# South Started Civil War Over Slavery



## Orange_Juice (Jul 25, 2008)

That's just a fact. 

Let's have some fun! Wanna look stupid? Try to say slavery wasn't the reason for the war.


----------



## BillyBob (Jul 25, 2008)

Can we make slavery legal again? At least I'd feel like I was getting something for all the money we keep wasting on blacks between food stamps, free education, free health care....

For all that I should at least have them out in my fields picking cotton.


----------



## jillian (Jul 25, 2008)

BillyBob said:


> Can we make slavery legal again? At least I'd feel like I was getting something for all the money we keep wasting on blacks between food stamps, free education, free health care....
> 
> For all that I should at least have them out in my fields picking cotton.



sayeth the poster boy for white trash...


----------



## BillyBob (Jul 25, 2008)

jillian said:


> sayeth the poster boy for white trash...



That still puts me a half dozen rungs above a ******.


----------



## Orange_Juice (Jul 25, 2008)

BillyBob said:


> Can we make slavery legal again? At least I'd feel like I was getting something for all the money we keep wasting on blacks between food stamps, free education, free health care....
> 
> For all that I should at least have them out in my fields picking cotton.



We shopuld have given them the land after the war that they had worked for two hudred years, then they wouldn't have needed so many social services


----------



## random3434 (Jul 25, 2008)

jillian said:


> sayeth the poster boy for white trash...




You just insulted white trash everywhere jillian, this "boy" is the island where you go to dump all your trash because there is too much trash in the landfill.


----------



## BillyBob (Jul 25, 2008)

Orange_Juice said:


> We shopuld have given them the land after the war that they had worked for two hudred years, then they wouldn't have needed so many social services



The land wasn't the government's to give.


----------



## BillyBob (Jul 25, 2008)

Echo Zulu said:


> You just insulted white trash everywhere jillian, this "boy" is the island where you go to dump all your trash because there is too much trash in the landfill.



Good lord, that's retarded. Now you're just embarrassing yourself.


----------



## random3434 (Jul 25, 2008)

BillyBob said:


> Good lord, that's retarded. Now you're just embarrassing yourself.





I am so ashamed. 


 Someone like you,,,,of all the people in the world, thinks I'm retarded. 


I give you about another hour on here.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 25, 2008)

Orange_Juice said:


> That's just a fact.
> 
> Let's have some fun! Wanna look stupid? Try to say slavery wasn't the reason for the war.



Hmm..."The South Started the Civil War Over Slavery"

Let's disect this shall we.  

WRONG. 

Granted, it is a fact that slavery "happened" to be the issue in which the confrontation arose.  But, the issue was soley or even remotely about slavery.  It could have been any other thing.  Had the feds decided to take everyone's guns away, it could have been that.  For the South, it was about STATE'S RIGHTS.  

Let's first keep in mind that slavery was LEGAL in the North until 1865.  That means both sides, North & South fought the entire Civil War over something that was LEGAL?  Hard to believe.  

The Civil War was fought over succession of Southern states and the attempt of the North to preserve the Union.  We had a rather large and long thread about this a while back..

The fact is, this will never be settled.  The South believes it had the right to succeed.  Based on the 10th Amendment.  Considering the 10th gives states the right to excercise powers not delegated to the U.S. gov. and not prohibited to the states, the South viewed the succession as legal.  The North, however, did not, and believed it was their duty to preserve the Union.

The Civil War was fought over States Rights....apparently, state's rights that the Fed didn't believed the state had.  It was not fought over slavery.  IT makes one wonder, that if the South had not suceeded, would there have ever been a war?


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 25, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Hmm..."The South Started the Civil War Over Slavery"
> 
> Let's disect this shall we.
> 
> ...



I would question the Idea that slavery was legal in the North until 1865, many northern states had state laws outlawing slavery well before 1865.

The real hot button issue was actually about expansion of slavery into the new territories.


----------



## stivex (Jul 25, 2008)

The Civil War was not about or because of slavery. The issue of slavery was simply the last straw that broke the camel's back so to speak. The succession of the South was bouund to come about some time. Abraham Lincoln just decided to use the war as a means to set the slaves free. Yet, it took him years to decide to finally do it.

To say the war was simply about slavery is naive. It also leads one to believe that the Northern people were tolerant of blacks while the Sountern folk were racist asshats. The truth is most whites were racist at the time. That includes the North. They just didn't believe in slavery, and the North (being far more industrial) didn't need need slavery for its economy like the South did.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 25, 2008)

stivex said:


> The Civil War was not about or because of slavery. The issue of slavery was simply the last straw that broke the camel's back so to speak. The succession of the South was bouund to come about some time. Abraham Lincoln just decided to use the war as a means to set the slaves free. Yet, it took him years to decide to finally do it.



I agree slavery was only the botton issue not the sole cause. 

However Everything I have read about Lincoln leads me to believe when he freed the slaves he was doing more because he thought it would help in the prosecution of the war, and not because he necessarily wanted to free the slaves.

 He actually announced it well before he put it into effect, He gave the southern states an ultimatum. Return to the union or I will free the slaves. Obviously they said FU and fought on. I have also read a lot about how Jefferson Davis actually toyed with the Idea of Offering freedom to slaves who would fight for the south.

Another interesting thing about the war, is many of the issues that the south did not like about Lincoln and the north, ended up being implemented by Davis. For instance Davis also suspended  habeas corpus as Lincoln did. In addition the Confederacy actually was set up with even more central control than the US government had. For instance the Government of the south controlled the Cotton trade, and regulated the economy strongly.



stivex said:


> To say the war was simply about slavery is naive. It also leads one to believe that the Northern people were tolerant of blacks while the Sountern folk were racist asshats. The truth is most whites were racist at the time. That includes the North. They just didn't believe in slavery, and the North (being far more industrial) didn't need need slavery for its economy like the South did.


Very true, even most Abolitionist while wanting to end slavery were not so keen when it came to the issue of equality among the races. In addition I would point out that only 1 in 5 southerners were slave owners. Most people in the south who fought did so to defend their states, and their land, from what they saw as northern aggression.

Clearly the Civil war is not as simple as a war about slavery. It was indeed about states, rights, and IMO forever answered the question about if states can leave the union or not.

Lincoln often argued that if he allowed the south to leave the union where would it stop. He said soon other states would leave that union, and than counties and cities would start leaving states. He felt it would end in Anarchy. Lincolns principle reason for prosecuting the war was as he said, to prove that the majority does rule in a democracy and that a minority can not just break the union when ever they are not happy with the way things are. He often spoke of how the US was the only real example of democracy at the time, and he felt allowing the union to be broke would send the message that democracy was a failure.

IMO while Lincoln trampled some rights, and bent the constitution to fight the war, I am glad he did it. Because if he had not, we would not be what we are today. Who knows where it would have lead, and where the dividing would have stopped.


----------



## JimH52 (Jul 26, 2008)

BillyBob said:


> Good lord, that's retarded. Now you're just embarrassing yourself.



I am today writing you off as a mutant.  PLEASE STAY OUT OF THE SUN AND DO NOT PROCREATE...sorry, I mean do the dirty, in white trash talk.


----------



## Gunny (Jul 26, 2008)

Orange_Juice said:


> That's just a fact.
> 
> Let's have some fun! Wanna look stupid? Try to say slavery wasn't the reason for the war.



Want to look even stupider?  Say it was THE reason for the US Civil War.  

Except for the small minority of abolishonists. Northerners didn't give a rat's ass about blacks nor slavery.  Attacking slavery was a means to attack Southern powerbrokers at their base.  Take away slaves and you take away the means of Southern money, influence and political power.  

The Civil War was fought for control of the US Government by two regional power factions in order to maintain and/or introduce legislation that favored their different means of making money, industry vs agriculture.

Different on the surface.  The only difference between Southern slavery and Northern sweatshops was at least the South was just honest about it and called it what it was.  The South enslaved blacks while the North took Europena immigrants, made them beholden to the company store with a debt they had no hope of repaying and either th ewhole family attempted to work it off 16 hours a day for the company or they got tossed in debtor's prison.

Nice, that.

So you can take your attempt to attribute some lofty goal to typical US imperialistic aggression and stick it.  Slavery was just a means to an end for both sides.  A base of wealth and power for the South, and a means to destroy that base of wealth and power for the North.


----------



## Gunny (Jul 26, 2008)

stivex said:


> The Civil War was not about or because of slavery. The issue of slavery was simply the last straw that broke the camel's back so to speak. The succession of the South was bouund to come about some time. Abraham Lincoln just decided to use the war as a means to set the slaves free. Yet, it took him years to decide to finally do it.



There was also no lofty goal in freeing Southern slaves.  It was a practical strategy of war.  If by freeing slaves in the South it would foment unrest or rebellion among slaves, it would pull troops off the front lines to go home and provide security.



> To say the war was simply about slavery is naive. It also leads one to believe that the Northern people were tolerant of blacks while the Sountern folk were racist asshats. The truth is most whites were racist at the time. That includes the North. They just didn't believe in slavery, and the North (being far more industrial) didn't need need slavery for its economy like the South did



See my previous post.  The North just had a different name for what amounted to the same thing.


