention, on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and all acts of the General Assembly of this State, ratifying or adopting amendments to said Constitution, are hereby repealed and abrogated; that the union between the State of Virginia and the other States under the Constitution aforesaid, is hereby dissolved, and that the State of Virginia is in the full possession and exercise of all the rights of sovereignty which belong and appertain to a free and independent State.
> 
> And they do further declare, That said Constitution of the United States of America is no longer binding on any of the citizens of this State.




However, let us assume he was correct. Your quote made 2 important points.


> Therefore, Lincoln  brings to light two points:
> 1) It was the  sovereignty of the people, and  not of the individual states, which was  responsible for formulating the  contract; and,
> 2) Once the Constitution  is ratified by the people of  the several states, and the contract  becomes a binding law, then neither  party can absolve themselves from  the contract unless a specified term  of the contract has been broken.



Virginia at ratification stated "The People of  Virginia".
At secession again stated "the people of Virginia"
and cited injury.  So Mr. Stevens was either incorrect or Lincoln was.

I apologize for being brief in reply. I do enjoy the topic, but much of the 'data' I can bring up is in the previous mentioned threads so I'll probably refer to them a lot. 

Now if you want a real interesting bit, there's the question on if the entire Constitution is even legal, since the authors were not authorized to write it, just fix the Articles of Confederation. Fix, not replace.  (Though thats best done in a new topic)


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 3, 2012)

Regarding States that were nations outside the Union...  You might consider the historic Republic of Texas.  Texas existed as a sovereign nation before joining the United States of America.

Though, apparently, each of the original Colonies were also considered nations prior to the adoption of US Constitution.  I'll have to reread some history and the Articles of Confederation.  (Which, as Bob said, leads to the whole question of the legality of the US Constitution.)


----------



## MAist25 (Jan 3, 2012)

So you are saying that the people of Virginia have the right to secede when they are being oppressed. But they never were oppressed, Lincoln never wanted their to be a war and did nothing to threaten the southern way of life. He never wanted to end slavery in the south, he simply did not want slavery to spread elsewhere. In what ways did Lincoln oppress the people? Remember, the people of Virginia and of all the other southern states and all the states of the Union collectively voted Abraham Lincoln in as their president. Our government is based on a majority rule, and the southern states were hypocritical in that when the majority rule didnt go their way, they simply decided to leave based on their own majority rule. As a person you can leave, but you cant take the state with you.

And I agree that the legality of the Constitution would make for an interesting discussion, but I don't think the founding fathers cared too much about authorization lol


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 4, 2012)

> But they never were oppressed, Lincoln never wanted their to be a war and did nothing to threaten the southern way of life.



first inaugural: "The power confided in me, will be used to  hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the  government, _and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what  may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion--no using  force against, or among the people anywhere"

_He wanted the lucrative import tariffs from Southern ports, without which the Federal government would have gone broke. Under Lincoln Federal tarrifs went from 15% ro 37.5% to 47.06%, effectively beggaring the Southern importers.  I would call excessive tax hikes oppression.
(Source: Frank Taussig in _Tariff History of the United States)_



> Remember, the people of Virginia and of all the other southern states  and all the states of the Union collectively voted Abraham Lincoln in as  their president.


Not true.
December 20, 1860, South Carolina seceded.
Lincoln became president in March 1861."no ballots were cast for him in ten of the fifteen Southern slave  states, and he won only two of 996 counties in all the Southern states"_
[link]
_
Now here is a question.
"As a person you can leave, but you cant take the state with you."
If every single person in Virginia wanted to leave, what should they do? Pack their bags and head for Canada?
What happens to the physical land that forms Virginia?


As to legality of secession, I'm saying right now, in 2012, any US State may secede as there is -nothing- in the US Constitution forbidding it.
And as it says clearly in the 10th Amendment: "_The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor  prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,  or to the people._" 
The fact that -7- US states have considered it and brought it up for discussion within the last 10 years, says others agree with that idea.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 4, 2012)

An excellent step by step on the legality of secession.
http://www.endusmilitarism.org/secessionlegality.html

It brings up a point I made in 1 or more of those links above.

