# Civil War and some Myths.



## RetiredGySgt

Five myths about why the South seceded - The Washington Post

First up State's rights.


----------



## waltky

Test yer knowledge of the Civil War...

*Civil War anniversary: 13 questions 150 years later*
_On April 12, 1861, long-simmering tensions between North and South ignited and began the four-year War Between the States. In a recent Pew Research Center survey, more than half of Americans said that the Civil War is still relevant to US politics. Test your knowledge of the Civil War by taking this short quiz._

*1. Where did the Civil War begin?*


----------



## Sallow

Good article.


----------



## editec

Agreed, this article does much to refute the revisionist apologists of the CSA.

The MOTIVE behind the war was the defence of Southern economics.

Its economic capital was mostly in the form of slaves. I've read estimates that 85% of the capitalization of the ENTIRE SOUTH was slaves. That means the the rest of the southern states, every house, all the land the livestock, the cash on hand, the factories amounted to 15% of the capital of those states.

Given that, one can truly understand why the Southerners were scared to death of emancipation that they KNEW was inevitably coming.

I think the South took its best shot because they understood that THEN was the time, IF EVER.

And they lost mostly because they couldn't finace their war once the North blockaded New Orleans.

Seriously, had the found financing in the European bonds market, they might have been able to keep enough troops in the field long enough that the people of the North would have lost heart and given them their freedom.


They fought a magnificent war against the North,  but in the long run they just couldn't finance the war and eventually, as their economy collapsed, so too did their chance of becoming an independent nation.


----------



## martybegan

The last 2 points are the best ones. I know that the whole "states rights" arguement as well as the tarriff issue have been used by kluckers to hide the slavery issue, but they still were part of the equation used by the southern states when determining if they would secede. The Election of Lincoln and the threat they percieved to slavery was what broke the camels back for the first wave of secession, and the proposed use of force to restore the union brought on the second.

Even if the states rights argument wasnt the main argument some of the southerners during the time sure as hell believed  it was. Read up on some of the stuff the confederate government had to deal with. When state representatives didnt like something they hid behind the state's rights banner, which was one of the inefficencies they confederate government faced. 

It has been said (and I agree) that without slavery all of the other issues could have been settled through negotiation. Slavery was the poison pill that brought the conflict to an armed one.

Edit:  Also, minus points for the partisan hack on GWB and tax cuts, linking them to slavery. Poor Form.


----------



## martybegan

editec said:


> Agreed, this article does much to refute the revisionist apologists of the CSA.
> 
> The MOTIVE behind the war was the defence of Southern economics.
> 
> Its economic capital was mostly in the form of slaves. I've read estimates that 85% of the capitalization of the ENTIRE SOUTH was slaves. That means the the rest of the southern states, every house, all the land the livestock, the cash on hand, the factories amounted to 15% of the capital of those states.
> 
> Given that, one can truly understand why the Southerners were scared to death of emancipation that they KNEW was inevitably coming.
> 
> I think the South took its best shot because they understood that THEN was the time, IF EVER.
> 
> And they lost mostly because they couldn't finace their war once the North blockaded New Orleans.
> 
> Seriously, had the found financing in the European bonds market, they might have been able to keep enough troops in the field long enough that the people of the North would have lost heart and given them their freedom.
> 
> 
> They fought a magnificent war against the North,  but in the long run they just couldn't finance the war and eventually, as their economy collapsed, so too did their chance of becoming an independent nation.



Shelby Foote brought up a good point that the North really didnt fully mobilize for the war, unlike the south. His view is that the north fought the war with one hand tied behind thier back, and if pressed early on, would have simply untied the other hand and wiped the south out. 

Or as Sherman said:

"_You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth  right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail." _


----------



## Sunni Man

States Rights were defined and built into the Constitution.

The southern states had every right to leave the Union and become independent.

Lincoln ignored the Constitution and fought an illegal was war against the south.

His actions have lead to the oppressive Federal government that we have today.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Sunni Man said:


> States Rights were defined and built into the Constitution.
> 
> The southern states had every right to leave the Union and become independent.
> 
> Lincoln ignored the Constitution and fought an illegal was war against the south.
> 
> His actions have lead to the oppressive Federal government that we have today.



It required a 75 percent vote to create the Union and it is reasonable to assume that it requires a 75 percent vote to leave it. And as to LAW the Supreme Court ruled and it has not been overturned, changed or amended that CONGRESS must establish the rules under which a State may leave the Union.

The Civil war was not Unconstitutional nor illegal.


----------



## martybegan

waltky said:


> Test yer knowledge of the Civil War...
> 
> *Civil War anniversary: 13 questions 150 years later*
> _On April 12, 1861, long-simmering tensions between North and South ignited and began the four-year War Between the States. In a recent Pew Research Center survey, more than half of Americans said that the Civil War is still relevant to US politics. Test your knowledge of the Civil War by taking this short quiz._
> 
> *1. Where did the Civil War begin?*



13/13, even got the two tricky ones (brady and the % of people who think its ok to praise confederate leaders)


----------



## martybegan

RetiredGySgt said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> States Rights were defined and built into the Constitution.
> 
> The southern states had every right to leave the Union and become independent.
> 
> Lincoln ignored the Constitution and fought an illegal was war against the south.
> 
> His actions have lead to the oppressive Federal government that we have today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It required a 75 percent vote to create the Union and it is reasonable to assume that it requires a 75 percent vote to leave it. And as to LAW the Supreme Court ruled and it has not been overturned, changed or amended that CONGRESS must establish the rules under which a State may leave the Union.
> 
> The Civil war was not Unconstitutional nor illegal.
Click to expand...


The Consitution is like any contract, and as such, unless stated otherwise requires all parties to approve of its dissolusion. The states remaining in the union did not approve of the ending of the contract, and therefore exercised thier rights to keep it in force. 

There was no right in the constitution to seccession.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

waltky said:


> Test yer knowledge of the Civil War...
> 
> *Civil War anniversary: 13 questions 150 years later*
> _On April 12, 1861, long-simmering tensions between North and South ignited and began the four-year War Between the States. In a recent Pew Research Center survey, more than half of Americans said that the Civil War is still relevant to US politics. Test your knowledge of the Civil War by taking this short quiz._
> 
> *1. Where did the Civil War begin?*



Got all but the last question right.


----------



## Sunni Man

RetiredGySgt said:


> It required a 75 percent vote to create the Union and it is reasonable to *assume* that it requires a 75 percent vote to leave it.


You "assume" too much.

The southern states were following the Constitution.

Lincoln and the Union trashed it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Sunni Man said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> It required a 75 percent vote to create the Union and it is reasonable to *assume* that it requires a 75 percent vote to leave it.
> 
> 
> 
> You "assume" too much.
> 
> The southern states were following the Constitution.
> 
> Lincoln and the Union trashed it.
Click to expand...


History AND the Supreme Court disagree.


----------



## Sunni Man

RetiredGySgt said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> It required a 75 percent vote to create the Union and it is reasonable to *assume* that it requires a 75 percent vote to leave it.
> 
> 
> 
> You "assume" too much.
> 
> The southern states were following the Constitution.
> 
> Lincoln and the Union trashed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History AND the Supreme Court disagree.
Click to expand...

What year was this Supreme Court law you keep referring to enacted?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Sunni Man said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> You "assume" too much.
> 
> The southern states were following the Constitution.
> 
> Lincoln and the Union trashed it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History AND the Supreme Court disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What year was this Supreme Court law you keep referring to enacted?
Click to expand...


1869. Texas vs the US as I recall.


----------



## Sunni Man

RetiredGySgt said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> History AND the Supreme Court disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> What year was this Supreme Court law you keep referring to enacted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1869. Texas vs the US as I recall.
Click to expand...


Kind of what I figured.

It was enacted "after" the so called Civil War took place.


----------



## martybegan

Sunni Man said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> It required a 75 percent vote to create the Union and it is reasonable to *assume* that it requires a 75 percent vote to leave it.
> 
> 
> 
> You "assume" too much.
> 
> The southern states were following the Constitution.
> 
> Lincoln and the Union trashed it.
Click to expand...


Where is the constitution is the word seccession?


----------



## Toro

I've always wondrered what would have happened had the South left successfully. Would there be two separate countries today?  What would the continent look like?  Would America be as powerful of a global power?  It's pretty fascinating.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Sunni Man said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> What year was this Supreme Court law you keep referring to enacted?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1869. Texas vs the US as I recall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kind of what I figured.
> 
> It was enacted "after" the so called Civil War took place.
Click to expand...


There was no Court case BEFORE the Civil War because the pussy ass South knew the result would be they could not leave.

And for Precedent we have the 1830's when South Carolina threatened to leave and President Jackson told them that would be met by force of Arms.


----------



## paperview

RetiredGySgt said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1869. Texas vs the US as I recall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of what I figured.
> 
> It was enacted "after" the so called Civil War took place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no Court case BEFORE the Civil War because the pussy ass South knew the result would be they could not leave.
> 
> And for Precedent we have the 1830's when South Carolina threatened to leave and President Jackson told them that would be met by force of Arms.
Click to expand...

Yup.

Good thread.  Thanks.


----------



## rightwinger

RetiredGySgt said:


> waltky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Test yer knowledge of the Civil War...
> 
> *Civil War anniversary: 13 questions 150 years later*
> _On April 12, 1861, long-simmering tensions between North and South ignited and began the four-year War Between the States. In a recent Pew Research Center survey, more than half of Americans said that the Civil War is still relevant to US politics. Test your knowledge of the Civil War by taking this short quiz._
> 
> *1. Where did the Civil War begin?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got all but the last question right.
Click to expand...


I got them all right but guessed on the last question. That is not relevant to Civil War knowledge and is dependent on which poll you might look at.

Also the one about the introduction of the Ironclads, I thought submarines were introduced also, but on a one time basis with the Hundley


----------



## Sunni Man

RetiredGySgt said:


> And for Precedent we have the 1830's when South Carolina threatened to leave and President Jackson told them that would be met by force of Arms.