----------



## Gunny (Jul 26, 2008)

JimH52 said:


> I am today writing you off as a mutant.  PLEASE STAY OUT OF THE SUN AND DO NOT PROCREATE...sorry, I mean do the dirty, in white trash talk.



He can't hear you.


----------



## random3434 (Jul 26, 2008)

Gunny said:


> He can't hear you.


----------



## editec (Jul 26, 2008)

There are so many mistake in history here, or outright lies, that one hardly know where to begin.

Let's start at the beginning.

The North did not START the war, the South did,_ remember?_

Can we agree on that simple fact?

I'll wait for your responses.


----------



## Gunny (Jul 26, 2008)

editec said:


> There are so many mistake in history here, or outright lies, that one hardly know where to begin.
> 
> Let's start at the beginning.
> 
> ...



Depends on your definition of "start."  Did the South fire the first shot?  Yes.  To eject US military forces from South Carolina.  Was the South the aggressor that declared war?  No.

Did the North bring about events in government deemed unacceptable by the Southern states that precipitated their secession?  Yes.

The South believed that the "experiment" called the United States no longer suited its best interest nor need, and believed they had every right to leave as freely as they entered and NO legislation at the time precluded such. 

On the premise that the South did NOT have that right, the US militarily invaded the states declared "in rebellion." 

There are lies here alright.  I agree with that.  What I'm sure we don't agree on is who is doing the lying.


----------



## Orange_Juice (Jul 26, 2008)

Gunny said:


> Depends on your definition of "start."  Did the South fire the first shot?  Yes.  To eject US military forces from South Carolina.  Was the South the aggressor that declared war?  No.
> 
> *Did the North bring about events in government deemed unacceptable by the Southern states that precipitated their secession?  Yes.*
> The South believed that the "experiment" called the United States no longer suited its best interest nor need, and believed they had every right to leave as freely as they entered and NO legislation at the time precluded such.
> ...




Wanna share what those "events" were?


----------



## Orange_Juice (Jul 26, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Hmm..."The South Started the Civil War Over Slavery"
> 
> Let's disect this shall we.
> 
> ...



You guys do not know your own country's history. How do I go about address the gross ignorance and myths surrouding this subject? Where to begin??? 

1) Slavery was not legal in New York and many other Northern states. I am from New York and know my states history, Alexander Hamilton led the fight to outlaw it here early on and gone long before the Civil War. That's why the South declared they would destroy the Frederal Union--our country--if they didn't get a stronger *anti-states rights law to hunt down fugitive slaves* 


2) I guess that takes us to the "States Rights Argument." Can you read the part above this? If not, states rights was largely about "Slavery's Rights," except when the South wanted Federal Marshalls to hunt down people they claimed were fugitives. The South hated state laws like Personal Liberety Laws

3) And just to let you yahoots in on a secret, the slavery in question was the slavery in the territories that the south wanted to destroy the country over. Bleeding Kansa anyone?


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 26, 2008)

Orange_Juice said:


> You guys do not know your own country's history. How do I go about address the gross ignorance and myths surrouding this subject? Where to begin???
> 
> 1) Slavery was not legal in New York and many other Northern states. I am from New York and know my states history, Alexander Hamilton led the fight to outlaw it here early on and gone long before the Civil War. That's why the South declared they would destroy the Frederal Union--our country--if they didn't get a stronger *anti-states rights law to hunt down fugitive slaves*
> 
> ...



The south seceded. They didn't ask for war.


----------



## Annie (Jul 26, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> The south seceded. They didn't ask for war.



Funny, shooting on Fort Sumpter sure seemed like an act of war.


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 26, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Funny, shooting on Fort Sumpter sure seemed like an act of war.



And they took other Union Forts in THEIR territory too. Why was the north attempting to resupply it, buying weapons and training militia units?


----------



## Annie (Jul 26, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> And they took other Union Forts in THEIR territory too. Why was the north attempting to resupply it, buying weapons and training militia units?



The first shots were fired by which side? The Union forts were just that. Sorry, but the Southern states may have petitioned for secession individually, but it would have taken Congress to overturn their status in the Union.

In any case, the South lost.


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 26, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> The first shots were fired by which side? The Union forts were just that. Sorry, but the Southern states may have petitioned for secession individually, but it would have taken Congress to overturn their status in the Union.
> 
> In any case, the South lost.



No shit sherlock.



> The South sent delegations to Washington and offered to pay for the federal properties and enter into a peace treaty with the United States.


Battle of Fort Sumter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## BrianH (Jul 26, 2008)

Orange_Juice said:


> You guys do not know your own country's history. How do I go about address the gross ignorance and myths surrouding this subject? Where to begin???
> 
> 1) Slavery was not legal in New York and many other Northern states. I am from New York and know my states history, Alexander Hamilton led the fight to outlaw it here early on and gone long before the Civil War. That's why the South declared they would destroy the Frederal Union--our country--if they didn't get a stronger *anti-states rights law to hunt down fugitive slaves*
> 
> ...



If this were over guns it would have been the same.  Slavery was an "UNDERLYING" issue.  I've seen turds like you before that have been fed northern propaganda and still believe the South wants slaves.  

First, I'll address you're whole New York slavery issue.  It was New York's STATE RIGHT to outlaw slavery...not the Constitution or federal law.  Slavery was not illegal...according to the CONSTITUTION until 1865.  I hate to break it to you, but New York was not the only northern state that fought for the Union.

The Civil War was fought between the Union and the Confederation of Southern States...both of which legalized slavery according to their Constitutions and or majority state laws.  Slavery was outlawed by the 13th Amendment.  The state right of New York citizens to outlaw slavlery in their own state does not affect nor have any accountability on any other state.  

Anyway you take your argument, it goes back to state's rights.  The Constitution of the United States did not outlaw slavery.  It also did not grant slavery as a power to the Federal Government.  Accorrding to the 10th Amendment, the states reserved the power to either outlaw or legalize slavery.  And as far as the South was concerned, considering the Constitution of the United States makes no mention (whatsoever) of succession, the South (and many today) believe that the power was granted to the states by the 10th Amendment as well.  If it doesn't grant the power to the federal government, nor prohibit it to the states, the power is reserved to the state.  In the Constitution that existed in 1861, the right to seceed was not prohibited by the Constitution, nor was it delegated to federal government.  By the way, the 10th Amend. is in the BILL OF RIGHTS.

Any way you cut your cake, or drink your OJ, it goes back to states right.  Sure, slavery was an underlying issue.  But had this been about any other legal practice, the outcome would have been the same.  Slavery was LEGAL according to the Constitution, and New York state law only restricted New Yorkers....

Don't lecture about learning history dude, you've got your hand in the cookie jar on this one.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 26, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> I would question the Idea that slavery was legal in the North until 1865, many northern states had state laws outlawing slavery well before 1865.
> 
> The real hot button issue was actually about expansion of slavery into the new territories.



True enough, but I'm talking about the Consitution and federal law.  Had any Northern state wanted to start owning slaves, they could have legally...according to the Const.


----------



## Annie (Jul 26, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> No shit sherlock.
> 
> 
> Battle of Fort Sumter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Whoop de doo genius. The Union wasn't acquiescing to the 'demands' for secession, though they were trying to settle it without bloodshed, the South wasn't having any.

They thought they could 'resign', they were wrong. They lost.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 26, 2008)

Gunny said:


> Want to look even stupider?  Say it was THE reason for the US Civil War.
> 
> Except for the small minority of abolishonists. Northerners didn't give a rat's ass about blacks nor slavery.  Attacking slavery was a means to attack Southern powerbrokers at their base.  Take away slaves and you take away the means of Southern money, influence and political power.
> 
> ...



Exactly....

Orange Juice....

"Douglass's recruitment speeches promised black soldiers equality in the Union army, unfortunately they were not treated equally. They were paid 1/2 of what the white soldiers received and were given inferior weapons and inadequate training. Blacks were not allowed to become officers. "

The Civil War Years - The Fight For Emancipation


----------



## Orange_Juice (Jul 27, 2008)

BrianH said:


> If this were over guns it would have been the same.  Slavery was an "UNDERLYING" issue.  I've seen turds like you before that have been fed northern propaganda and still believe the South wants slaves.
> 
> First, I'll address you're whole New York slavery issue.  It was New York's STATE RIGHT to outlaw slavery...not the Constitution or federal law.  Slavery was not illegal...according to the CONSTITUTION until 1865.  I hate to break it to you, but New York was not the only northern state that fought for the Union.
> 
> ...



I've already addressed the states right's issue, it went right over your head.


----------



## Orange_Juice (Jul 27, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Whoop de doo genius. The Union wasn't acquiescing to the 'demands' for secession, though they were trying to settle it without bloodshed, the South wasn't having any.
> 
> They thought they could 'resign', they were wrong. They lost.



The real question is: why did the South, and South Carolina in particular, feel they needed to commence hostilities? 

The answer is that Lincoln's patience and lack of aggressive action was allowing for tempers in the south to cool and the air was escaping out of the secession balloon. Virginia would never have left the Union without a war, and the South couldn't have survived without Virginia. The hotheads in South Carolina needed the war so they started it


----------



## editec (Jul 27, 2008)

Gunny said:


> Depends on your definition of "start." Did the South fire the first shot? Yes.