If a State can't leave, and in fact it was a rebellion, why the whole farce of "readmittance" then?

Also some cite _Texas v. White _as the 'USSC answer'.
To quote:


> Twelfth, some scholars say that the Supreme Court's decision in _Texas v. White_ did _not_ settle the legality-of-secession question on the "con" side as firmly as many people have claimed. For one thing, the court did allow some possibility of legal secession by saying:
> The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, _ except_ through revolution, _or through consent of the States._



This implies that if a State wishes to leave, the other States can say yea/nay to it.

Of course, the USSC has changed it's mind in the past and things that used to be legal no longer are, and vice versa.


----------



## MAist25 (Jan 4, 2012)

Hmm, I just did some more research and it seems that you are correct in that there is nothing in the Constitution that specifically denies states the right to secede and that the 10th amendment gives all powers not expressly given to the federal government by the Constitution to the state governments. The only thing I can think of in defense would be to ask who authorized the secessions in each of the states because in order to secede, the people of the state would have needed to vote for the secession as I understand it. Did each state actually have separate votes on whether or not to secede from the Union and if so, how accurate and legitimate were they? How much were they tampered with? Were blacks allowed to vote or were their voices silenced?


----------



## jedtx88 (Jan 4, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Something I have noticed in more than a few movies about the civil war and its immediate aftermath, the South is almost always shown in a positive light, and the North as the bad guys. This subject came to me after reading a review of the show "Hell on Wheels," about building a railroad line after the civil war. Apparently, the people who are from the North, treat former slaves horribly, while the people from the south on the show are respectful of the former slaves. This show isn't alone. The "Outlaw Josey Wales," shows Josey Wales as a decent guy, even having been a member of "Bloody" Bill Andersons guerilla band. The northerners in the movie kill former p.o.w.'s and conducted the raid that killed Wales family. Even the Mathew Broderick movie about the first Black military unit in the civil war showed the northerners as bad in most ways, except for Broderick and his fellow officers.
> 
> My question is, why does hollywood constantly show sympathy toward the slave holding south, and show the anti-slavery north in a bad light? Is it because the North was Republican and the South was Democrat? Is that the problem? Any thoughts?



Okay...Do you realize that bigotry ran rampid on both sides of the Mason Dixon line?  Also I can see sympathizing with the south most of those fellows were marching barefoot by 1862.  Seriously the real rebel yell was probably something along the lines of "I get that one's boots!"


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 4, 2012)

jks9199 said:


> Regarding States that were nations outside the Union... You might consider the historic Republic of Texas. Texas existed as a sovereign nation before joining the United States of America.
> 
> Though, apparently, each of the original Colonies were also considered nations prior to the adoption of US Constitution. I'll have to reread some history and the Articles of Confederation. (Which, as Bob said, leads to the whole question of the legality of the US Constitution.)



If I remember correctly from history class, Texas actually has it in their State Constitution to have the ability to split into 5 different states.


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 4, 2012)

MAist25 said:


> So you are saying that the people of Virginia have the right to secede when they are being oppressed. But they never were oppressed, *Lincoln never wanted their to be a war and did nothing to threaten the southern way of life. He never wanted to end slavery in the south, he simply did not want slavery to spread elsewhere*. In what ways did Lincoln oppress the people? Remember, the people of Virginia and of all the other southern states and all the states of the Union collectively voted Abraham Lincoln in as their president. Our government is based on a majority rule, and the southern states were hypocritical in that when the majority rule didnt go their way, they simply decided to leave based on their own majority rule. As a person you can leave, but you cant take the state with you.
> 
> And I agree that the legality of the Constitution would make for an interesting discussion, but I don't think the founding fathers cared too much about authorization lol



Lincoln and slavery wasn't really the issue, it was the southern states leaving and taking with them most of the money that the northern states were enjoying through the textile trade. If you ask a southerner what the Civil War was about they will usually tell you that it was over State's rights. If you ask a northerner they will usually tell you it was all over slavery...History is written by those who won it and they will usually vilify the loser and turn it into a moral cause instead of a money cause. 