A threat is not a legal precedent.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

rightwinger said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> waltky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Test yer knowledge of the Civil War...
> 
> *Civil War anniversary: 13 questions 150 years later*
> _On April 12, 1861, long-simmering tensions between North and South ignited and began the four-year War Between the States. In a recent Pew Research Center survey, more than half of Americans said that the Civil War is still relevant to US politics. Test your knowledge of the Civil War by taking this short quiz._
> 
> *1. Where did the Civil War begin?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got all but the last question right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got them all right but guessed on the last question. That is not relevant to Civil War knowledge and is dependent on which poll you might look at.
> 
> Also the one about the introduction of the Ironclads, I thought submarines were introduced also, but on a one time basis with the Hundley
Click to expand...


A sub was attempted to be used before, unsuccessfully of course. Can't remember when but it was a long time ago.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Sunni Man said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And for Precedent we have the 1830's when South Carolina threatened to leave and President Jackson told them that would be met by force of Arms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A threat is not a legal precedent.
Click to expand...


When issued by the Commander in chief of the Military and the President of the Country and BACKED UP by Congress it sure as hell is.


----------



## martybegan

rightwinger said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> waltky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Test yer knowledge of the Civil War...
> 
> *Civil War anniversary: 13 questions 150 years later*
> _On April 12, 1861, long-simmering tensions between North and South ignited and began the four-year War Between the States. In a recent Pew Research Center survey, more than half of Americans said that the Civil War is still relevant to US politics. Test your knowledge of the Civil War by taking this short quiz._
> 
> *1. Where did the Civil War begin?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got all but the last question right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got them all right but guessed on the last question. That is not relevant to Civil War knowledge and is dependent on which poll you might look at.
> 
> Also the one about the introduction of the Ironclads, I thought submarines were introduced also, but on a one time basis with the Hundley
Click to expand...


Turtle (submarine) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The machine gun reference as well was kind of a right answer, as the gatling gun was a civil war invention, albiet not used very much.

If you modify the question to say used sucessfully then ironclads becomes the definite right answer. I think that was one they added as a toughie.


----------



## Sunni Man

RetiredGySgt said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And for Precedent we have the 1830's when South Carolina threatened to leave and President Jackson told them that would be met by force of Arms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A threat is not a legal precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When issued by the Commander in chief of the Military and the President of the Country and BACKED UP by Congress it sure as hell is.
Click to expand...


Congress did not enact legislation to back up Present Jackson's threat.

Thus it was just a verbal threat with no legal basis.


----------



## zzzz

Approximately 21 million people lived in 23 Northern states.
The South had about 9 million people which included 3.5 million slaves (11 States)



> In 1860, the North manufactured 97 percent of the country's firearms, 96 percent of its railroad locomotives, 94 percent of its cloth, 93 percent of its pig iron, and over 90 percent of its boots and shoes. The North had twice the density of railroads per square mile. There was not even one rifleworks in the entire South.


Strengths and Weaknesses: North vs. South [ushistory.org]

In war, morale is the determining factor that decides the ultimate outcome. The morale of the civilian population and the morale of the truths. In this war the South's morale was at a peak in the first few years but as the North gradually bled the South in a war of attrition that morale crumbled. There were 2 ways that the South could have won. One was a quick victory in the first few years before the North could mobilize its resources. The other way was to have a European intervention like what is happening in Libya, a European Navy ending the blockade and providing resources and maybe even troops.


----------



## Sunni Man

Ratified in 1791

The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

"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".


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Sunni Man said:


> Ratified in 1791
> 
> The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
> 
> "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".



That does not say one can LEAVE the Union. To create the Union and to join the Union required a vote of 75 percent of the Colonies or States. In order to leave Congress must pass a law stating what the qualifiers are. As per the Supreme Court ruling in Texas vs US.

Using your logic, since no State has passed any legislation on the procedures or requirements to leave the UNION then the people retain the right. SO tell me? what do you think would happen to Joe Blow if he announced he had left the Union and no State or Federal laws applied in his new Country?


----------



## Sunni Man

RetiredGySgt said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ratified in 1791
> 
> The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
> 
> "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".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That does not say one can LEAVE the Union. To create the Union and to join the Union required a vote of 75 percent of the Colonies or States. In order to leave Congress must pass a law stating what the qualifiers are. As per the Supreme Court ruling in Texas vs US.
Click to expand...

 Again, you keep citing a law that was enacted "after" the Civil War.

Before the war the states had every right to leave the Union.

Because according to the 10th Amendment of 1791

States were free to enact any law or pursue any course of action that was not forbidden by the Constitution.


----------



## paperview

Does it say anything in there about a state's right to seize federal properties and fire on federal forces?


----------



## Sallow

RetiredGySgt said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> States Rights were defined and built into the Constitution.
> 
> The southern states had every right to leave the Union and become independent.
> 
> Lincoln ignored the Constitution and fought an illegal was war against the south.
> 
> His actions have lead to the oppressive Federal government that we have today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It required a 75 percent vote to create the Union and it is reasonable to assume that it requires a 75 percent vote to leave it. And as to LAW the Supreme Court ruled and it has not been overturned, changed or amended that CONGRESS must establish the rules under which a State may leave the Union.
> 
> The Civil war was not Unconstitutional nor illegal.
Click to expand...


Yeah..it was.

And as I've said before..Sherman didn't go far enough.

Vlad Dracul had the right idea when he impaled the bodies of his enemies along the road when the Turks sent emissaries to ask for tribute. And nailing the Turbans to their heads didn't hurt either.


----------



## Old Rocks

RetiredGySgt said:


> Five myths about why the South seceded - The Washington Post
> 
> First up State's rights.



Yep. States rights to immorally have one man master of another. And they got their butts good and royally kicked for being such immoral bastards.


----------



## hortysir

editec said:


> Agreed, this article does much to refute the revisionist apologists of the CSA.
> 
> The MOTIVE behind the war was the defence of _*Southern economics*_.
> 
> Its economic capital was mostly in the form of slaves. I've read estimates that 85% of the capitalization of the ENTIRE SOUTH was slaves. That means the the rest of the southern states, every house, all the land the livestock, the cash on hand, the factories amounted to 15% of the capital of those states.
> 
> Given that, one can truly understand why the Southerners were scared to death of emancipation that they KNEW was inevitably coming.
> 
> I think the South took its best shot because they understood that THEN was the time, IF EVER.
> 
> And they lost mostly because they couldn't finace their war once the North blockaded New Orleans.
> 
> Seriously, had the found financing in the European bonds market, they might have been able to keep enough troops in the field long enough that the people of the North would have lost heart and given them their freedom.
> 
> 
> They fought a magnificent war against the North,  but in the long run they just couldn't finance the war and eventually, as their economy collapsed, so too did their chance of becoming an independent nation.




i.e. tobacco, cotton, citrus, etc.....

Lincoln was the same kind of Republican people accuse Bush of being.
With Bush it was, "all about the oil".
With Lincoln it was, "all about the agriculture".
(that and being the head of a new, and more powerful, centralized government, of course)


----------



## The Gadfly

editec said:


> Agreed, this article does much to refute the revisionist apologists of the CSA.
> 
> The MOTIVE behind the war was the defence of Southern economics.
> 
> Its economic capital was mostly in the form of slaves. I've read estimates that 85% of the capitalization of the ENTIRE SOUTH was slaves. That means the the rest of the southern states, every house, all the land the livestock, the cash on hand, the factories amounted to 15% of the capital of those states.
> 
> Given that, one can truly understand why the Southerners were scared to death of emancipation that they KNEW was inevitably coming.
> 
> I think the South took its best shot because they understood that THEN was the time, IF EVER.
> 
> And they lost mostly because they couldn't finace their war once the North blockaded New Orleans.
> 
> Seriously, had the found financing in the European bonds market, they might have been able to keep enough troops in the field long enough that the people of the North would have lost heart and given them their freedom.
> 
> 
> They fought a magnificent war against the North,  but in the long run they just couldn't finance the war and eventually, as their economy collapsed, so too did their chance of becoming an independent nation.



That's actually a pretty good summation, although there are a couple of additional points to consider. Another factor was that with the Radical Republican victory in the 1860 election, the nation was, for the first time in the hands of a purely sectional political party.The most troubling aspect of that, from a Southern point of view, is that the Southern states now faced the real prospect of a growing majority of states whose political and economic interests would be adverse to those of the South. Many concluded (correctly, as it turned out), that this would now inevitably occur, war or no war. Combine that, with the fact that a number of state legislatures, in the legislation by which they had ratified the constitution, had specifically reserved to themselves the right to leave the union if they desired. This was not only true of the Southern states; some New England states had done the same, and Massachusetts had in fact threatened to leave during the War of 1812. The question was in fact never submitted to the Supreme Court prior to the outbreak of hostilities; had it been the likelihood is that that court, led by Chief Justice Taney, would have upheld the legality of secession. It was not until the later years of Reconstruction that the question was submitted to a court purged of its more conservative justices, these replaced by the illegitimate "rump congress" ( the Southern portion of which was elected through Radical Republican fraud and disenfranchisement of White Southern voters) with some more amenable to the Radical point of view. Before the retirement of some of the more conservative members of the court, the Radicals so feared the idea of having the question reach the court, that they decided not to try Gen. Lee or Jefferson Davis. As one of them put it (in a moment of candor) "it would be a pity for the Union to have waged a successful war, only to have it declared unconstitutional" (which it very likely was).

With all that, the South finally concluded (some more reluctantly than others) that it had little to lose by trying to become independent. It was either that, or be crushed by a more and more powerful central government inimical to the South's interests (which is exactly what has transpired since the Late Unpleasantness) Even now, I and many other Southerners find being little more than the occupied territory of a Yankee  dominated central government less than appealing, socially, culturally, or politically. I suggest that any of you liberals who think otherwise consider the idea of letting us put it to a vote. Seriously. Throw us out like Bob Beckel suggested you do, in 2004, or just let us leave, so you can have the socialist paradise you want. As it is, our history and culture are being suppressed, in the unholy name of Political Correctness. Oh, and one more thing; those of you up North, please, whatever you do, STAY THERE! Your presence here is neither needed, nor particularly appreciated. If you hate us, please stay away and leave us alone. No self-respecting Southerner wants to live in the North, so perhaps, you could reciprocate?