 
Okay, good so far.



> To eject US military forces from South Carolina. Was the South the aggressor that declared war? No.


 
And no you're off into apology land. to eject Federal forces? You mean to rebel against the Republic? 



> Did the North bring about events in government deemed unacceptable by the Southern states that precipitated their secession? Yes.


 
Name one. The Republic has not outlawed slavery. 



> The South believed that the "experiment" called the United States no longer suited its best interest nor need, and believed they had every right to leave as freely as they entered and NO legislation at the time precluded such.


 
DEspite the existence of the Federalist papers which very clearly stated that the republic was being created in perpituity, you mean? 



> On the premise that the South did NOT have that right, the US militarily invaded the states declared "in rebellion."


 
Yes, that is true.



> There are lies here alright. I agree with that. What I'm sure we don't agree on is who is doing the lying.


 
Well, we could start with you hypothesis that slavery in the existing states was under serious threat of being outlawed by the Republic, for one.

Can you show me any law in place at the time which you think supports that unreasonable fear?


----------



## Orange_Juice (Jul 27, 2008)

Gunny said:


> Want to look even stupider?  Say it was THE reason for the US Civil War.
> 
> Except for the small minority of abolishonists. Northerners didn't give a rat's ass about blacks nor slavery.  Attacking slavery was a means to attack Southern powerbrokers at their base.  Take away slaves and you take away the means of Southern money, influence and political power.
> .



Not true at all. The issue was not slavery in the South, but would slavery spread west into the territories. Read up a little on Bleeding Kansas, the Compromise of 1820 and the Compromise of 1850. The abolitionists were not the force behind the North's push to restrict slaverys spread, the Free Soliers like Lincoln and Seward were. Drive by history buffs only know about the abolitionists, but the real movers and shakers at the time were the Free Soilers


----------



## Orange_Juice (Jul 27, 2008)

editec said:


> Okay, good so far.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I can't wait to see him explain this one!


----------



## editec (Jul 27, 2008)

Orange_Juice said:


> You guys do not know your own country's history. How do I go about address the gross ignorance and myths surrouding this subject? Where to begin???
> 
> 1) Slavery was not legal in New York and many other Northern states. I am from New York and know my states history, Alexander Hamilton led the fight to outlaw it here early on and gone long before the Civil War. That's why the South declared they would destroy the Frederal Union--our country--if they didn't get a stronger *anti-states rights law to hunt down fugitive slaves*


 
I know some of it, I think.

source



> In 1799 the Legislature passed "An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery" with only token opposition. It provided for gradual manumission on the Pennsylvania model, which allowed masters to keep their younger slaves in bondage for their most productive years, to recoup their investment. The law freed all children born to slave women after July 4, 1799, but not at once. The males became free at 28, the females at 25. Till then, they would be the property of the mother's master. Slaves already in servitude before July 4, 1799, remained slaves for life, though they were reclassified as "indentured servants." The law sidestepped all question of legal and civil rights, thus avoiding the objections that had blocked the earlier bill. The activity of kidnappers and cheats in selling slaves out of the state in spite of the laws fostered the 1817 statute that gave freedom to New York slaves who had been born before July 4, 1799 -- but not until July 4, 1827. Slavery was still not entirely repealed in the state, because the new law offered an exception, allowing nonresidents to enter New York with slaves for up to nine months, and allowing part-time residents to bring their slaves into the state temporarily. Though few took advantage of it, the "nine-months law" remained on the books until its repeal in 1841, when slavery had become the focus of sectional rivalry and the North was re-defining itself as the "free" region.


 


> 2) I guess that takes us to the "States Rights Argument." Can you read the part above this? If not, states rights was largely about "Slavery's Rights," except when the South wanted Federal Marshalls to hunt down people they claimed were fugitives. The South hated state laws like Personal Liberety Laws


 
Yeah, amusing how selectively those Slave States were about demanding state's rights, isn't it?  That's because states rights really wasn't really an issue back then regardless of how many people insist it was, now.

Not that the whole State's Rights issue was a big deal to them at the time. This argument/apology is largely a relatively new revision of history to whitewash the venal reasons for the Southern cause.

source



> The Missouri Supreme Court routinely held that voluntary transportation of slaves into free states, with the intent of residing there permanently or definitely, automatically made them free. The Fugitive Slave Law dealt with slaves who went into free states without their master's consent. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in _Prigg v. Pennsylvania_ (1842), that states did not have to proffer aid in the hunting or recapture of slaves, greatly weakening the law of 1793.
> 
> In the response to the weakening of the original fugitive slave act, the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 made any Federal marshal or other official who did not arrest an alleged runaway slave liable to a fine of $1,000. Law-enforcement officials everywhere now had a duty to arrest anyone suspected of being a runaway slave on no more evidence than a claimant's sworn testimony of ownership. The suspected slave could not ask for a jury trial or testify on his or her own behalf. In addition, any person aiding a runaway slave by providing food or shelter was subject to six months' imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. Officers who captured a fugitive slave were entitled to a bonus for their work. Slave owners only needed to supply an affidavit to a Federal marshal to capture an escaped slave. Since any suspected slave was not eligible for a trial this led to many free blacks being conscripted into slavery as they had no rights in court and could not defend themselves against accusations


 
As you can see, the Republic was bending over backwards to compromise on this issue.




> 3) And just to let you yahoots in on a secret, the slavery in question was the slavery in the territories that the south wanted to destroy the country over. Bleeding Kansa anyone?


 
Yes! 

What the south was REALLY concerned with was being allowed to bring that _particular insitution_ into the western territories.

Their fear, was that if new free states were created, they'd lose their balance of power in Congress.

Their paranoia really all started out with the ordinance of 1787 which marked the Northwest territories as free.

_"There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."_

This rebellion was a war over slavery. The southern cause had no other interest in taking this drastic action than slavery.

They knew, quite rightly, that if slavery was outlawed in the states where it already existed, that would bankrupt their economy.

They also know, that if free states were brought into the Republic, and slaves states weren't, it was probably that at some point slavery would be outlawed in the slave states.

They reckoned, that the time to strike out as an independent confderation of slave states was sooner, rather than later.

Every other issue that the apolgists for the rebellion will bring forth are very minor issues, none of which were significant enough reason for the Southern cause to have taken up arms.

Most of those issues existed for the entire period of the Republic without causing much stir in the South.


----------



## Gungnir (Jul 27, 2008)

BillyBob said:


> The land wasn't the government's to give.


When the Federal Army occupied the land as part of a war, it most certainly was the government's to give away.

The South got off extremely light. I can't see why they were readmitted into the Union as equal states instead of subjugates.


----------



## Orange_Juice (Jul 28, 2008)

editec said:


> I know some of it, I think.
> 
> source
> 
> ...



You got it!


----------



## BrianH (Jul 28, 2008)

Orange_Juice said:


> I've already addressed the states right's issue, it went right over your head.



Nothing went over my head dumbass.  Nothing is going into yours, except the nonsense you already believe.

Fist off, I'll address your perversion of state's rights.  The Southern representation in Congress was already outnumbered and in large part, unrepresented compared to it's population and role in the economy.  

As far as Southern "hostility", when the South seceeded from the Union, all lands within their boundaries, including previous federal forts, became Southern terriroty.  It was the North's choice not to give up land---that no longer belonged to them...get it??

Considering the United States Constitution (in 1861) did not delegate the power of secession to the federal government, nor prohibit it to the states, the power of secession rested with the states. As soon as the South exercised their right, obtained by the constitution, the lands within their borders belonged to them.  The Union refused to leave Fort Sumter despite NUMEROUS requests and warnings.  The land that Fort Sumter sat on did not belong to the North as soon as South Carolina seceeded.  

This war was fought over states rights.  Slavery was an underlying issue...pure and simple.  For those of you who complain about revisionist history, take a trip down the history brick road and remember who won the Civil War--hence, who wrote the history.


----------



## editec (Jul 28, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Fist off, I'll address your perversion of state's rights. The Southern representation in Congress was already outnumbered and in large part, unrepresented compared to it's population and role in the economy.


 
Point me to a piece of legislation which proves this, would you? 



> As far as Southern "hostility", when the South seceeded from the Union, all lands within their boundaries, including previous federal forts, became Southern terriroty. It was the North's choice not to give up land---that no longer belonged to them...get it??


 
Yes, I understand the logic of it. It flows from the presupposition that the South had the RIGHT to leave the Republic. Good luck proving that that was the plan the Founding Fathers had in mind.

Good luck dealing with the fact that the Republic is often mentioned in the Federalist papers as something they were creating from the states _"in perpituity"_




> Considering the United States Constitution (in 1861) did not delegate the power of secession to the federal government, nor prohibit it to the states, the power of secession rested with the states. As soon as the South exercised their right, obtained by the constitution, the lands within their borders belonged to them. The Union refused to leave Fort Sumter despite NUMEROUS requests and warnings. The land that Fort Sumter sat on did not belong to the North as soon as South Carolina seceeded.


 
You have to make the case that the consitution allowed secession. It does not. Feel free to quote anything in the Constitution you think that suggests it, though.




