Civil War History vs Race-Baiting in the Media

HISTORY IS NOT THE MEDIA'S FORTE. In response to Gen. Kelly's observation during a Fox interview with Laura Ingraham on Monday night that the "civil war" could have been avoided had there been a "willingness to compromise", some reporters (always the race-baiters) at the White House Press Conference today smugly inquired if Gen. Kelly may have been referring to compromising on slavery. (Oh, the humanity!!!) It was painfully obvious these PC ignoramuses hadn't a clue about "civil war" history. Sanders fielded the veiled attacks gracefully by alluding to the fact that "historians, both north and south" today agree that the war could have been prevented. (Perfectly stated and well-handled,)

Having read many politically INcorrect books about the so-called "civil war", aka the War of Northern Aggression, I could only have hoped that I had been present to take on those fools.

Prepared for their attacks, I would have quickly noted that the Confederates in 1861 dispatched delegates to DC to discuss peace, but that Lincoln flatly refused to meet or negotiate with them. (Not only was he unwilling to compromise, he outright rejected all southern attempts to negotiate.)

Though there are countless verifiable quotes attributable to Lincoln, I would have highlighted these two: In his 1862 letter to newspaper editor Horace Greeley he asserted that "My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery." And earlier in his political career during his 1858 debate with Stephen Douglas he said this: "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races." Also, shortly after his inauguration, he pledged his support for an amendment to the Constitution which forbade any amendment which would have permitted Congress to either abolish or interfere with the institution of slavery. Etc. Etc. Etc. And then I would have demanded the reporters prove me wrong, finishing up with "So, do you think Lincoln statues should come down too? Or do we learn from history and understand that historical figures are never, ever perfect?"

I would also have pointed out that most objective historians who haven't deified and mischaracterized Lincoln have clearly demonstrated that the paramount cause of the civil war was decades of oppressively unfair and intolerable tariffs imposed by the federal government on manufactured goods entering Southern ports, this to ensure that the South was compelled to purchase less expensive goods of lesser quality from northern manufacturers. (The tariff issue was seen as early as the 1830's as a lit match which could only lead to either peaceful secession of the south or needless and preventable bloodshed precipitated by industrial greed of the northern States.)

Three vital points: 1) the "civil war" was not, by definition, a civil war; it was an invasion of a sovereign, independent nation by the north; 2) it was fought over the issues of the right of a State to freely withdraw from a voluntary union (as contended by our Founders) and the grossly unfair and non-uniform imposition of federal tariffs on the southern States; 3) because the south was so dependent upon cotton, rice and indigo requiring intensive labor, from an economic standpoint, it was also fought over the issue of slavery.

So, Kelly and Sanders knew their history and, unsurprisingly, the indoctrinated ivy leaguers in the press room were clueless.