----------



## The Gadfly

Sallow said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> States Rights were defined and built into the Constitution.
> 
> The southern states had every right to leave the Union and become independent.
> 
> Lincoln ignored the Constitution and fought an illegal was war against the south.
> 
> His actions have lead to the oppressive Federal government that we have today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It required a 75 percent vote to create the Union and it is reasonable to assume that it requires a 75 percent vote to leave it. And as to LAW the Supreme Court ruled and it has not been overturned, changed or amended that CONGRESS must establish the rules under which a State may leave the Union.
> 
> The Civil war was not Unconstitutional nor illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah..it was.
> 
> And as I've said before..Sherman didn't go far enough.
> 
> Vlad Dracul had the right idea when he impaled the bodies of his enemies along the road when the Turks sent emissaries to ask for tribute. And nailing the Turbans to their heads didn't hurt either.
Click to expand...

I almost wish your side had tried that; it would have guaranteed European intervention, AND a permanent guerrilla war against Yankeedom until you decided you'd bled enough. Either, or both, and we'd have an independent South today. Rest assured, we know most of you feel that way, and if there ever is a "next time", we'll remember that, and deal with you accordingly.


----------



## JW Frogen

One Civil War fact little known is that General Grant's liver never died with him, it has been transplanted and re-transplanted from generation to generation of drunks and now resides in the body of Larry Hagman.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

RetiredGySgt said:


> Five myths about why the South seceded - The Washington Post
> 
> First up State's rights.



I really liked #4, isn't that a favorite of all the people that want to claim that the Civil War was about slavery? I think it also contradicts the notion that this was not rooted in state's rights. How could one side be fighting for one thing if the other side was fighting against something else? Maybe the reason that there is so much debate about the causes of the Civil War is both sides want to rewrite history.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

RetiredGySgt said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> States Rights were defined and built into the Constitution.
> 
> The southern states had every right to leave the Union and become independent.
> 
> Lincoln ignored the Constitution and fought an illegal was war against the south.
> 
> His actions have lead to the oppressive Federal government that we have today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It required a 75 percent vote to create the Union and it is reasonable to assume that it requires a 75 percent vote to leave it. And as to LAW the Supreme Court ruled and it has not been overturned, changed or amended that CONGRESS must establish the rules under which a State may leave the Union.
> 
> The Civil war was not Unconstitutional nor illegal.
Click to expand...


SCOTUS actually ruled that the issue was settled by the Civil War. I am not sure how that proves that the war itself was legal or Constitutional, but I would be interested in seeing some sort of logic that does not simply point to a decision that acknowledged that they cannot change what already happened.


----------



## geauxtohell

Anyone that claims that the Civil War wasn't about slavery is a fucking moron.

Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The hillbillies in West Virginia were smart enough to know it and seceded from the Confederacy.  They had nothing to gain from slavery.  

My family all fought for the South.  I am glad they lost.  It was a disastrous cause.


----------



## Toro

geauxtohell said:


> Anyone that claims that the Civil War wasn't about slavery is a fucking moron.
> 
> Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The hillbillies in West Virginia were smart enough to know it and seceded from the Confederacy.  They had nothing to gain from slavery.
> 
> My family all fought for the South.  I am glad they lost.  It was a disastrous cause.



I'm not particularly well versed in the Civil War.  However, I heard one commentator the other day say that even though the argument some make that the war was over states' rights, the only real right the South wanted was to keep slavery.


----------



## JBeukema

Toro said:


> I've always wondrered what would have happened had the South left successfully. Would there be two separate countries today?  What would the continent look like?  Would America be as powerful of a global power?  It's pretty fascinating.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EViGaTSnqRw]YouTube - The Confederate States of America (1 of 9)[/ame]

There was a thread about this a while back


----------



## WorldWatcher

Sunni Man said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ratified in 1791
> 
> The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
> 
> "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".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That does not say one can LEAVE the Union. To create the Union and to join the Union required a vote of 75 percent of the Colonies or States. In order to leave Congress must pass a law stating what the qualifiers are. As per the Supreme Court ruling in Texas vs US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you keep citing a law that was enacted "after" the Civil War.
> 
> Before the war the states had every right to leave the Union.
> 
> Because according to the 10th Amendment of 1791
> 
> States were free to enact any law or pursue any course of action that was not forbidden by the Constitution.
Click to expand...



The main body of the United States Constituion was ratified on June 21st, 1788 with New York and Virginia ratifiying it shortly thereafter and it went into effect in 1789.

Article I Section 8 provides:

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"​
*Insurrection*
in·sur·rec·tion
noun \&#716;in(t)-s&#601;-&#712;rek-sh&#601;n\
Definition of INSURRECTION
: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government 

*Revolt*
intransitive verb
1
: to renounce allegiance or subjection (as to a government) : rebel 


The Southern States quite clearly were revolting against the allegiance and voluntary subjection to the Federal government by attempting to seceded from the Union which as clearly the established government.  As such they placed themselves in a state of insurrection and therefore the Constitution clearly granted to the Federal government the authority to call forth the military to suppress such insurrection.


****************************

The 10th Amendment grants powers to the States:

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.​
Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution clearly grants the Federal government the power to suppress insurrection.  Because the Constitution granted the Federal government the power to suppress insurrection, creating an insurrection would not be a 10th Amendment power of the States since it is addressed elsewhere in the Constitution.


>>>>


----------



## hortysir

geauxtohell said:


> Anyone that claims that the Civil War wasn't about slavery is a fucking moron.
> 
> Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The hillbillies in West Virginia were smart enough to know it and seceded from the Confederacy.  They had nothing to gain from slavery.
> 
> My family all fought for the South.  I am glad they lost.  It was a disastrous cause.


In all fairness, this is one speech given by one man. It's just his opinion....just like any other poster on this board.
If you were to poll soldiers and citizens from the North and South, in say 1866, and ask them the reason for the war, you'd probably get a dozen more different answers than what are already in this thread.
What, exactly, makes his opinion more 'right' than any of ours or any of the opinions of those that actually lived through it all?


----------



## paperview

hortysir said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone that claims that the Civil War wasn't about slavery is a fucking moron.
> 
> Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The hillbillies in West Virginia were smart enough to know it and seceded from the Confederacy.  They had nothing to gain from slavery.
> 
> My family all fought for the South.  I am glad they lost.  It was a disastrous cause.
> 
> 
> 
> In all fairness, this is one speech given by one man. It's just his opinion....just like any other poster on this board.
> If you were to poll soldiers and citizens from the North and South, in say 1866, and ask them the reason for the war, you'd probably get a dozen more different answers than what are already in this thread.
> What, exactly, makes his opinion more 'right' than any of ours or any of the opinions of those that actually lived through it all?
Click to expand...

It's not "more right" but it does matter he was Vice President of the Confederacy.

The President of the Confederacy called it slavery the Cornerstone as well. 

You can't get more top dog than those two.


----------



## hortysir

paperview said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone that claims that the Civil War wasn't about slavery is a fucking moron.
> 
> Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The hillbillies in West Virginia were smart enough to know it and seceded from the Confederacy.  They had nothing to gain from slavery.
> 
> My family all fought for the South.  I am glad they lost.  It was a disastrous cause.
> 
> 
> 
> In all fairness, this is one speech given by one man. It's just his opinion....just like any other poster on this board.
> If you were to poll soldiers and citizens from the North and South, in say 1866, and ask them the reason for the war, you'd probably get a dozen more different answers than what are already in this thread.
> What, exactly, makes his opinion more 'right' than any of ours or any of the opinions of those that actually lived through it all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not "more right" but it does matter he was Vice President of the Confederacy.
> 
> The President of the Confederacy called it slavery the Cornerstone as well.
> 
> You can't get more top dog than those two.
Click to expand...

Without sounding like I'm defending slavery; I wasn't aware that JD was anti-slavery, given he was a slave owner, himself (even if he *did* treat his "better" than most)


----------



## paperview

hortysir said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> In all fairness, this is one speech given by one man. It's just his opinion....just like any other poster on this board.
> If you were to poll soldiers and citizens from the North and South, in say 1866, and ask them the reason for the war, you'd probably get a dozen more different answers than what are already in this thread.
> What, exactly, makes his opinion more 'right' than any of ours or any of the opinions of those that actually lived through it all?
> 
> 
> 
> It's not "more right" but it does matter he was Vice President of the Confederacy.
> 
> The President of the Confederacy called it slavery the Cornerstone as well.
> 
> You can't get more top dog than those two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without sounding like I'm defending slavery; I wasn't aware that JD was anti-slavery, given he was a slave owner, himself (even if he *did* treat his "better" than most)
Click to expand...

Well, that didn't make sense at all.


----------



## hortysir

I retract, PV....
I see that your case is that their Cornerstone stance was why they fought the war (to keep their slaves)
I completely misread/misinterpreted just the opposite - or some weird tangent  



I still hold my position that there had to be a great many fighting men, (on both sides) that were merely defending their lands from an invader, that didn't hold an opinion on slavery.


----------



## Publius1787

RetiredGySgt said:


> Five myths about why the South seceded - The Washington Post
> 
> First up State's rights.



The south did seceed over states rights. Thats why the confederate constitution gutted the federal governments power. A quick reading of the confederate states constitution will reveil a number of changes to include refusing the federal government to implement internal improvements or interfear with free trade (Which would have destroyed northern trade by the way). If you want to know why the states seceeded you must look to how they set their government up in accordance with the former government. Only then the answer will become exceptionally clear. States rights was an issue. Slavery certainly couldnt be the issue for 4 reasons. Most southerners didnt own slaves, southerners would not fight to maintain slaves, northerners would not fight to abolish slaves, and finally (perhaps the most damning) the north passed an amendment to the constitution that guarenteed the right for the south to own slaves to prevent them from seceeding (The Corwin Amendment). They did so anyway.


----------



## Publius1787

waltky said:


> Test yer knowledge of the Civil War...
> 
> *Civil War anniversary: 13 questions 150 years later*
> _On April 12, 1861, long-simmering tensions between North and South ignited and began the four-year War Between the States. In a recent Pew Research Center survey, more than half of Americans said that the Civil War is still relevant to US politics. Test your knowledge of the Civil War by taking this short quiz._
> 
> *1. Where did the Civil War begin?*



I got 12 of 13. I chose submarines instead of iron clads. I guedd the Chritian Science Monitor isnt aware of the CSS Hunley.