> This war was fought over states rights. Slavery was an underlying issue...pure and simple. For those of you who complain about revisionist history, take a trip down the history brick road and remember who won the Civil War--hence, who wrote the history.


 
An assertion without any real argument. 

Unless you're (_sotto voce_) asserting a theory that the Republic rewrote the Federalist papers, antibellum

That's sheer poppycock, of course.


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 28, 2008)

editec said:


> Point me to a piece of legislation which proves this, would you?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So the Civil War was begun by the North because the South seceded and it was their constitutional duty ?


----------



## BrianH (Jul 28, 2008)

editec said:


> Point me to a piece of legislation which proves this, would you?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




10th Amendment: Bill of Rights: Constitution of the United States of America

 "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."

Bill of Rights editec.  

Until you find anywhere in the 1861 Constitution that prohibts secession, or even mentions a state not beng able to secede, your case is retarded.

The original 13 colonies followed the Articles of Confederation that were adopted in 1781.  The articles established the confederation of a permanent union...  This "permanent" union lasted about 7 years until 11 of the states seceded from the confederation and ratified the Constitution that took effect in 1789--that established the principles of a more perfect union.  The FF realized the jacked up principles of the Article of Confederation and scrapped it.  The new Constitution that they ratified made NO mention of a state being a permanent fixture or member of the Union.  You're federalist papers are not what governs this nation.  When many states, such as Virginia, Rhode Island, and New York ratified the Constitution, there was a specific statement by these states that they would reserve the right to secede as well as to resume other powers granted to the United States.  The right of secession was well understood  and agreed to by many other of the Constitutional ratifiers....Including George Washington.  

Senator Henry Cabot Lodge wrote in his book Life of Webster, (that was used at Westpoint before the Civil War) that  "It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton to Clinton and Mason, who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and every State had a right to peaceably withdraw."

Answer this for me editec...if it was not illegal to secede, why was no Confederate general held and tried for treason?  Being held and tried would mean there was a law that was broken would it not?


Articles of Confederation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## BrianH (Jul 28, 2008)

editec said:


> Point me to a piece of legislation which proves this, would you?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You want to talk about what was on the minds of the founding fathers? Remember you're talking about men who SECEDED from the Great Britain.  

Here's another interesting fact.  When 11 states withdrew from the Articles of Confederation...they eventually ratified the new Constitution.  They seceded from the old union and started the new one.  South Carolina and Rhode Island did not ratify the new consititution and were foreing countries when George Washington was inaugurated.

You and Orange Juice are a product of revisionist and propagandic history written by the winners.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 28, 2008)

The idea that states can leave the union anytime they are not happy with the majority is flawed. It would lead to chaos. No Nation could survive such a thing.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 28, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> The idea that states can leave the union anytime they are not happy with the majority is flawed. It would lead to chaos. No Nation could survive such a thing.



I know that...The idea of secession is not that anyone can leave the union just because you don't like one thing.  In fact, SCOTUS ruled (of course) after the war that secession was not legal.  Of course, it consisted of majority Northern opinion and was yet another form of propaganda IMO.  

The Founding Fathers hated the idea of a federal government posessing more powers than states.  This is the exact problem they seceded from Great Britain over.  The crown was exercising an authoritative power over the colonies...that included many things.  The idea to secede would be only in the event that the Federal Government ignored states rights and began to exercise more powers to control the states, essentially taking away the state's sovereign power.  It's very clear that many, if not all, states agreed that secession was legal.  I mean hell, 11 states seceded from the union under the Articles of Confederation and joined a union under the new Constitution, all while two other states did not.

But in 1861, the Constitution made no mention of secession.  It did not give the power to the federal gov. and did not prohibit it to the states.  The 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights addresses this quite well.


----------



## Orange_Juice (Jul 29, 2008)

I think the South had the right to TRY and secceed, they just couldn't win. Just like when a southern President, a slaveholder, George Washington took an army into the north to put down the Whiskey Renbellion


----------



## editec (Jul 29, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> So the Civil War was begun by the North because the South seceded and it was they're constitutional duty ?


 
I don't know.  You're making the assetions here.

As far as history is concerned the Southern rebels attacked Federal military bases lauching a long ongoing war between those rebels and the forces of the Republic.


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 29, 2008)

editec said:


> I don't know.  You're making the assetions here.
> 
> As far as history is concerned the Southern rebels attacked Federal military bases lauching a long ongoing war between those rebels and the forces of the Republic.



I'm not making any claim about morality here but the South did NOT start a war over slavery. They seceded because the government was going to screw the Souths economy. Their intention was to form a new country---not to militarily destroy the North. They were willing to negotiate with the federal government for it's interests in the South.


----------



## editec (Jul 29, 2008)

BrianH said:


> 10th Amendment: Bill of Rights: Constitution of the United States of America
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## BrianH (Jul 29, 2008)

Orange_Juice said:


> I think the South had the right to TRY and secceed, they just couldn't win. Just like when a southern President, a slaveholder, George Washington took an army into the north to put down the Whiskey Renbellion



Which is exactly what this is about.  The North did nor the South went to war because of slavery.  It was an underlying issue.  Neither side attacked the other until the Suuth seceded and the North refused to leave Fort Sumter.  The combat hostilities did not start until the South seceding pissed off the North.  It was not because the North thought the South were dirty bastards who enslaved black people.  They thought they were dirty bastards for seceding.


----------



## bornright (Jul 29, 2008)

Some of you may enjoy reading this:  Institute for Historical Review


----------



## BrianH (Jul 29, 2008)

editec said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > 10th Amendment: Bill of Rights: Constitution of the United States of America
> ...


----------



## bornright (Jul 30, 2008)

Institute for Historical Review 


The 'Great Emancipator' and the Issue of Race
Abraham Lincoln's Program of Black Resettlement
Robert Morgan
Many Americans think of Abraham Lincoln, above all, as the president who freed the slaves. Immortalized as the "Great Emancipator," he is widely regarded as a champion of black freedom who supported social equality of the races, and who fought the American Civil War (1861-1865) to free the slaves.

While it is true that Lincoln regarded slavery as an evil and harmful institution, it also true, as this paper will show, that he shared the conviction of most Americans of his time, and of many prominent statesmen before and after him, that blacks could not be assimilated into white society. He rejected the notion of social equality of the races, and held to the view that blacks should be resettled abroad. As President, he supported projects to remove blacks from the United States.

Early Experiences
In 1837, at the age of 28, the self-educated Lincoln was admitted to practice law in Illinois. In at least one case, which received considerable attention at the time, he represented a slave-owner. Robert Matson, Lincoln's client, each year brought a crew of slaves from his plantation in Kentucky to a farm he owned in Illinois for seasonal work. State law permitted this, provided that the slaves did not remain in Illinois continuously for a year. In 1847, Matson brought to the farm his favorite mulatto slave, Jane Bryant (wife of his free, black overseer there), and her four children. A dispute developed between Jane Bryant and Matson's white housekeeper, who threatened to have Jane and her children returned to slavery in the South. With the help of local abolitionists, the Bryants fled. They were apprehended, and, in an affidavit sworn out before a justice of the peace, Matson claimed them as his property. Lacking the required certificates of freedom, Bryant and the children were confined to local county jail as the case was argued in court. Lincoln lost the case, and Bryant and her children were declared free. They were later resettled in Liberia.1

In 1842 Lincoln married Mary Todd, who came from one of Kentucky's most prominent slave-holding families.2 While serving as an elected representative in the Illinois legislature, he persuaded his fellow Whigs to support Zachary Taylor, a slave owner, in his successful 1848 bid for the Presidency.3 Lincoln was also a strong supporter of the Illinois law that forbid marriage between whites and blacks.4

"If all earthly power were given me," said Lincoln in a speech delivered in Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854, "I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land." After acknowledging that this plan's "sudden execution is impossible," he asked whether freed blacks should be made "politically and socially our equals?" "My own feelings will not admit of this," he said, "and [even] if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not ... We can not, then, make them equals."5

One of Lincoln's most representative public statements on the question of racial relations was given in a speech at Springfield, Illinois, on June 26, 1857.6 In this address, he explained why he opposed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which would have admitted Kansas into the Union as a slave state:

There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races ... A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas ...

Racial separation, Lincoln went on to say, "must be effected by colonization" of the country's blacks to a foreign land. "The enterprise is a difficult one," he acknowledged,

but "where there is a will there is a way," and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be.

To affirm the humanity of blacks, Lincoln continued, was more likely to strengthen public sentiment on behalf of colonization than the Democrats' efforts to "crush all sympathy for him, and cultivate and excite hatred and disgust against him ..." Resettlement ("colonization") would not succeed, Lincoln seemed to argue, unless accompanied by humanitarian concern for blacks, and some respect for their rights and abilities. By apparently denying the black person's humanity, supporters of slavery were laying the groundwork for "the indefinite outspreading of his bondage." The Republican program of restricting slavery to where it presently existed, he said, had the long-range benefit of denying to slave holders an opportunity to sell their surplus bondsmen at high prices in new slave territories, and thus encouraged them to support a process of gradual emancipation involving resettlement of the excess outside of the country.