Lincoln never freed the slaves in the Emmancipation Proclomation because he truthfully really didn't care (Quote from Lincoln in a debate I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races, and I have never said anything on the contrary.). He only freed slaves in the southern controlled states, if the north controlled that territory and there were slaves, they continued to be slaves. Why? Because he didn't want them to upset the apple cart.  Even Lincoln's top Gen.  Grant stated if he thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission, and offer my sword to the other side.

Less than 20% of southerners (that counts the family as a whole, if you only count the head of the household the % is more around 5%) owned black slaves and those that did usually only had 1 and worked the fields along side them. The stereotypical "Gone with the Wind" plantation with lots of slaves was a rarity. That also does not take into account 3,000 or so black slave owners who owned black slaves.

Slavery needed to go, and at least the war accomplished that, but it was not the goal or purpose of the war just a good side effect.  As to why Hollywood always portrays it that way is probably because alot of people feel that way.  Lincoln did things during the war to the Constitution that make the Patriot Act look tame (suspending Habeus Corpus and imprisoning certain people who spoke out).


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 4, 2012)

MAist25 said:


> Hmm, I just did some more research and it seems that you are correct in that there is nothing in the Constitution that specifically denies states the right to secede and that the 10th amendment gives all powers not expressly given to the federal government by the Constitution to the state governments. The only thing I can think of in defense would be to ask who authorized the secessions in each of the states because in order to secede, the people of the state would have needed to vote for the secession as I understand it. Did each state actually have separate votes on whether or not to secede from the Union and if so, how accurate and legitimate were they? How much were they tampered with? Were blacks allowed to vote or were their voices silenced?


The duly elected representative governments in each state voted on it I believe. Though Virginia might have held a public vote "*Ratified, 23 May 1861, by a referendum vote of 132,201 for and 37,451 against."*
As to blacks voting, don't be silly. They like women weren't people then. They didn't vote North or South.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 4, 2012)

A reason why Hollywood treats the Civil War the way it does is because people love lost causes. You identify with the underdog. There was no greater Lost Cause, no greater Underdog in US history.   Some of the causes were abhorrent (ie slavery), both sides committed atrocities (the prison death camps for example), the war was brutal with families split forever. But there were nobles in command, on both sides. Lee, Jackson and Longstreet, Chamberlain, and many others. The South has thousands of monuments to their generals. Stone Mountain is a popular tourist attraction, despite the desire of a few narrow minded folks to blast it back to bare granite. Holidays are held and flags unfurled every year, all Confederate.  The Lost Cause is big business, and Hollywood is business. Don't piss off your target audience.


----------



## Big Don (Jan 4, 2012)

The only time Southerners aren't portrayed as gibbering idiots (hello Larry the Cable guy) is in Civil War movies.
This annoys me.


----------



## granfire (Jan 4, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> As to blacks voting, don't be silly. They like women weren't people then. They didn't vote North or South.



yeah, but they officially became people long before the women folk...some minor disturbances down South not withstanding....


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 4, 2012)

I wanted to back track a bit here.


MAist25 said:


> Except the Confederacy was not an independent nation.... Abraham Lincoln and the United States never recognized the Confederate States of America to be a sovereign nation because it is unconstitutional to secede from the Union. Once you become a state, you are always a state. There is no backing out of the Union. That is why it is known as a civil war and not a war between two countries...



From before Sumter, right up through Gettysburg the Union mostly got it's but kicked, and the war was an unpopular one in the North with Lincolns' advisers were telling him to let the South go.. Lincoln refused the peaceful options. The South lacked a decisive victory which would have gained them recognition by England and France (both who had representatives embedded with some of the Southern armies.)  