----------



## Publius1787

martybegan said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> It required a 75 percent vote to create the Union and it is reasonable to *assume* that it requires a 75 percent vote to leave it.
> 
> 
> 
> You "assume" too much.
> 
> The southern states were following the Constitution.
> 
> Lincoln and the Union trashed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is the constitution is the word seccession?
Click to expand...


Many states to include virginia adopted the constitution under the conditions that they could seceed. Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson mentioned it in his first address as president in reference to New Englands charge that they would seceed. Finally, if a state descides through the democratic process that it wants to seceed then who the hell are you the proclaim soverignty over their state?


----------



## Old Rocks

Publius1787 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> You "assume" too much.
> 
> The southern states were following the Constitution.
> 
> Lincoln and the Union trashed it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the constitution is the word seccession?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many states to include virginia adopted the constitution under the conditions that they could seceed. Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson mentioned it in his first address as president in reference to New Englands charge that they would seceed. Finally, if a state descides through the democratic process that it wants to seceed then who the hell are you the proclaim soverignty over their state?
Click to expand...


The great grandson of a Union soldier that fought at Fort Donaldson and Shilow and a hundred other lessor known engagements. There are license plate covers in the South that depict a sourthern soldiers cap, with the declaration, Never Forget. A friend of mine made one of his own with a union soldiers cap, stating, You Better Never Forget!. That just about covers the way the majority of Americans feel about the revisionists of American History. 

The ultimate cause of the Civil War was slavery. The South fought for the right of one man to own another. That is about the most immoral stand that can be taken.


----------



## The Gadfly

Old Rocks said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the constitution is the word seccession?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many states to include virginia adopted the constitution under the conditions that they could seceed. Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson mentioned it in his first address as president in reference to New Englands charge that they would seceed. Finally, if a state descides through the democratic process that it wants to seceed then who the hell are you the proclaim soverignty over their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The great grandson of a Union soldier that fought at Fort Donaldson and Shilow and a hundred other lessor known engagements. There are license plate covers in the South that depict a sourthern soldiers cap, with the declaration, Never Forget. A friend of mine made one of his own with a union soldiers cap, stating, You Better Never Forget!. That just about covers the way the majority of Americans feel about the revisionists of American History.
> 
> The ultimate cause of the Civil War was slavery. The South fought for the right of one man to own another. That is about the most immoral stand that can be taken.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion; it was not the opinion of a great number of the soldiers who fought on BOTH sides. In fact, Gen. U.S. Grant (himself a slaveholder) observed in 1862 "This war is to preserve the Union, not to end slavery; If I believed this war was to end slavery, I would resign my commission, and offer my sword to the other side." Grant did not free his own slaves until well after the end of hostilities; asked why, he remarked, "Good help is so hard to find". The myth that the North sought to conquer and subjugate the South for the purpose of abolition is a myth, started AFTER the Emancipation Proclamation (itself a war measure, NOT a grand gesture of altruism), to justify a war of imperial conquest and naked aggression, fought primarily for the benefit of the moneyed interests of New England. 

We'll never forget, but what we'll never forget is NOT your "great Moral Crusade" (a lie) or your great victory (our ancestors could have chosen to fight a guerrilla war against you Yankees, and had they done so, the outcome could have been very different). We are NOT cowed by you (there are more of us now with military experience than there are of you with same). What we will remember is your aggression, and your side's numerous atrocities (copiously documented in your own side's records, BTW). We will NEVER think like you, act like you, talk like you, or vote like you, because, Thank God Almighty, we are NOT you, and we know it! Just remember, "Yankee" is a curse word in the South, and y'all are about as welcome here, as boll weevils and fire ants.

When I get to hell, I will make it my mission to hunt down the foul souls of Lincoln, Stanton, Seward, Sherman, and Sheridan, and kick their sorry war criminal arses from one end of hell to the other.


----------



## martybegan

The Gadfly said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many states to include virginia adopted the constitution under the conditions that they could seceed. Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson mentioned it in his first address as president in reference to New Englands charge that they would seceed. Finally, if a state descides through the democratic process that it wants to seceed then who the hell are you the proclaim soverignty over their state?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The great grandson of a Union soldier that fought at Fort Donaldson and Shilow and a hundred other lessor known engagements. There are license plate covers in the South that depict a sourthern soldiers cap, with the declaration, Never Forget. A friend of mine made one of his own with a union soldiers cap, stating, You Better Never Forget!. That just about covers the way the majority of Americans feel about the revisionists of American History.
> 
> The ultimate cause of the Civil War was slavery. The South fought for the right of one man to own another. That is about the most immoral stand that can be taken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is your opinion; it was not the opinion of a great number of the soldiers who fought on BOTH sides. In fact, Gen. U.S. Grant (himself a slaveholder) observed in 1862 "This war is to preserve the Union, not to end slavery; If I believed this war was to end slavery, I would resign my commission, and offer my sword to the other side." Grant did not free his own slaves until well after the end of hostilities; asked why, he remarked, "Good help is so hard to find". The myth that the North sought to conquer and subjugate the South for the purpose of abolition is a myth, started AFTER the Emancipation Proclamation (itself a war measure, NOT a grand gesture of altruism), to justify a war of imperial conquest and naked aggression, fought primarily for the benefit of the moneyed interests of New England.
> 
> We'll never forget, but what we'll never forget is NOT your "great Moral Crusade" (a lie) or your great victory (our ancestors could have chosen to fight a guerrilla war against you Yankees, and had they done so, the outcome could have been very different). We are NOT cowed by you (there are more of us now with military experience than there are of you with same). What we will remember is your aggression, and your side's numerous atrocities (copiously documented in your own side's records, BTW). We will NEVER think like you, act like you, talk like you, or vote like you, because, Thank God Almighty, we are NOT you, and we know it! Just remember, "Yankee" is a curse word in the South, and y'all are about as welcome here, as boll weevils and fire ants.
> 
> When I get to hell, I will make it my mission to hunt down the foul souls of Lincoln, Stanton, Seward, Sherman, and Sheridan, and kick their sorry war criminal arses from one end of hell to the other.
Click to expand...


You go all about the North's reasons for fighting in the Civil War, but ignore the base question of why the South was fighting, which was to keep thier slaves. 

Also keep in mind more "Yankees" are moving down south, your "pure" numbers are being diluted by the year.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Publius1787 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Five myths about why the South seceded - The Washington Post
> 
> First up State's rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The south did seceed over states rights. Thats why the confederate constitution gutted the federal governments power. A quick reading of the confederate states constitution will reveil a number of changes to include refusing the federal government to implement internal improvements or interfear with free trade (Which would have destroyed northern trade by the way). If you want to know why the states seceeded you must look to how they set their government up in accordance with the former government. Only then the answer will become exceptionally clear. States rights was an issue. Slavery certainly couldnt be the issue for 4 reasons. Most southerners didnt own slaves, southerners would not fight to maintain slaves, northerners would not fight to abolish slaves, and finally (perhaps the most damning) the north passed an amendment to the constitution that guarenteed the right for the south to own slaves to prevent them from seceeding (The Corwin Amendment). They did so anyway.
Click to expand...


Pure Fantasy. Slavery was the overriding "State" right they left the Union over. The President, the Vice President and numerous elected officials of the Confederacy admitted this in speeches. Further read the damn succession declarations form the States leaving the Union,Almost everyone STATES the reason they left was SLAVERY.

85 percent of the Souths Economy DEPENDED on Slavery. You are right about one thing though, Slavery was in no danger of being removed in 1860 UNTIL the South left the Union. The Supreme Court sided with te South and they had the votes in the House and the Senate to prevent any such attempt.

It is Ironic that THEY caused exactly what they were defending against.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Publius1787 said:


> waltky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Test yer knowledge of the Civil War...
> 
> *Civil War anniversary: 13 questions 150 years later*
> _On April 12, 1861, long-simmering tensions between North and South ignited and began the four-year War Between the States. In a recent Pew Research Center survey, more than half of Americans said that the Civil War is still relevant to US politics. Test your knowledge of the Civil War by taking this short quiz._
> 
> *1. Where did the Civil War begin?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got 12 of 13. I chose submarines instead of iron clads. I guedd the Chritian Science Monitor isnt aware of the CSS Hunley.
Click to expand...


A submarine was used in the Revolutionary war. So much for your grasp of History.


----------



## Publius1787

RetiredGySgt said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> waltky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Test yer knowledge of the Civil War...
> 
> *Civil War anniversary: 13 questions 150 years later*
> _On April 12, 1861, long-simmering tensions between North and South ignited and began the four-year War Between the States. In a recent Pew Research Center survey, more than half of Americans said that the Civil War is still relevant to US politics. Test your knowledge of the Civil War by taking this short quiz._
> 
> *1. Where did the Civil War begin?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got 12 of 13. I chose submarines instead of iron clads. I guedd the Chritian Science Monitor isnt aware of the CSS Hunley.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A submarine was used in the Revolutionary war. So much for your grasp of History.
Click to expand...


Gunny? Your better than that! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._L._Hunley_(submarine) . Why would you respond with such certaintity to a guy who holds a BA in history without checking your facts first? If the marines have tought me anything, it is to gather and certify your facts before you commit to a course of action. Why would you mock my knowlege of history without checking the facts and place yourself in a position of showing your own ignoarnce of history? This undermines any credebility one may have. Your better than that Gunny.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpaiXxdVZao]YouTube - &#x202a;The CSS Hunley, American Submarine&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## Publius1787

RetiredGySgt said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Five myths about why the South seceded - The Washington Post
> 
> First up State's rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The south did seceed over states rights. Thats why the confederate constitution gutted the federal governments power. A quick reading of the confederate states constitution will reveil a number of changes to include refusing the federal government to implement internal improvements or interfear with free trade (Which would have destroyed northern trade by the way). If you want to know why the states seceeded you must look to how they set their government up in accordance with the former government. Only then the answer will become exceptionally clear. States rights was an issue. Slavery certainly couldnt be the issue for 4 reasons. Most southerners didnt own slaves, southerners would not fight to maintain slaves, northerners would not fight to abolish slaves, and finally (perhaps the most damning) the north passed an amendment to the constitution that guarenteed the right for the south to own slaves to prevent them from seceeding (The Corwin Amendment). They did so anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pure Fantasy. Slavery was the overriding "State" right they left the Union over. The President, the Vice President and numerous elected officials of the Confederacy admitted this in speeches. Further read the damn succession declarations form the States leaving the Union,Almost everyone STATES the reason they left was SLAVERY.
Click to expand...