Earlier Resettlement Plans
The view that America's apparently intractable racial problem should be solved by removing blacks from this country and resettling them elsewhere -- "colonization" or "repatriation" -- was not a new one. As early as 1714 a New Jersey man proposed sending blacks to Africa. In 1777 a Virginia legislature committee, headed by future President Thomas Jefferson (himself a major slave owner), proposed a plan of gradual emancipation and resettlement of the state's slaves. In 1815, an enterprising free black from Massachusetts named Paul Cuffe transported, at his own expense, 38 free blacks to West Africa. His undertaking showed that at least some free blacks were eager to resettle in a country of their own, and suggested what might be possible with public and even government support.7

In December 1816, a group of distinguished Americans met in Washington, DC, to establish an organization to promote the cause of black resettlement. The "American Colonization Society" soon won backing from some of the young nation's most prominent citizens. Henry Clay, Francis Scott Key, John Randolph, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, Millard Fillmore, John Marshall, Roger B. Taney, Andrew Jackson, Daniel Webster, Stephen A. Douglas, and Abraham Lincoln were members. Clay presided at the group's first meeting.8

Measures to resettle blacks in Africa were soon undertaken. Society member Charles Fenton Mercer played an important role in getting Congress to pass the Anti-Slave Trading Act of March 1819, which appropriated $100,000 to transport blacks to Africa. In enforcing the Act, Mercer suggested to President James Monroe that if blacks were simply returned to the coast of Africa and released, they would probably be re-enslaved, and possibly some returned to the United States. Accordingly, and in cooperation with the Society, Monroe sent agents to acquire territory on Africa's West coast -- a step that led to the founding of the country now known as Liberia. Its capital city was named Monrovia in honor of the American President.9

With crucial Society backing, black settlers began arriving from the United States in 1822. While only free blacks were at first brought over, after 1827, slaves were freed expressly for the purpose of transporting them to Liberia. In 1847, black settlers declared Liberia an independent republic, with an American-style flag and constitution.10

By 1832 the legislatures of more than a dozen states (at that time there were only 24), had given official approval to the Society, including at least three slave-holding states.11 Indiana's legislature, for example, passed the following joint resolution on January 16, 1850:12

Be it resolved by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana: That our Senators and Representatives in Congress be, and they are hereby requested, in the name of the State of Indiana, to call for a change of national policy on the subject of the African Slave Trade, and that they require a settlement of the coast of Africa with colored men from the United States, and procure such changes in our relations with England as will permit us to transport colored men from this country to Africa, with whom to effect said settlement.

In January 1858, Missouri Congressman Francis P. Blair, Jr., introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives to set up a committee

to inquire into the expediency of providing for the acquisition of territory either in the Central or South American states, to be colonized with colored persons from the United States who are now free, or who may hereafter become free, and who may be willing to settle in such territory as a dependency of the United States, with ample guarantees of their personal and political rights.

Blair, quoting Thomas Jefferson, stated that blacks could never be accepted as the equals of whites, and, consequently, urged support for a dual policy of emancipation and deportation, similar to Spain's expulsion of the Moors. Blair went on to argue that the territory acquired for the purpose would also serve as a bulwark against any further encroachment by England in the Central and South American regions.13

Lincoln's Support for Resettlement
Lincoln's ideological mentor was Henry Clay, the eminent American scholar, diplomat, and statesman. Because of his skill in the US Senate and House of Representatives, Clay won national acclaim as the "Great Compromiser" and the "Great Pacificator." A slave owner who had humane regard for blacks, he was prominent in the campaign to resettle free blacks outside of the United States, and served as president of the American Colonization Society. Lincoln joined Clay's embryonic Whig party during the 1830s. In an address given in 1858, Lincoln described Clay as "my beau ideal of a statesman, the man for whom I fought all of my humble life."14

The depth of Lincoln's devotion to Clay and his ideals was expressed in a moving eulogy delivered in July 1852 in Springfield, Illinois. After praising Clay's lifelong devotion to the cause of black resettlement, Lincoln quoted approvingly from a speech given by Clay in 1827: "There is a moral fitness in the idea of returning to Africa her children," adding that if Africa offered no refuge, blacks could be sent to another tropical land. Lincoln concluded:15

If as the friends of colonization hope, the present and coming generations of our countrymen shall by any means succeed in freeing our land from the dangerous presence of slavery, and, at the same time, in restoring a captive people to their long-lost fatherland, with bright prospects for the future, and this too, so gradually, that neither races nor individuals shall have suffered by the change, it will indeed be a glorious consummation.

In January 1855, Lincoln addressed a meeting of the Illinois branch of the Colonization Society. The surviving outline of his speech suggests that it consisted largely of a well-informed and sympathetic account of the history of the resettlement campaign.16

In supporting "colonization" of the blacks, a plan that might be regarded as a "final solution" to the nation's race question, Lincoln was upholding the views of some of America's most respected figures.

Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858
In 1858 Lincoln was nominated by the newly-formed Republican Party to challenge Steven Douglas, a Democrat, for his Illinois seat in the US Senate. During the campaign, "Little Giant" Douglas focused on the emotion-charged issue of race relations. He accused Lincoln, and Republicans in general, of advocating the political and social equality of the white and black races, and of thereby promoting racial amalgamation. Lincoln responded by strenuously denying the charge, and by arguing that because slavery was the chief cause of miscegenation in the United States, restricting its further spread into the western territories and new states would, in fact, reduce the possibility of race mixing. Lincoln thus came close to urging support for his party because it best represented white people's interests.

Between late August and mid-October, 1858, Lincoln and Douglas travelled together around the state to confront each other in seven historic debates. On August 21, before a crowd of 10,000 at Ottawa, Lincoln declared:17

I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

He continued:

I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.

Many people accepted the rumors spread by Douglas supporters that Lincoln favored social equality of the races. Before the start of the September 18 debate at Charleston, Illinois, an elderly man approached Lincoln in a hotel and asked him if the stories were true. Recounting the encounter later before a crowd of 15,000, Lincoln declared:18

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people.

He continued:

I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.


----------



## Jeepers (Jul 30, 2008)

Just took my boat over to Fort Sumter last weekend...


----------



## BaronVonBigmeat (Jul 30, 2008)

Well I'm sure if anyone can set the controversy straight, it's Abraham Lincoln. Maybe we can find something in his speeches, hmm where to start. Okay, I don't know, soo...how about his very first inaugural address:



> Fellow-Citizens of the United States:
> 
> IN compliance with a custom as old as the Government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly and to take in your presence the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States to be taken by the President "before he enters on the execution of this office."
> 
> ...



Abraham Lincoln: First Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989

Oh.

He isn't just saying that he has no intention of interfering with slavery. He's saying it at the very beginning of his very first speech as president. And he's quoting his own blunt words that he gave in another speech, to emphasize the point.


> I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitutionwhich amendment, however, I have not seenhas passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.



He's talking about the Corwin Amendment, a proposed amendment to the constitution that would have forbid a future constitutional amendment to outlaw slavery. So to be strictly constitutional, there would have had to been two amendments--one to repeal Corwin, and the other to abolish slavery on a national level.


----------



## PatriotUSA (Dec 20, 2008)

I dunno about anyone else, but my grandparents were taught in school that the Civil War started over cotton because North was ripping us off.  Slavery came second.  They were taught that Lincoln wanted to send all the slaves back to Africa but it would be too expensive.  Why don't we learn any of this now and days?  Because the libs have changed history.

***


----------



## Gunny (Dec 20, 2008)

PatriotUSA said:


> I dunno about anyone else, but my grandparents were taught in school that the Civil War started over cotton because North was ripping us off.  Slavery came second.  They were taught that Lincoln wanted to send all the slaves back to Africa but it would be too expensive.  Why don't we learn any of this now and days?  Because the libs have changed history.
> 
> ***



Yes and no.  Your explanation is over-simplified which causes it to be misleading.  The North was not ripping the South off for cotton.  The North wanted high import-export tariffs to force the South to buy and sell from them rather Europe where the South was making a far better profit.  

The South in turn wanted low import/export tariffs for the aofrementioned reason.  With the threat to the expansion of slavery would come a tip of the balance of power in Congress in favor of the North.  

So, the issue o fslavery was big, but not in the way it's sold by revisionists.  The North did not fight a war to free the black man, nor did the South fight a war to keep the black man in chains.  Whether or not slavery would be allowed to remain where it existed was not in question.  

Whether or not a slave state would be added each time a free state was to maintain the status quo in Congress was the issue.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 20, 2008)

To further prove that the Civil War was not fought to end slavery, there were 5 slave-states that remained in the Union and fought against the Confederacy.  It would be a stretch to say that these 5 states fought to end something that they themselves practiced.

The southern states seceded predominantly over the issue of protectionist tariffs that benefitted the north and impeded the south.  The institution of slavery where it already existed was not threatened when the southern states seceded.

Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederacy, sent delegates to Lincoln to offer to pay for the federal property in the south, and the south's portion of the national debt.  Lincoln refused to meet with them, and then sent supplies to Fort Sumter knowing it would antagonize the south.  The Confederates were willing to let Fort Sumter run out of supplies and be abandoned by the Union troops, but they were not willing to allow a Union base within their borders.  So they attacked, and nobody was killed in the assault and all Union soldiers were allowed to return home.