> But the OP does bring up an interesting point. I do know that as soon as General Lee surrendered to General Grant at Appomattox Courthouse and the war was over, Lincoln wanted the south to be treated as Americans, not as a conquered people of a foreign nation and he wanted to provide them with aid and rebuilt the south, even though there were some restrictions on the people of the south such as the inability to hold governmental positions and such. Honestly, I just think it depends on the viewpoint of the writers and directors of the films. Not many of them are historians and the way they portray historical events cannot be taken as factual. People of the south often still feel as though they were victims and that they were invaded by another country (being the North) and that the north destroyed their way of life, etc. It's all about perspective.



The war was fought as a war of conquest. The lands were ravaged.  Sherman's March is a prime example, where his troops robbed, raped and pilaged with the approval of Sherman, Grant and Lincoln.  Sherman himself called what they were doing criminal.  The effects of that march still echo in the Southern mind. After the war the "Lost Cause" became romantisized, and what you might call the 'bravado of the vanquished' arose.  The aftermath (carpet baggers, military rule, suspended elections, reparations, etc) reinforced this. This wasn't "welcome back wayward children" it was "you have sinned, and for that you shall be punished".   With the romanticizing of the war, the normal embellishments were made, heroes were that much larger, villains that much eviler, and the causes simplified and simplified, until you get the popular-history we know today.   They made several movies about Gettysburg. I've seen most, I've yet to see any that mention the fact that Lee's judgment was off kilter out of desperation and a bad case of 'screamers'. The Turner movie for example seriously downplayed the vacuum that the recent loss of General Jackson had on Lee and Lee's decision making due to Jackson's balancing out Longstreet.  But it was a nice movie, and a good novel, historical hiccups aside.


----------



## MAist25 (Jan 4, 2012)

Lincoln did not want to see bloodshed between countrymen and it was the south who fired the first shot. After that, warfare is warfare. I'm not saying that the north did not commit atrocities but the south certainly did as well. Sherman ravaged the land to cut off and destroy southern food sources as well as to destroy the enemy's will to fight. As far as reconstruction went, I believe things would have gone along smoother if Lincoln had actually been around to manage it rather than Johnson.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 4, 2012)

The firing of the first shot is one of those interesting things.  South Carolina was put in a no-win position.  Most of the other forts surrendered peacefully, but Ft. Sumter refused. Lincoln ordered it resupplied, violating South Carolina's territory. They were forced to fire as the options were don't fire, thereby showing weakness or fire and be blamed for the start of hostilities.  Even after that however, Lincoln's advisors suggested peace and allowing the states to leave, hoping that when tempers cooled they would seek re-admittance.
(See Tom DiLorenzo's "Real Lincoln" for much of the background on that.) 

As to Reconstruction going smoother, it might have.  Lincoln was a tyrant, but not necessarily an evil one.  He did what he did because he believed it to be right, not because he was a malicious person.  Johnson....well many in the administration after Lincolns death were revenge minded folk.


----------



## MAist25 (Jan 4, 2012)

If the south was so intent on being non-combative and the north was non-aggressive then why were Buchanan and Lincoln not allowed to re-supply THEIR troops in land that was once part of their nation? Taking northern forts and military installations sounds pretty aggressive and warlike to me. Refusing a nation to resupply its troops stationed in your country even though their was no aggressiveness, and that the personnel delivering the resupply were unarmed sounds pretty warlike to me as well. The way I see it is that South Carolina took over northern forts. They demanded that all US military personnel abandon their posts. Then they fired upon an unarmed ship trying to send them supplies. The north only violated South Carolina's territory because it used to be their territory and they still had federal military property and personnel their. To order evacuation is an act of hostility.