Then why did they continue to secede after the corwin amendment was passed and both the northern congressmen and President Lincoln confirmed  that slavery was constitutionally protected and they had no legal right to tamper with it?

*Corwin Amendment:* "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State"

Corwin Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia On February 28, 1861, the House of Representatives approved the resolution by a vote of 133&#8211;65.[2] On March 2, the United States Senate also adopted it, 24&#8211;12.[3] Since proposed constitutional amendments require a two-thirds majority, 132 votes were required in the House and 24 in the Senate. As seven slave states had already decided to secede from the Union, those states chose not to vote on the Corwin Amendment.

Outgoing President James Buchanan endorsed the Corwin Amendment by taking the unusual step of signing it. Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address, supported the Corwin Amendment: "[H]olding such a provision to now be implied Constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."[4][5] Just weeks prior to the outbreak of the Civil War, Lincoln penned a letter to each governor asking for them to support the Corwin Amendment.[6] However, Presidents play no formal role in the amendment process.



RetiredGySgt said:


> [85 percent of the Souths Economy DEPENDED on Slavery. You are right about one thing though, Slavery was in no danger of being removed in 1860 UNTIL the South left the Union. The Supreme Court sided with te South and they had the votes in the House and the Senate to prevent any such attempt.
> 
> It is Ironic that THEY caused exactly what they were defending against.



If slavery was off the table then why would the south secede over slavery? The political speaches and documents you speak of were, like all political documents, making things seem to be worse than they were to raise a red herring and drum up support.

If you want to know why the south truly seceded you must look at the differences between the U.S. and C.S. constitutions. 

*Article 1 section 8 of the U.S. Constitution*
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

*The C.S. Constitution:* The Confederate States Constitution

*Article 1 section 8 of the C.S. Constitution* 
The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, for revenue necessary to pay the Debts [and], provide for the common Defence [and general Welfare of the United States; but], and carry on the government of the Confederate States; *but no bounties shall be granted from the treasury, nor shall any duties, or taxes, or importation from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry*; and all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the [United] Confederate States

*You see the difference between congressional powers? They eliminated state and corperate welfare and implemented free trade. This is in response to the more numerous representation in the north due to a higher population voting to implement internal improvements for their states at the expense of the south. Furthermore, it was in response to the north raising taraffs to artificially inflate the price of imports so that the south would be forced to buy higher priced northern goods and the southern exports were negativly effected by a equal rise in tarrafs of foreign countries. All of this is in regard to STATES RIGHTS and preventing the federal government from extorting money from the states or implementing trade policies that would ONLY benefit the areas with higher representation in congress.*

*Now the preamble*

WE, the People of the [United States] Confederated States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character *(States Rights Anyone?)*

*Now lets look at part of the C.S. bill of rights* 

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another [:nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter. clear, or pay Duties in another]. *(This prevents interstate mercantilism as the north had done to the south)*

Congress shall appropriate no money from the Treasury except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses, taken by yeas and nays, unless it be asked and estimated for by some one of the heads of departments and submitted to Congress by the President; or for the purpose of paying its own expenses and contingencies; or for the payment of claims against the Confederate States, the justice of which shall have been officially declared by a tribunal for the investigation of claims against the Government, which it is hereby made the duty of Congress to establish. *(This prevents runaway spending by congress)*

All bills appropriating money shall specify in Federal currency the exact amount of each appropriation and the purposes for which it is made; and Congress shall grant no extra compensation to any public contractor, officer, agent or servant, after such contract shall have been made or such service rendered. *(Preventing congress from implementing projects that turn in to money pits)*

Every law or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title. *(preventing earmarks that benefit one state over anohter)*

*Then Article I Section X:*

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, except on sea-going vessels, for the improvement of its rivers and harbors navigated by the said vessels; but such duties shall not conflict with any treaties of the Confederate States with foreign nations; and any surplus of revenue thus derived shall, after making such improvement, be paid into the common treasury; nor shall any State keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of Delay. But when any river divides or flows through two or more States, they may enter into compacts with each other to improve the navigation thereof. *(Allowes states to take charge of and enforce laws on their own waterways)*

*Slavery:* 

Of course, slavery is reconised in the Confederate constitution. But with the north having taken slavery off of the table this subject is irrelevent and a given. Both the congress and the president of the U.S. confirmed the "right" of the south to own slaves. 

Now with this overwhelming distinction between the two constitutions, (and I only scratched the surface), and taken in to account that the north guarenteed that south the right to slavery, WHAT WAS THE REAL REASON THE SOUTH SECEDED? Any further denial of the facts or accusations without citations shows only bias. If you look at history objectivly the truth always presents itself. If you look at it with your mind made up then you will never learn anything! *Now who's living in fantasy land*?


----------



## martybegan

The Corwin amendment was postulated as a method of getting the seceeded states back in AFTER the first wave of secession. It was also of dubious legal standing, as it could be replealed as an amendment, and THEN an amendment could be written banning slavery. 

Also, the simple fact that this amendment was even postulated SHOWS that slavery was the number one issue regarding secession at the time. 

Lets do a mental excercise. Remove the concept of slavery from the US at the time. With the other issues still there, tarriffs, taxes, and the gradual shift of # of states from south to north would there have EVER been seccession?

I say no. Slavery was the poison pill. Without it all the other issues could have been resolved. And it was not the North's insistance in ending it that was the prime issue, The Republicans only wanted to eliminate it from expanding into territories. It was the southern elite's fear that it would eventually be abolished in thier states that was the crux of secession.


----------



## Publius1787

martybegan said:


> The Corwin amendment was postulated as a method of getting the seceeded states back in AFTER the first wave of secession. It was also of dubious legal standing, as it could be replealed as an amendment, and THEN an amendment could be written banning slavery.
> 
> Also, the simple fact that this amendment was even postulated SHOWS that slavery was the number one issue regarding secession at the time.
> 
> Lets do a mental excercise. Remove the concept of slavery from the US at the time. With the other issues still there, tarriffs, taxes, and the gradual shift of # of states from south to north would there have EVER been seccession?
> 
> I say no. Slavery was the poison pill. Without it all the other issues could have been resolved. And it was not the North's insistance in ending it that was the prime issue, The Republicans only wanted to eliminate it from expanding into territories. It was the southern elite's fear that it would eventually be abolished in thier states that was the crux of secession.



Slavery was nothing other than a talking point to get people rialed up. But you cant speculate what would have happened if this or that had happened. You look at the facts as they stand. And the North was economically hoseing the south through extortion, mercantilism, and protectionism. Secession wasent even a question for most of the states until Lincoln violated the constitution and started to raise an army without consent of congress. *It was the final actions of the north before the war that got most of the states to secede not slavery.*


----------



## konradv

Publius1787 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Corwin amendment was postulated as a method of getting the seceeded states back in AFTER the first wave of secession. It was also of dubious legal standing, as it could be replealed as an amendment, and THEN an amendment could be written banning slavery.
> 
> Also, the simple fact that this amendment was even postulated SHOWS that slavery was the number one issue regarding secession at the time.
> 
> Lets do a mental excercise. Remove the concept of slavery from the US at the time. With the other issues still there, tarriffs, taxes, and the gradual shift of # of states from south to north would there have EVER been seccession?
> 
> I say no. Slavery was the poison pill. Without it all the other issues could have been resolved. And it was not the North's insistance in ending it that was the prime issue, The Republicans only wanted to eliminate it from expanding into territories. It was the southern elite's fear that it would eventually be abolished in thier states that was the crux of secession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was nothing other than a talking point to get people rialed up. But you cant speculate what would have happened if this or that had happened. You look at the facts as they stand. And the North was economically hoseing the south through extortion, mercantilism, and protectionism. Secession wasent even a question for most of the states until Lincoln violated the constitution and started to raise an army without consent of congress. *It was the final actions of the north before the war that got most of the states to secede not slavery.*
Click to expand...


Staes' rights and tariffs are just revisionist cover stories, because otherwise people would be forced to defend slavery to defend the South.  It was more than a mere talking point; it was the primary reason.  Without slavery the rest could have been settled without bloodshed.  Despited the fact that the majority of whites didn't own slaves, the entire society benefited from the practice and most were willing to fight and die for it.  Maybe they were talked into serving with talk of regional pride, but that was just cynical BS by those in power to get others to preserve their own station.


----------



## martybegan

Publius1787 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Corwin amendment was postulated as a method of getting the seceeded states back in AFTER the first wave of secession. It was also of dubious legal standing, as it could be replealed as an amendment, and THEN an amendment could be written banning slavery.
> 
> Also, the simple fact that this amendment was even postulated SHOWS that slavery was the number one issue regarding secession at the time.
> 
> Lets do a mental excercise. Remove the concept of slavery from the US at the time. With the other issues still there, tarriffs, taxes, and the gradual shift of # of states from south to north would there have EVER been seccession?
> 
> I say no. Slavery was the poison pill. Without it all the other issues could have been resolved. And it was not the North's insistance in ending it that was the prime issue, The Republicans only wanted to eliminate it from expanding into territories. It was the southern elite's fear that it would eventually be abolished in thier states that was the crux of secession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was nothing other than a talking point to get people rialed up. But you cant speculate what would have happened if this or that had happened. You look at the facts as they stand. And the North was economically hoseing the south through extortion, mercantilism, and protectionism. Secession wasent even a question for most of the states until Lincoln violated the constitution and started to raise an army without consent of congress. *It was the final actions of the north before the war that got most of the states to secede not slavery.*
Click to expand...


Review your history. 7 states secceded before lincoln got into office. Only 4 left after sumter and the norths decsion to use force to keep the union intact. 

How was the north hosing the south? If anything the south had an imbalance of representation using the 3/5ths clause to get non-citizen slaves counted in the census. 

As for the unconstituionality of lincoln raising a force to stop insurrection, where the hell is the case that points that out? if there isnt its basically a seccessionist pipe dream, and not law.

Slavery was the prime economic issue causing the south to secede, and secession was all about economics. no matter how much people to try to spin it otherwise.