During the course of the war Lincoln allowed his troops to kill civilians and burn southern cities to the ground, all to "save" the Union of course.  Of course let's define what Lincoln meant by "saving" the Union.  He meant forcing the southern states to remain in the Union so they could pay their taxes and tariffs, and utterly destroying them if they refused.

The founding fathers believed that governments derived their powers from the consent of the governed, and the federal government did not have the consent of the southern states.  Therefore, it can be concluded that the founders would have recognized the right of the independent and sovereign southern states to leave the Union and form their own government.


----------



## Orange_Juice (Dec 20, 2008)

The South started the Civil War because they felt that slavery as an institution was in danger, which meant that white supremecy was in danger.


----------



## alan1 (Dec 20, 2008)

The whole notion of calling it a "civil war" just proves how indoctrinated all of you are.
A civil war is when 2 opposing forces fight for control of the governmental body.
Hey, that isn't what happened.  
Instead, it was a war for independence much like the first war for independence that founded this country.  The southern states were seeking independence from an oppressive overbearing government.  They weren't seeking to take over that government, they were trying to escape it.


----------



## PatBuchanan (Dec 20, 2008)

Jump down - turn around - pick a bale o cotton - jump down - turn around - pick a bale o hay!


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 20, 2008)

Orange_Juice said:


> The South started the Civil War because they felt that slavery as an institution was in danger, which meant that white supremecy was in danger.



The south didn't start the civil war, Lincoln did.  The south also had no reason to believe that Lincoln had any ambition to end slavery where it already existed, as he stated very clearly that he would support an amendment that would have made slavery a permanent fixture.

Did white supremacy end when the slaves were freed?  Nope.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 20, 2008)

BatBoy said:


> The whole notion of calling it a "civil war" just proves how indoctrinated all of you are.
> A civil war is when 2 opposing forces fight for control of the governmental body.
> Hey, that isn't what happened.
> Instead, it was a war for independence much like the first war for independence that founded this country.  The southern states were seeking independence from an oppressive overbearing government.  They weren't seeking to take over that government, they were trying to escape it.



A very good point.


----------



## alan1 (Dec 20, 2008)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> A very good point.



I have my moments.


----------



## Orange_Juice (Dec 20, 2008)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> The south didn't start the civil war, Lincoln did.  The south also had no reason to believe that Lincoln had any ambition to end slavery where it already existed, as he stated very clearly that he would support an amendment that would have made slavery a permanent fixture.
> 
> Did white supremacy end when the slaves were freed?  Nope.



The south started the war by firing on Sumter, they had no reason to do that. Lincoln never said he would support that amendment, and anyway, that was not enough for the south anyway, they wanted a slave state Kansas, to take Cuba with slavery and for free citizens to hunt down their slaves


----------



## elvis (Dec 20, 2008)

BillyBob said:


> Can we make slavery legal again? At least I'd feel like I was getting something for all the money we keep wasting on blacks between food stamps, free education, free health care....
> 
> For all that I should at least have them out in my fields picking cotton.



do you mind wasting money on food stamps for whites between free education, free health care......public aid, etc.

or are you somehow poorer if the same dollars go to african americans?  

stroke of brilliance.


----------



## Orange_Juice (Dec 20, 2008)

BatBoy said:


> The whole notion of calling it a "civil war" just proves how indoctrinated all of you are.
> A civil war is when 2 opposing forces fight for control of the governmental body.
> Hey, that isn't what happened.
> Instead, it was a war for independence much like the first war for independence that founded this country.  The southern states were seeking independence from an oppressive overbearing government.  They weren't seeking to take over that government, they were trying to escape it.



The North wasn't oppressing anyone. They wanted to restrict slavery [oppression] from being allowed in any more states.


----------



## elvis (Dec 20, 2008)

The Civil War was fought over whether or not states had the right to succeed from the Union, not over whether or not to keep slavery legal.  Lincoln was willing to allow slavery to be legal if it meant keeping the Union together. (although he did not say this until toward the end of the war, if I remember correctly)   He was an abolitionist, but preserving the Union was his first priority.


----------



## hopner33 (Dec 20, 2008)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> To further prove that the Civil War was not fought to end slavery, there were 5 slave-states that remained in the Union and fought against the Confederacy.  It would be a stretch to say that these 5 states fought to end something that they themselves practiced.



How does this prove anything? It takes two sides to fight a war, and they might do so for entirely different reasons. The argument is not that the North initially fought the war to end slavery, but rather that the north fought to stop the South from seceding because of slavery. 



Kevin_Kennedy said:


> The southern states seceded predominantly over the issue of protectionist tariffs that benefitted the north and impeded the south.  The institution of slavery where it already existed was not threatened when the southern states seceded.



Your tariff argument fails because it does not explain why the Southern states seceded when they did. The big tariff that was passed during this time period that could be seen as upsetting to Southerners was the Morril Tariff. But it passed the House in May 1860. Nothing else happened to it until March 1861. If this tariff was the reason they seceded they would have done so in May or March, not in December/January. 

What does explain the timing is the election of Abraham Lincoln who was seen (somewhat incorrectly) as a threat towards slavery.



Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederacy, sent delegates to Lincoln to offer to pay for the federal property in the south, and the south's portion of the national debt.  Lincoln refused to meet with them, and then sent supplies to Fort Sumter knowing it would antagonize the south.  The Confederates were willing to let Fort Sumter run out of supplies and be abandoned by the Union troops, but they were not willing to allow a Union base within their borders.  So they attacked, and nobody was killed in the assault and all Union soldiers were allowed to return home.



This is true but you presuppose that Jefferson Davis's government had the right pay for the South's portion of the national debt and federal land. Lincoln denied that right. 




Kevin_Kennedy said:


> The founding fathers believed that governments derived their powers from the consent of the governed, and the federal government did not have the consent of the southern states.  Therefore, it can be concluded that the founders would have recognized the right of the independent and sovereign southern states to leave the Union and form their own government.



This is somewhat true. But there is a large difference between the legal right of secession, and the right of revolution. The founders, and Lincoln himself, would have concluded that the South had the right of revolution. But if there was a revolution Lincoln had the duty to try and stop it. 

The right of secession is an entirely different story. Some founders would say that it existed, while others would deny it. Madison would be very unclear and appear to flip flop on the issue. It CANNOT be concluded what the founders would have thought about the subject.


----------



## alan1 (Dec 20, 2008)

Orange_Juice said:


> The North wasn't oppressing anyone. They wanted to restrict slavery [oppression] from being allowed in any more states.


Yeah, whatever.
I suppose you think it was "civil war" also.


----------



## hopner33 (Dec 20, 2008)

BatBoy said:


> The whole notion of calling it a "civil war" just proves how indoctrinated all of you are.
> A civil war is when 2 opposing forces fight for control of the governmental body.
> Hey, that isn't what happened.
> Instead, it was a war for independence much like the first war for independence that founded this country.  The southern states were seeking independence from an oppressive overbearing government.  They weren't seeking to take over that government, they were trying to escape it.



This is repeated over and over again but it has no merit.
Your definition is entirely stipulational. 

"The common scholarly definition has two main criteria. The first says that the warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center, control over a separatist state or to force a major change in policy. The second says that at least 1,000 people must have been killed, with at least 100 from each side."
The American Civil War fits this. 

And how is the term Civil War used by people? Oh wait, the American Civil War. The common definition disagrees with you.

The dictionary also disagrees. A civil war is ": a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country." While you might disagree that they were the same country, your definition is still far too narrow.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 20, 2008)

Orange_Juice said:


> The south started the war by firing on Sumter, they had no reason to do that. Lincoln never said he would support that amendment, and anyway, that was not enough for the south anyway, they wanted a slave state Kansas, to take Cuba with slavery and for free citizens to hunt down their slaves



Lincoln knew that the south was not going to allow a Union fort within their borders, and exploited this by arrogantly choosing to resupply the fort after refusing to allow the Confederates to purchase it.  He needed a better reason than "saving the union" to wage his war, because most people at the time would have said that the south had the right to leave the Union.

"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitutionwhich amendment, however, I have not seenhas passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." - Abraham Lincoln

Sounds like he supports the amendment right there, doesn't it?

The Lincoln Cult&#146;s Latest Cover-Up by Thomas DiLorenzo

An interesting article from the author of _The Real Lincoln_ and _Lincoln Unmasked_ that further proves that Lincoln supported the amendment to make slavery permanent.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 20, 2008)

Orange_Juice said:


> The North wasn't oppressing anyone. They wanted to restrict slavery [oppression] from being allowed in any more states.



Tariffs were passed by the federal government that hurt the economy of the south, but helped the northern states.  Sounds like oppression to me.


----------



## hopner33 (Dec 20, 2008)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> The south didn't start the civil war, Lincoln did.  The south also had no reason to believe that Lincoln had any ambition to end slavery where it already existed, as he stated very clearly that he would support an amendment that would have made slavery a permanent fixture.
> 
> Did white supremacy end when the slaves were freed?  Nope.



You are right that the South should no have believed that Lincoln would free the slaves. But the fact is that they did think that. Read the newspapers from the time, or read the secession commissioners' speeches.