----------



## MAist25 (Jan 4, 2012)

Also, in regard to Lincoln being a tyrant, he definitely did push the boundaries of power he was bestowed as president, but I'm not sure if he should be described as a tyrant. I believe that a president taking action to do what he feels is right for the nation is the most we could ask of him. Some of the best presidents have pushed the boundaries of the presidency. Think about Roosevelt. He pushed a lot of boundaries but the nation needed someone to take control and start making things happen. I dont hear too many Americans calling him a tyrant...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 4, 2012)

MAist25 said:


> Also, in regard to Lincoln being a tyrant, he definitely did push the boundaries of power he was bestowed as president, but I'm not sure if he should be described as a tyrant. I believe that a president taking action to do what he feels is right for the nation is the most we could ask of him. Some of the best presidents have pushed the boundaries of the presidency. Think about Roosevelt. He pushed a lot of boundaries but the nation needed someone to take control and start making things happen. I dont hear too many Americans calling him a tyrant...



Which Roosevelt? Teddy who many thought insane, or FDR who only death removed from the throne? (Those 2 are interesting discussions btw) 

Was _Lincoln_ a _Tyrant_? by Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo

Lincoln:

When he took office, claimed that in spite of the secession of the first seven Southern  states, he would continue to collect federal tariffs in the South. 
Committed an act of war by sending ships into Southern waters to  resupply Fort Sumter forcing the South to retaliate and begin the war. 
Requested troops from  the states still within the Union. Many governors such as John Letcher  of Virginia and Claiborne Jackson of Missouri responded to Lincoln&#8217;s  request by very sternly denouncing his illegal, revolutionary, and  bellicose beliefs and stating clearly that they would not honor it. In  the minds of many Americans, even in the North at the outbreak of the  war, Lincoln&#8217;s raising of troops to march across his own country and  invade the homes of neighbors was inconceivable. 
After personally  initiating a state of war without congressional approval, Lincoln  suspended habeas corpus illegally and had thousands of dissidents in the  North arrested and jailed without trials during the war. Newspapers  that disagreed with his actions were shut down. 
Even congressmen who  disagreed with Lincoln&#8217;s wartime policies were not safe. Congressman  Clement Vallandigham of Ohio was arrested and exiled from the United  States for his vocal opinions. 
When Lincoln needed more votes in the  Congress for his policies, he unconstitutionally created the State of  West Virginia out of Virginia without the state&#8217;s approval. 
His generals  were handpicked to usher in an age of total war against the civilian  populace of the South. 
He ousted popularly elected governments across  the South in states such as Tennessee and installed military governors  supported by federal troops, violating the Constitutional guarantee of  republican governments across the states. 
Source:http://southernnationalist.com/blog/2011/04/23/abraham-lincoln-the-tyrant/
Text taken from link above, bulletized and shortened.
Points also notated in previous links.




> If the south was so intent on being non-combative and the north was  non-aggressive then why were Buchanan and Lincoln not allowed to  re-supply THEIR troops in land that was once part of their nation?  Taking northern forts and military installations sounds pretty  aggressive and warlike to me. Refusing a nation to resupply its troops  stationed in your country even though their was no aggressiveness, and  that the personnel delivering the resupply were unarmed sounds pretty  warlike to me as well. The way I see it is that South Carolina took over  northern forts. They demanded that all US military personnel abandon  their posts. Then they fired upon an unarmed ship trying to send them  supplies. The north only violated South Carolina's territory because it  used to be their territory and they still had federal military property  and personnel their. To order evacuation is an act of hostility. 				​



Before the start of hostilities, the various seceding states sent numerous peace envoys to seek a peaceful solution. All were refused audience with King Lincoln.  As to territorial disputes, once property is no longer yours, you have no right to it. The South offered to pay for the forts at fair price. They were refused.


----------



## MAist25 (Jan 5, 2012)

Haha I was referring more towards FDR. As for Lincoln, like I said, he did push the limits of his presidential powers but I do not disagree with his decision to continue to collect tariffs in the south; he still believed them to be a part of the US. As far as committing an act of war by sending an unarmed ship into southern waters to resupply his own men, I do not see that to be an aggressive or threatening action at all. For Lincoln to refuse offers by the south to basically buy northern forts, I can see why he would turn them down. To agree would to basically give up and accept that the south seceded and it would force him to view them as a sovereign nation, which he was not going to do.


----------