----------



## Publius1787

konradv said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Corwin amendment was postulated as a method of getting the seceeded states back in AFTER the first wave of secession. It was also of dubious legal standing, as it could be replealed as an amendment, and THEN an amendment could be written banning slavery.
> 
> Also, the simple fact that this amendment was even postulated SHOWS that slavery was the number one issue regarding secession at the time.
> 
> Lets do a mental excercise. Remove the concept of slavery from the US at the time. With the other issues still there, tarriffs, taxes, and the gradual shift of # of states from south to north would there have EVER been seccession?
> 
> I say no. Slavery was the poison pill. Without it all the other issues could have been resolved. And it was not the North's insistance in ending it that was the prime issue, The Republicans only wanted to eliminate it from expanding into territories. It was the southern elite's fear that it would eventually be abolished in thier states that was the crux of secession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was nothing other than a talking point to get people rialed up. But you cant speculate what would have happened if this or that had happened. You look at the facts as they stand. And the North was economically hoseing the south through extortion, mercantilism, and protectionism. Secession wasent even a question for most of the states until Lincoln violated the constitution and started to raise an army without consent of congress. *It was the final actions of the north before the war that got most of the states to secede not slavery.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Staes' rights and tariffs are just revisionist cover stories, because otherwise people would be forced to defend slavery to defend the South.  It was more than a mere talking point; it was the primary reason.  Without slavery the rest could have been settled without bloodshed.  Despited the fact that the majority of whites didn't own slaves, the entire society benefited from the practice and most were willing to fight and die for it.  Maybe they were talked into serving with talk of regional pride, but that was just cynical BS by those in power to get others to preserve their own station.
Click to expand...


1. Yeah, take a look at the C.S. constitution and look at the changes they made as I have shown earlyer. 
2. The south did not fight to maintain slavery (especially the troops) any more than the north fought to get rid of it.
3. Absolutly no bloodshed was necessary anyway. Lincoln rejected the peace commission and refused to move troops out of fort sumter as he had done for the other forts. As for his starving ragged troops at fort sumter that "desperatly needed resupply" despite the fact they were purchasing goods from Charleston 3 WHOLE FREAKIN DAYS BEFORE THE FIRST SHOTS WERE FIRED. And what was the purpose of fort sumter? To uphold U.S. Tarrif law before entering Charleston harbor. No shit huh? How many trrops died at fort sumter due to confederate shelling? Thats a big fat zero! So was bloodshed needed at all? Absolitly not!
4. During Andrew Jackson Administration South Carolina threatened to secede over tarrifs.
5. The determining factor for the upper states of the south was Lincolns unconstitutional actions. Especiallialy Lincoln call for troops with out constitutional authority, destructions of local news papers, imprisionment of state legislators, and declarations of martial law in Maryland which was going to secede.
6. You cannot find a secession proclamation by any state that does not go down the line citing constitutional violation after constitutional violation and states rights violations after states rights violation. Yes they speak of slavery but (LIKE YOU SAID EARLYER IN REVERSE) If slavery was the ONLY issue would the south secede? The answer is absolutly not! It was the overall violations of the constitution and the restrictions of states rights that landed the south in secession.


----------



## Publius1787

martybegan said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Corwin amendment was postulated as a method of getting the seceeded states back in AFTER the first wave of secession. It was also of dubious legal standing, as it could be replealed as an amendment, and THEN an amendment could be written banning slavery.
> 
> Also, the simple fact that this amendment was even postulated SHOWS that slavery was the number one issue regarding secession at the time.
> 
> Lets do a mental excercise. Remove the concept of slavery from the US at the time. With the other issues still there, tarriffs, taxes, and the gradual shift of # of states from south to north would there have EVER been seccession?
> 
> I say no. Slavery was the poison pill. Without it all the other issues could have been resolved. And it was not the North's insistance in ending it that was the prime issue, The Republicans only wanted to eliminate it from expanding into territories. It was the southern elite's fear that it would eventually be abolished in thier states that was the crux of secession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was nothing other than a talking point to get people rialed up. But you cant speculate what would have happened if this or that had happened. You look at the facts as they stand. And the North was economically hoseing the south through extortion, mercantilism, and protectionism. Secession wasent even a question for most of the states until Lincoln violated the constitution and started to raise an army without consent of congress. *It was the final actions of the north before the war that got most of the states to secede not slavery.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Review your history. 7 states secceded before lincoln got into office. Only 4 left after sumter and the norths decsion to use force to keep the union intact.
> 
> How was the north hosing the south? If anything the south had an imbalance of representation using the 3/5ths clause to get non-citizen slaves counted in the census.
> 
> As for the unconstituionality of lincoln raising a force to stop insurrection, where the hell is the case that points that out? if there isnt its basically a seccessionist pipe dream, and not law.
> 
> Slavery was the prime economic issue causing the south to secede, and secession was all about economics. no matter how much people to try to spin it otherwise.
Click to expand...


1. You cannot find a secession proclamation that does not list a whole host of states rights and constitutional violations.

2. Northern news papers were fine with the secession until they figured out that a free trade nation on their front door step would destroy them economically. 

3. Lincoln cannot raise troops or commit to war without congressional authority. Once he did this he lost more than 4 because he put maryland under martial law to prevent the free and democratic process of voting.

4. States with democratically elected represenatives who vote to seceed just as they voted to join IS NOT AN INSURECTION! 

5. Once again. Compare the C.S. constitution with the U.S. constitution and all of the reasons the south seceeded are listed. If slavery was the only issue would they have drumed up enough support to secede? Absolutly not.


----------



## Toronado3800

The Gadfly said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, this article does much to refute the revisionist apologists of the CSA.
> 
> The MOTIVE behind the war was the defence of Southern economics.
> 
> Its economic capital was mostly in the form of slaves. I've read estimates that 85% of the capitalization of the ENTIRE SOUTH was slaves. That means the the rest of the southern states, every house, all the land the livestock, the cash on hand, the factories amounted to 15% of the capital of those states.
> 
> Given that, one can truly understand why the Southerners were scared to death of emancipation that they KNEW was inevitably coming.
> 
> I think the South took its best shot because they understood that THEN was the time, IF EVER.
> 
> And they lost mostly because they couldn't finace their war once the North blockaded New Orleans.
> 
> Seriously, had the found financing in the European bonds market, they might have been able to keep enough troops in the field long enough that the people of the North would have lost heart and given them their freedom.
> 
> 
> They fought a magnificent war against the North,  but in the long run they just couldn't finance the war and eventually, as their economy collapsed, so too did their chance of becoming an independent nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's actually a pretty good summation, although there are a couple of additional points to consider. Another factor was that with the Radical Republican victory in the 1860 election, the nation was, for the first time in the hands of a purely sectional political party.The most troubling aspect of that, from a Southern point of view, is that the Southern states now faced the real prospect of a growing majority of states whose political and economic interests would be adverse to those of the South. Many concluded (correctly, as it turned out), that this would now inevitably occur, war or no war. Combine that, with the fact that a number of state legislatures, in the legislation by which they had ratified the constitution, had specifically reserved to themselves the right to leave the union if they desired. This was not only true of the Southern states; some New England states had done the same, and Massachusetts had in fact threatened to leave during the War of 1812. The question was in fact never submitted to the Supreme Court prior to the outbreak of hostilities; had it been the likelihood is that that court, led by Chief Justice Taney, would have upheld the legality of secession. It was not until the later years of Reconstruction that the question was submitted to a court purged of its more conservative justices, these replaced by the illegitimate "rump congress" ( the Southern portion of which was elected through Radical Republican fraud and disenfranchisement of White Southern voters) with some more amenable to the Radical point of view. Before the retirement of some of the more conservative members of the court, the Radicals so feared the idea of having the question reach the court, that they decided not to try Gen. Lee or Jefferson Davis. As one of them put it (in a moment of candor) "it would be a pity for the Union to have waged a successful war, only to have it declared unconstitutional" (which it very likely was).
> 
> With all that, the South finally concluded (some more reluctantly than others) that it had little to lose by trying to become independent. It was either that, or be crushed by a more and more powerful central government inimical to the South's interests (which is exactly what has transpired since the Late Unpleasantness) Even now, I and many other Southerners find being little more than the occupied territory of a Yankee  dominated central government less than appealing, socially, culturally, or politically. I suggest that any of you liberals who think otherwise consider the idea of letting us put it to a vote. Seriously. Throw us out like Bob Beckel suggested you do, in 2004, or just let us leave, so you can have the socialist paradise you want. As it is, our history and culture are being suppressed, in the unholy name of Political Correctness. Oh, and one more thing; those of you up North, please, whatever you do, STAY THERE! Your presence here is neither needed, nor particularly appreciated. If you hate us, please stay away and leave us alone. No self-respecting Southerner wants to live in the North, so perhaps, you could reciprocate?
Click to expand...


Did you just say the south is a bunch of racist bigots whom even in the 1969s had to be dragged into the 20th century at gun point by a big better educated Federal Government and you want to return to that "culture"?


----------



## paperview

Publius1787 said:


> ... As for his starving ragged troops at fort sumter that "desperatly needed resupply" despite the fact they were purchasing goods from Charleston 3 WHOLE FREAKIN DAYS BEFORE THE FIRST SHOTS WERE FIRED. ...



The first shots were fired in January of 61, bub.


> You cannot find a secession proclamation by any state that does not go down the line citing constitutional violation after constitutional violation and states rights violations after states rights violation. Yes they speak of slavery but (LIKE YOU SAID EARLYER IN REVERSE) If slavery was the ONLY issue would the south secede? The answer is absolutly not! It was the overall violations of the constitution and the restrictions of states rights that landed the south in secession.



Anybody who reads the secession documents objectively knows, and the documents state clearly, it was primarily about maintaining slavery.


----------



## Publius1787

paperview said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... As for his starving ragged troops at fort sumter that "desperatly needed resupply" despite the fact they were purchasing goods from Charleston 3 WHOLE FREAKIN DAYS BEFORE THE FIRST SHOTS WERE FIRED. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first shots were fired in January of 61, bub.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot find a secession proclamation by any state that does not go down the line citing constitutional violation after constitutional violation and states rights violations after states rights violation. Yes they speak of slavery but (LIKE YOU SAID EARLYER IN REVERSE) If slavery was the ONLY issue would the south secede? The answer is absolutly not! It was the overall violations of the constitution and the restrictions of states rights that landed the south in secession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anybody who reads the secession documents objectively knows, and the documents state clearly, it was primarily about maintaining slavery.
Click to expand...