What the Southerners though Lincoln would do towards slavery is more important that what Lincoln would really do if you are trying to explain secession.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 20, 2008)

elvis3577 said:


> The Civil War was fought over whether or not states had the right to succeed from the Union, not over whether or not to keep slavery legal.  Lincoln was willing to allow slavery to be legal if it meant keeping the Union together. (although he did not say this until toward the end of the war, if I remember correctly)   He was an abolitionist, but preserving the Union was his first priority.



Lincoln was not an abolitionist, he was a white supremacist.

The quote you're thinking of was in a letter to Horace Greely in 1862, not the end of the Civil War.


----------



## hopner33 (Dec 20, 2008)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Lincoln knew that the south was not going to allow a Union fort within their borders, and exploited this by arrogantly choosing to resupply the fort after refusing to allow the Confederates to purchase it.  He needed a better reason than "saving the union" to wage his war, because most people at the time would have said that the south had the right to leave the Union.
> 
> "I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitutionwhich amendment, however, I have not seenhas passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." - Abraham Lincoln
> 
> ...



Lincoln did support the Corwin amendment. But think about it deeper.

A common view at the time, in both the North and the South, was that slavery would surely die if it could not expand. If slavery was allowed to expand slavery could continue indefinitely. 
Lincoln also believed that he had no constitutional power to end slavery in the South, it would have to be an entirely state run effort.
The Corwin amendment was thus the best way to make sure that slavery DID end. In Lincoln's eyes it would doom slavery to death in a constitutional manner, while at the same time keeping the South in the Union.
Nobody (or very few people outside the South) in 1861 foresaw the slaves being free  by 1865.


----------



## elvis (Dec 20, 2008)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Lincoln was not an abolitionist, he was a white supremacist.
> 
> The quote you're thinking of was in a letter to Horace Greely in 1862, not the end of the Civil War.



I wasn't sure if it was toward the end.  I meant to say he didn't express these feelings BEFORE the war started.  If he were a white supremacist, why sign the Emancipation Proclamation?  or put another way, if he were not an abolitionist, why sign the Emancipation Proclamation?


----------



## alan1 (Dec 20, 2008)

hopner33 said:


> This is repeated over and over again but it has no merit.
> Your definition is entirely stipulational.
> 
> "The common scholarly definition has two main criteria. *The first says that the warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center, control over a separatist state* or to force a major change in policy. The second says that at least 1,000 people must have been killed, with at least 100 from each side."
> ...


I guess we know which definition we both want to choose as _our_ definition, don't we.


----------



## hopner33 (Dec 20, 2008)

BatBoy said:


> I guess we know which definition we both want to choose as _our_ definition, don't we.



I don't know if I understand. As long as you see your definition as a personal one I have no qualms.


----------



## alan1 (Dec 20, 2008)

hopner33 said:


> I don't know if I understand. As long as you see your definition as a personal one I have no qualms.


And as long as you see yours as personal one I have no qualms.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 20, 2008)

hopner33 said:


> How does this prove anything? It takes two sides to fight a war, and they might do so for entirely different reasons. The argument is not that the North initially fought the war to end slavery, but rather that the north fought to stop the South from seceding because of slavery.
> 
> Your tariff argument fails because it does not explain why the Southern states seceded when they did. The big tariff that was passed during this time period that could be seen as upsetting to Southerners was the Morril Tariff. But it passed the House in May 1860. Nothing else happened to it until March 1861. If this tariff was the reason they seceded they would have done so in May or March, not in December/January.
> 
> ...



However, the south did not secede over the issue of slavery.  It was predominantly over tariffs.  They seceded when Lincoln won the election because they knew that he had every intention of keeping the tariffs in place and probably making them even worse.  Lincoln once called himself "an old Henry Clay Whig," Henry Clay being a proponent of high protectionist tariffs as part of his "American System."

Lincoln certainly did deny the south's right to leave the Union, but I believe that they did have this right.  The Constitution does not deny the right to secede to the states, and does not give the federal government the authority to stop a state from leaving the Union.

There is no right of revolution.  A revolution occurs when a government refuses to acknowledge the right of secession.  The 13 British colonies seceded from Great Britain, but only needed the revolution because Great Britain did not acknowledge their right to independence.  Otherwise they could have peacefully seceded and no revolution would have been necessary.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 20, 2008)

elvis3577 said:


> I wasn't sure if it was toward the end.  I meant to say he didn't express these feelings BEFORE the war started.  If he were a white supremacist, why sign the Emancipation Proclamation?  or put another way, if he were not an abolitionist, why sign the Emancipation Proclamation?



The Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave.  It was a stunt pulled by Lincoln because the war was going poorly for him at that time.  His intentions were to incite southern slaves to rise up and kill their masters.  A better question you should ask is why did Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation not free any of the slaves in the five slave-states that remained in the Union?  The answer is that he only intended to free the slaves of the people that were not "loyal" to the Union, not all slaves.  Lincoln stated many times that he did not believe in or support equality between black and white people.

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races..."

"...I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

- Abraham Lincoln


----------



## hopner33 (Dec 20, 2008)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> However, the south did not secede over the issue of slavery.  It was predominantly over tariffs.  They seceded when Lincoln won the election because they knew that he had every intention of keeping the tariffs in place and probably making them even worse.  Lincoln once called himself "an old Henry Clay Whig," Henry Clay being a proponent of high protectionist tariffs as part of his "American System."



Don't you see that this still fails to explain the timing? If all that was needed for secession was a "Henry Clay Whig", why did the South not secede when Zachary Taylor won the Presidency? Hell, how did Clay carry NC, TN, and KY(more of a southern state in 1844 than 1860) in 1844 if being a Henry Clay Whig was sufficient for secession? 




Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Lincoln certainly did deny the south's right to leave the Union, but I believe that they did have this right.  The Constitution does not deny the right to secede to the states, and does not give the federal government the authority to stop a state from leaving the Union.
> 
> There is no right of revolution.  A revolution occurs when a government refuses to acknowledge the right of secession.  The 13 British colonies seceded from Great Britain, but only needed the revolution because Great Britain did not acknowledge their right to independence.  Otherwise they could have peacefully seceded and no revolution would have been necessary.



Don't you see that when you bring up the Constitution to justify the South's secession you are making a legal argument? Revolution is extralegal, one does not have to appeal to a document or a law to make the case. 
Which did the South appeal to? The Constitution or a natural right of revolution? I want to hear your answer.


----------



## alan1 (Dec 20, 2008)

> "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races..."
> 
> "...I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."


- Abraham Lincoln

Was Lincoln a liberal or a conservative?


----------



## hopner33 (Dec 20, 2008)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> The Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave.  It was a stunt pulled by Lincoln because the war was going poorly for him at that time.  His intentions were to incite southern slaves to rise up and kill their masters.  A better question you should ask is why did Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation not free any of the slaves in the five slave-states that remained in the Union?  The answer is that he only intended to free the slaves of the people that were not "loyal" to the Union, not all slaves.  Lincoln stated many times that he did not believe in or support equality between black and white people.
> 
> "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races..."
> 
> ...



Almost every slave that was freed by the federal government before the 13th amendment was freed by the emancipation proclamation. That seems like more than one.

And why did you not mention that Lincoln tried to purchase the freedom of all Union slave states in 1862? That seems to contradict your notion that Lincoln only wanted to free COnfederate slaves.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 21, 2008)

hopner33 said:


> Don't you see that this still fails to explain the timing? If all that was needed for secession was a "Henry Clay Whig", why did the South not secede when Zachary Taylor won the Presidency? Hell, how did Clay carry NC, TN, and KY(more of a southern state in 1844 than 1860) in 1844 if being a Henry Clay Whig was sufficient for secession?
> 
> Don't you see that when you bring up the Constitution to justify the South's secession you are making a legal argument? Revolution is extralegal, one does not have to appeal to a document or a law to make the case.
> Which did the South appeal to? The Constitution or a natural right of revolution? I want to hear your answer.



Did you not yourself cite the Morrill Tariff?  That along with the ascension of a "Henry Clay Whig" with every intention of imposing these tariffs on the south was too much for them to bear any longer.  Let's not forget that the Confederate Constitution prohibited tariffs, which goes to show how much they detested protectionism.

"Our present position has been achieved in a manner unprecedented in the history of nations. It illustrates the American idea that government rests upon the consent of the governed, and that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish a government whenever it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established. The declared purposes of the compact of Union from which we have withdrawn were to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, to provide for the common defence, to promote the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity; and when in the judgment of the sovereign States now comprising this Confederacy it had been perverted from the purposes for which it was ordained, and had ceased to answer the ends for which it was established, an appeal to the ballot box declared that so far as they were concerned the government created by that compact should cease to exist. In this they merely asserted a right which the Declaration of Independence of 1776 defined to be inalienable." - Jefferson Davis, Inaugural Address of 1861

http://www.civilwarhome.com/davisinauguraladdress.htm

The Confederate States intended to peacefully secede from the Union.  This was made impossible by Lincoln, and they were forced to fight to defend their independence.