Who said the shots were fired at another date?

And all issues of dealing with slavery were, like every other issue cited, pertaining to how slavery related to the constitution and states rights. Which unfortunantly was true at the time.


----------



## paperview

Publius1787 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... As for his starving ragged troops at fort sumter that "desperatly needed resupply" despite the fact they were purchasing goods from Charleston 3 WHOLE FREAKIN DAYS BEFORE THE FIRST SHOTS WERE FIRED. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first shots were fired in January of 61, bub.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot find a secession proclamation by any state that does not go down the line citing constitutional violation after constitutional violation and states rights violations after states rights violation. Yes they speak of slavery but (LIKE YOU SAID EARLYER IN REVERSE) If slavery was the ONLY issue would the south secede? The answer is absolutly not! It was the overall violations of the constitution and the restrictions of states rights that landed the south in secession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anybody who reads the secession documents objectively knows, and the documents state clearly, it was primarily about maintaining slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said the shots were fired at another date?
Click to expand...

Perhaps because of the way you referenced Fort Sumter?  Duh.

The first shots were fired 2 months before Lincoln even stepped into office.



> And all issues of dealing with slavery were, like every other issue  cited, pertaining to how slavery related to the constitution and states  rights. Which unfortunantly was true at the time.


Yes.  The States Rights to own slaves.


----------



## Publius1787

paperview said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first shots were fired in January of 61, bub.
> Anybody who reads the secession documents objectively knows, and the documents state clearly, it was primarily about maintaining slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said the shots were fired at another date?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps because you referenced Fort Sumter?  Duh.
> 
> The first shots were fired 2 months before Lincoln even stepped into office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And all issues of dealing with slavery were, like every other issue  cited, pertaining to how slavery related to the constitution and states  rights. Which unfortunantly was true at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  The States Rights to own slaves.
Click to expand...


I refuse to debate anyone who doesent know the simpleist of facts. You throw out your opinions and I shoot back with facts. How can I debate someone who cant even admit to historical fact?



> The commander of Fort Sumter, South Carolina sent a request for provisions to Washington, and the execution of Lincoln's order to meet that request was seen by the secessionists as an act of war.[142] On April 12, 1861, Confederate forces fired on Union troops at Fort Sumter, forced them to surrender, and began the war. Fort Sumter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



President Lincoln in office. March 4th 1861.
Fort Sumter attacked. April 12th 1861 4:30 Am


----------



## paperview

Publius1787 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said the shots were fired at another date?
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps because you referenced Fort Sumter?  Duh.
> 
> The first shots were fired 2 months before Lincoln even stepped into office.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  The States Rights to own slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I refuse to debate anyone who doesent know the simpleist of facts. You throw out your opinions and I shoot back with facts. How can I debate someone who cant even admit to historical fact?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The commander of Fort Sumter, South Carolina sent a request for provisions to Washington, and the execution of Lincoln's order to meet that request was seen by the secessionists as an act of war.[142] On April 12, 1861, Confederate forces fired on Union troops at Fort Sumter, forced them to surrender, and began the war. Fort Sumter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> President Lincoln in office. March 4th 1861.
> Fort Sumter attacked. April 12th 1861 4:30 Am
Click to expand...

lol.

Perhaps I should adopt your attitude.  

Simplest of facts:

The first shots were fired in *January of 1861.  *

 Buchanan was President and he was trying to resupply Sumter. 




Click to enlarge 

The South fired upon the Union Steamship Star of the West

 They took another ship and seized it: "The Marion."




Then converted her to a Man of War ship.   
*THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." ; SEIZED BY THE STATE OF  SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR. *

Star of the West

 Note the date on the Harpers Weekly newspaper:* January, 1861*,  linked above.*THE FIRST OF THE WAR.  *

WE publish  herewith pictures of the United States  steam-sloop Brooklyn,  and of the steamship Star of the West, and  of the steamship Marion,  which three vessels figured so prominently in the movements of last  week; and on page 37 we give a large plan of  Charleston harbor,  showing the forts, etc., together with a view of  Fort Johnson. These  pictures w ill enable our readers to realize what is going on in this  most memorable contest of the present age. 
 On Wednesday morning, January 9, 1861, the 

 first shots were fired At daybreak on that morning at the steamship    Star of the West, with 250 United States troops on board, attempted to    enter the harbor of Charleston for the purpose of communicating with  Fort Sumter

 The people of Charleston had been warned of her coming and of her  errand by telegraph. They determined to prevent her reaching  Fort Sumter. *Accordingly, as soon as she came  within range, batteries on Morris Island and at Fort Moultrie opened on her*. The first shot was  fired across her bows ; whereupon she increased her speed, and hoisted  the  stars and stripes. Other shots were then fired in  rapid 

 succession from Morris Island, two or more of which hulled the steamer,     and compelled her to put about and go to sea. The accompanying   picture   shows the Star of the West as she entered  Charleston harbor;    the plan will explain the  situation of the forts, and the position  of   the steamer when she was  fired upon. The channel through which she    passed runs close by Morris  Island for some distance. 
Fort Sumter made no demonstration, except at the  port-holes, where guns were run out bearing on Morris Island.​ 
They did this before Lincoln even set foot in the  office.  Before they had even all officially Seceded. * An ACT OF WAR.  *


----------



## paperview

I know you are not familiar with my posts, Publius, but it may behoove you to look back and see the extensive discussions I've engaged here regarding the Civil War.

Trust me.  You won't win many arguments against me when it comes to this topic. 

Ask around.


----------



## paperview

A little Timeline for you, from the SC Convention forward:

December 20, 1860:      South Carolina convention passes ordinance of secession.
December 24, 1860:     *Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis introduces  a "compromise" proposal which would effectively make slavery a national  institution.*
December 26, 1860:     Major Anderson moves Federal garrison in Charleston, SC, from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter.
January 3, 1861:     G*eorgia seizes Fort Pulaski.  <---NOTE: THEY  SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
January 4, 1861:     *Alabama seizes U.S. arsenal at Mount Vernon. ** <---NOTE: THEY  SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
January 5, 1861:     *Alabama seizes Forts Morgan and Gaines*. * <---NOTE: THEY  SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
January 6, 1861:     *Florida seizes Apalachicola arsenal. ** <---NOTE: THEY  SEIZED THE ARSENAL BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
January 7, 1861:     *Florida seizes Fort Marion*.  * <---NOTE: THEY  SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
January 8, 1861:     Floridians try to seize Fort Barrancas but are chased off.
January 9, 1861:     Mississippi secedes.

*Star of the West fired on in Charleston Harbor <-- FIRING ON A SHIP - A CLEAR ACT OF WAR
THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR.*
January 10, 1861:     Florida secedes.

*Louisiana seizes U.S. arsenal at Baton Rouge, as well as Forts Jackson and St. Philip.*
January 11, 1861:     Alabama secedes.
*
Louisiana seizes U.S. Marine Hospital.*
January 14, 1861:     *Louisiana seizes Fort Pike. * * <---NOTE: THEY  SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
January 19, 1861:     Georgia secedes.
January 26, 1861:     Louisiana secedes.
January 28, 1861:     Tennessee Resolutions in favor of Crittenden Compromise offered in Congress.
February 1, 1861:     Texas secedes.
February 8, 1861:     Provisional Constitution of the Confederacy adopted in Montgomery, AL.

*Arkansas seizes U.S. Arsenal at Little Rock.*
February 12, 1861:     *Arkansas seizes U.S. ordnance stores at Napoleon.*
February 18, 1861:     Jefferson Davis inaugurated as President of the Confederacy.
March 4, 1861:     Abraham Lincoln inaugurated as 16th President of the United States.*
March 21, 1861:     "Cornerstone speech" delivered by Alexander  Stephens. (This is where the Confederate V President lays it out  clearly: Slavery is the Cornerstone of the Confederacy.)*

April 12, 1861: *    Fort Sumter fired upon by Confederates. 
THE WAR OFFICIALLY BEGINS.*


----------



## paperview

Both the President and the Vice president of the CSA said slavery was *THE CORNERSTONE*  of the confederacy.

THE CORNERSTONE.  It doesn't get much more foundational than that.


----------



## Publius1787

paperview said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps because you referenced Fort Sumter?  Duh.
> 
> The first shots were fired 2 months before Lincoln even stepped into office.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  The States Rights to own slaves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I refuse to debate anyone who doesent know the simpleist of facts. You throw out your opinions and I shoot back with facts. How can I debate someone who cant even admit to historical fact?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The commander of Fort Sumter, South Carolina sent a request for provisions to Washington, and the execution of Lincoln's order to meet that request was seen by the secessionists as an act of war.[142] On April 12, 1861, Confederate forces fired on Union troops at Fort Sumter, forced them to surrender, and began the war. Fort Sumter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> President Lincoln in office. March 4th 1861.
> Fort Sumter attacked. April 12th 1861 4:30 Am
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.
> 
> Perhaps I should adopt your attitude.
> 
> Simplest of facts:
> 
> The first shots were fired in *January of 1861.  *
> 
> Buchanan was President and he was trying to resupply Sumter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to enlarge
> 
> The South fired upon the Union Steamship Star of the West
> 
> They took another ship and seized it: "The Marion."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then converted her to a Man of War ship.
> *THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." ; SEIZED BY THE STATE OF  SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR. *
> 
> Star of the West
> 
> Note the date on the Harpers Weekly newspaper:* January, 1861*,  linked above.*THE FIRST OF THE WAR.  *
> 
> WE publish  herewith pictures of the United States  steam-sloop Brooklyn,  and of the steamship Star of the West, and  of the steamship Marion,  which three vessels figured so prominently in the movements of last  week; and on page 37 we give a large plan of  Charleston harbor,  showing the forts, etc., together with a view of  Fort Johnson. These  pictures w ill enable our readers to realize what is going on in this  most memorable contest of the present age.
> On Wednesday morning, January 9, 1861, the
> 
> first shots were fired At daybreak on that morning at the steamship    Star of the West, with 250 United States troops on board, attempted to    enter the harbor of Charleston for the purpose of communicating with  Fort Sumter
> 
> The people of Charleston had been warned of her coming and of her  errand by telegraph. They determined to prevent her reaching  Fort Sumter. *Accordingly, as soon as she came  within range, batteries on Morris Island and at Fort Moultrie opened on her*. The first shot was  fired across her bows ; whereupon she increased her speed, and hoisted  the  stars and stripes. Other shots were then fired in  rapid
> 
> succession from Morris Island, two or more of which hulled the steamer,     and compelled her to put about and go to sea. The accompanying   picture   shows the Star of the West as she entered  Charleston harbor;    the plan will explain the  situation of the forts, and the position  of   the steamer when she was  fired upon. The channel through which she    passed runs close by Morris  Island for some distance.
> Fort Sumter made no demonstration, except at the  port-holes, where guns were run out bearing on Morris Island.​
> They did this before Lincoln even set foot in the  office.  Before they had even all officially Seceded. * An ACT OF WAR.  *
Click to expand...