----------



## hopner33 (Dec 21, 2008)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Did you not yourself cite the Morrill Tariff?  That along with the ascension of a "Henry Clay Whig" with every intention of imposing these tariffs on the south was too much for them to bear any longer.  Let's not forget that the Confederate Constitution prohibited tariffs, which goes to show how much they detested protectionism.
> 
> "Our present position has been achieved in a manner unprecedented in the history of nations. It illustrates the American idea that government rests upon the consent of the governed, and that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish a government whenever it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established. The declared purposes of the compact of Union from which we have withdrawn were to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, to provide for the common defence, to promote the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity; and when in the judgment of the sovereign States now comprising this Confederacy it had been perverted from the purposes for which it was ordained, and had ceased to answer the ends for which it was established, an appeal to the ballot box declared that so far as they were concerned the government created by that compact should cease to exist. In this they merely asserted a right which the Declaration of Independence of 1776 defined to be inalienable." - Jefferson Davis, Inaugural Address of 1861
> 
> ...



Then why not secede in 1842 when a tariff was actually passed that raised levels higher than ever and there was a Whig President?

And if it was the Morril Tariff, why did the South not wait until it passed the Senate? That was no assured thing and without the Senate's approval there would have been no tariff for Lincoln to do anything with. 

And you are correct that the South wanted to peacefully secede from the Union. But that right was not given to them. The Nazis wanted to murder all the Jews peacefully. World War Two is America's fault. (I admit that was probably a terrible analogy but I am getting tired)


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 21, 2008)

hopner33 said:


> Then why not secede in 1842 when a tariff was actually passed that raised levels higher than ever and there was a Whig President?
> 
> And if it was the Morril Tariff, why did the South not wait until it passed the Senate? That was no assured thing and without the Senate's approval there would have been no tariff for Lincoln to do anything with.
> 
> And you are correct that the South wanted to peacefully secede from the Union. But that right was not given to them. The Nazis wanted to murder all the Jews peacefully. World War Two is America's fault. (I admit that was probably a terrible analogy but I am getting tired)



Perhaps in 1842 the southern states were willing to work within the system, and when they seceded they were tired of trying to do so.  I wasn't around back then, and I don't think they kept records of why they _didn't_ secede at a specific time.  The best you or I can do in respect to your questions is speculate.

You cannot murder someone peacefully and without infringing on their liberties, obviously.  If the south secedes peacefully then they are not infringing on the rights of anybody else.  Oh, except the right of the federal government to plunder them for the benefit of the north.


----------



## hopner33 (Dec 21, 2008)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Perhaps in 1842 the southern states were willing to work within the system, and when they seceded they were tired of trying to do so.  I wasn't around back then, and I don't think they kept records of why they _didn't_ secede at a specific time.  The best you or I can do in respect to your questions is speculate.
> 
> You cannot murder someone peacefully and without infringing on their liberties, obviously.  If the south secedes peacefully then they are not infringing on the rights of anybody else.  Oh, except the right of the federal government to plunder them for the benefit of the north.



Speculate? All I know is that you are claiming that the election of a pro-tariff President+ a new tariff is a sufficient condition for secession. That is obviously false. If your argument has any merit you would explain why Southerners acted differently in 1860.

The issue of slavery does explain the difference in 1860 over previous years by looking at the sectional buildup of the 1850s over the issue of slavery. 

And without infringing on liberties?!! I don't even feel like responding.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 21, 2008)

hopner33 said:


> Speculate? All I know is that you are claiming that the election of a pro-tariff President+ a new tariff is a sufficient condition for secession. That is obviously false. If your argument has any merit you would explain why Southerners acted differently in 1860.
> 
> The issue of slavery does explain the difference in 1860 over previous years by looking at the sectional buildup of the 1850s over the issue of slavery.
> 
> And without infringing on liberties?!! I don't even feel like responding.



Yes, speculate.  That's all we can do when it comes to the question of, "Why did the south secede at one point, as opposed to another?"  There certainly were worse tariffs than the Morrill Tariff, the Tariff of Abominations comes to mind.

What I meant when I said they were not infringing on anybody else's liberties was that of free men in other states.  For example, the liberties of a free man in Ohio were not infringed upon by Virginia choosing to leave the Union.  Obviously I misspoke, as the liberties of the slaves were clearly infringed upon.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 21, 2008)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> However, the south did not secede over the issue of slavery.  It was predominantly over tariffs.  They seceded when Lincoln won the election because they knew that he had every intention of keeping the tariffs in place and probably making them even worse.  Lincoln once called himself "an old Henry Clay Whig," Henry Clay being a proponent of high protectionist tariffs as part of his "American System."
> 
> Lincoln certainly did deny the south's right to leave the Union, but I believe that they did have this right.  The Constitution does not deny the right to secede to the states, and does not give the federal government the authority to stop a state from leaving the Union.
> 
> There is no right of revolution.  A revolution occurs when a government refuses to acknowledge the right of secession.  The 13 British colonies seceded from Great Britain, but only needed the revolution because Great Britain did not acknowledge their right to independence.  Otherwise they could have peacefully seceded and no revolution would have been necessary.



And yet the articles they posted from their own State Governments disagree with your claim, They state the over riding reason for leaving was the threat to Slavery. The Articles of Secession in most of those States state that the main reason for leaving was Slavery.


----------



## editec (Dec 21, 2008)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Perhaps in 1842 the southern states were willing to work within the system, and when they seceded they were tired of trying to do so. I wasn't around back then, and I don't think they kept records of why they _didn't_ secede at a specific time. The best you or I can do in respect to your questions is speculate.


 
Possibly because the TEXAS issue was still up in the air?

Remember that some of the problem was that the South was afraid of losing control in Congress, but that with enough new Slave states they didn't feel threatened.

So while the Army of the Republic was still working to bring the South still another state where they could own slaves, things looked like they were working out for them.

This is pure conjecture, BTW.

The South should have seceded in the 1840s BEFORE the North had developed the industrial might that it had by 1860.

Had they pulled the trigger twenty years before they did, they'd have probably won their independence.

Remember ALSO that there were secessionists in the North (Rhode Island for example) at that time who might have been sympathetic to their plight, too.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 21, 2008)

editec said:


> Possibly because the TEXAS issue was still up in the air?
> 
> Remember that some of the problem was that the South was afraid of losing control in Congress, but that with enough new Slave states they didn't feel threatened.
> 
> ...



They threatened to leave under Jackson, well at least South Carolina and he did as Lincoln though more forcefully. He threatened to send Troops to quell any rebellion. Lincoln did nothing at all until the South fired on US Troops, he did not even raise an army.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 21, 2008)

Washington also believed that States nor parts of States had the right to rebel or leave the Union. He put down several as President. Even going into the field for one as the Commanding General.


----------



## editec (Dec 21, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> They threatened to leave under Jackson, well at least South Carolina and he did as Lincoln though more forcefully. He threatened to send Troops to quell any rebellion. Lincoln did nothing at all until the South fired on US Troops, he did not even raise an army.


 
Sessionist movements existed both in the North and the South long before 1861, that is definitely the truth.

Often those sessionists wanted to leave the states over the issue of trade laws, that is also true.

that the South objected to trade tariffs ALSO true.

Now whether or not tariffs were AN issue, suggesting that they were THE issue is a bit of a stretch.

The issue of tariffs and the issue of slavery are interlinked.

Since the South was a slave powered agricultural power with little industry of its own, naturally they objected to having to pay tariffs on good brough to them (mostly) from England.

After all, they were flush with British coin since they sold so much cotton to the mills of England, and they objected to having to pay tariffs on the good they brought into the States.


Now would tariffs ALONE have forced their hand? Sans the threat of the North upsetting their entire economy by freeing the slaves, I mean?

I rather doubt it, but of course, we will NEVER know, now.

The fact is that the successionists AT THE TIME, openly stated that they were fighting for their "particular instiution" and that particular instiution was slavery.

I tend to credit the actual words of players who were in charge of the secessionist movement much more than I believe the modern revisionists (Southern apologists) who now claim to know the motives of players that they never met and whose words they apprently seldom bother to read.

The only "states' right" they apparently could not do without was their right to own slaves.


----------



## hopner33 (Dec 21, 2008)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Yes, speculate.  That's all we can do when it comes to the question of, "Why did the south secede at one point, as opposed to another?"  There certainly were worse tariffs than the Morrill Tariff, the Tariff of Abominations comes to mind.
> 
> What I meant when I said they were not infringing on anybody else's liberties was that of free men in other states.  For example, the liberties of a free man in Ohio were not infringed upon by Virginia choosing to leave the Union.  Obviously I misspoke, as the liberties of the slaves were clearly infringed upon.



Correct me if I am wrong, but you are using speculate in the sense that we can never conclusively determine why something happened. We can't tell if explanation A or B is better because they are both speculations. That is an incredibally foolish belief! 
If I "speculated" that the South seceded in 1860 because of prevailing wind currents in the Mediterranean, my speculation would be a failure. While your tariff "speculation" does have more explanatory power than wind, it still fails to explain a lot as I have shown.
Don't give me "There is no real answer to historical questions" crap.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 21, 2008)

Orange_Juice said:


> The South started the Civil War because they felt that slavery as an institution was in danger, which meant that white supremecy was in danger.



You're just as wrong now as you were the first time you posted that.


----------