What does this have to do with anything Ive said? They fired a warning shot across the bow of the boat followed by aimed shots. It turned around and went home. While they were the firsts shots they did not lead to the civil war. Fort sumter was the whiney outcry from the noth that led us to the civil war. As I said earleyer and I QUOTE



> Absolutly no bloodshed was necessary anyway. Lincoln rejected the peace commission and refused to move troops out of fort sumter as he had done for the other forts. As for his starving ragged troops at fort sumter that "desperatly needed resupply" despite the fact they were purchasing goods from Charleston 3 WHOLE FREAKIN DAYS BEFORE THE FIRST SHOTS WERE FIRED. And what was the purpose of fort sumter? To uphold U.S. Tarrif law before entering Charleston harbor. No shit huh? How many trrops died at fort sumter due to confederate shelling? Thats a big fat zero! So was bloodshed needed at all? Absolitly not




Oh, and the majority of those forts were signed over without a single casualty. And Jems Bucannon didnt try to stop these takeovers.


----------



## Publius1787

paperview said:


> Both the President and the Vice president of the CSA said slavery was *THE CORNERSTONE*  of the confederacy.
> 
> THE CORNERSTONE.  It doesn't get much more foundational than that.



Untitled Document

Charles Dickens  "Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel"

The North American Review (Boston October 1862): "Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation". An editorial in the Charleston Mercury 2 days before the November 1860 election stated: "The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism."

The New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861: "They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union."

. The Philadelphia Press on 18 March 1861 demanded a blockade of Southern ports, because, if not, "a series of customs houses will be required on the vast inland border from the Atlantic to West Texas. Worse still, with no protective tariff, European goods will under-price Northern goods in Southern markets. Cotton for Northern mills will be charged an export tax. This will cripple the clothing industries and make British mills prosper. Finally, the great inland waterways, the Mississippi, the Missouri, and the Ohio Rivers, will be subject to Southern tolls."

 The Chicago Daily Times foretold the disaster that Southern free ports would bring to Northern commerce: "In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow."

 Similarly, the economic editor of the NY Times, who had maintained for months that secession would not injure Northern commerce or prosperity, changed his mind on 22 March 1861: "At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States." On 18 March, the Boston Transcript noted that while the Southern states had claimed to secede over the slavery issue, now "the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...."

The Republican platform of 1860 called for higher tariffs; that was implemented by the new Congress in the Morill tariff of March 1861, signed by President Buchanan before Lincoln took the oath of office. It imposed the highest tariffs in US history, with over a 50% duty on iron products and 25% on clothing; rates averaged 47%. The nascent Confederacy followed with a low tariff, essentially creating a free-trade zone in the South. Prior to this "war of the tariffs", most Northern newspapers had called for peace through conciliation, but many now cried for war.

  the South paid an undue proportion of federal revenues derived from tariffs, and these were expended by the federal government more in the North than the South: in 1840, the South paid 84% of the tariffs, rising to 87% in 1860. They paid 83% of the $13 million federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35 million to Northern shipping interests which had a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports. The South, in effect, was paying tribute to the North. The address of Texas Congressman Reagan on 15 January 1861 summarizes this discontent: "You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue law, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of northern capitalists. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and institutions." As the London Times of 7 Nov 1861 stated: "The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....".


----------



## paperview

As long as you're going to take the lazy way out and do a cheap cut and paste from some idiot dude with a web page who knows diddly squat about Civil War history ...and proceeds to use cherry picked quotes to completely deny the root cause - and the decades long events which led up to it - which was the defense of slavery, I may as well take  the cheap route  too.



> The conflict between slavery and non-slavery is a conflict for life and death. --South Carolinian John Preston to Virginia Secession Convention, February 1861
> 
> [T]his country without slave labor would be completely worthless. If the negroes are freed the country  is not  worth fighting for. We can only live & exist by that species of  labor: and hence I am willing to continue to fight to the last.--Lieutenant William Nugent, 28th Mississippi, July 28, 1863
> 
> [W]e have hitherto contended that Slavery  was Cuffees normal condition, the very best position he could occupy,  the one of all others in which he was happiest  No! freedom for whites,  slavery for negroes. God has so ordained it.
> --North Carolinian Catherine Ann Devereux Edmondston, December 30, 1864
> 
> Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery. A blow at slavery  is a blow at commerce and civilization. There was no choice left us  but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the  Union.
> --Mississippi Secession Convention, 1861
> 
> [A]fter Lincolns proclamation any man that would not fight to the last ought to be hung as high as Haman.
> --Virginia Captain John Welsh, January 26, 1863
> 
> Although slavery  is one of the principles that we started to fight for  if it proves an  insurmountable obstacle to the achievement of our liberty and  nationality, away with it!
> --Montgomery (Alabama) Weekly Mail, September 9, 1863
> 
> This terrible war and extreme peril of our country [were] occasioned  more by the institution of negro slavery [than] by any other subject of quarrel.
> --Macon (Georgia) Telegraph and Confederate, March 30, 1865
> 
> [T]he mere agitation in the Northern States to effect the  emancipation of our slaves largely contributed to our separation from  them.
> --Charleston Mercury, November 3, 1864
> 
> What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?
> --Virginias Robert M. T. Hunter, March 7, 1865
> 
> To say that we are ready to emancipate our slaves would be to say,  that we are ready to relinquish what we commenced fighting for.
> --Galveston (Texas) Tri-Weekly News, March 3, 1865



Let's pray to god you have an original thought in your head, should you decide to follow up.  Otherwise, not worth my time.


----------



## Publius1787

paperview said:


> As long as you're going to take the lazy way out and do a cheap cut and paste from some idiot dude with a web page who knows diddly squat about Civil War history ...and proceeds to use cherry picked quotes to completely deny the root cause - and the decades long events which led up to it - which was the defense of slavery, I may as well take  the cheap route  too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The conflict between slavery and non-slavery is a conflict for life and death. --South Carolinian John Preston to Virginia Secession Convention, February 1861
> 
> [T]his country without slave labor would be completely worthless. If the negroes are freed the country  is not  worth fighting for. We can only live & exist by that species of  labor: and hence I am willing to continue to fight to the last.--Lieutenant William Nugent, 28th Mississippi, July 28, 1863
> 
> [W]e have hitherto contended that Slavery  was Cuffees normal condition, the very best position he could occupy,  the one of all others in which he was happiest  No! freedom for whites,  slavery for negroes. God has so ordained it.
> --North Carolinian Catherine Ann Devereux Edmondston, December 30, 1864
> 
> Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery. A blow at slavery  is a blow at commerce and civilization. There was no choice left us  but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the  Union.
> --Mississippi Secession Convention, 1861
> 
> [A]fter Lincolns proclamation any man that would not fight to the last ought to be hung as high as Haman.
> --Virginia Captain John Welsh, January 26, 1863
> 
> Although slavery  is one of the principles that we started to fight for  if it proves an  insurmountable obstacle to the achievement of our liberty and  nationality, away with it!
> --Montgomery (Alabama) Weekly Mail, September 9, 1863
> 
> This terrible war and extreme peril of our country [were] occasioned  more by the institution of negro slavery [than] by any other subject of quarrel.
> --Macon (Georgia) Telegraph and Confederate, March 30, 1865
> 
> [T]he mere agitation in the Northern States to effect the  emancipation of our slaves largely contributed to our separation from  them.
> --Charleston Mercury, November 3, 1864
> 
> What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?
> --Virginias Robert M. T. Hunter, March 7, 1865
> 
> To say that we are ready to emancipate our slaves would be to say,  that we are ready to relinquish what we commenced fighting for.
> --Galveston (Texas) Tri-Weekly News, March 3, 1865
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's pray to god you have an original thought in your head, should you decide to follow up.  Otherwise, not worth my time.
Click to expand...


Hisw quotes come from Charles Adams who is the worlds leading scholor on the history of taxation. He is also born and raised in the North. No matter which way you toss it THE SOUTH DID NOT FIGHT FOR THE PROTECTION OF SLAVERY ANY MORE THAN THE NORTH FOUGHT TO ABOLISH IT.


----------



## paperview

Nearly all noted historians agree, the South fought the war primarily for the protection of slavery, the literal blood that kept the engine of the south going.  The North fought initially to keep the Union together.  With the Emancipation Proclamation, it became a war about slavery for the North. 

This is 5th grade stuff.

I'm beginning to think you're about 14 years old.


----------



## paperview

Publius1787 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> As long as you're going to take the lazy way out and do a cheap cut and paste from some idiot dude with a web page who knows diddly squat about Civil War history ...and proceeds to use cherry picked quotes to completely deny the root cause - and the decades long events which led up to it - which was the defense of slavery, I may as well take  the cheap route  too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The conflict between slavery and non-slavery is a conflict for life and death. --South Carolinian John Preston to Virginia Secession Convention, February 1861
> 
> [T]his country without slave labor would be completely worthless. If the negroes are freed the country  is not  worth fighting for. We can only live & exist by that species of  labor: and hence I am willing to continue to fight to the last.--Lieutenant William Nugent, 28th Mississippi, July 28, 1863
> 
> [W]e have hitherto contended that Slavery  was Cuffees normal condition, the very best position he could occupy,  the one of all others in which he was happiest  No! freedom for whites,  slavery for negroes. God has so ordained it.
> --North Carolinian Catherine Ann Devereux Edmondston, December 30, 1864
> 
> Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery. A blow at slavery  is a blow at commerce and civilization. There was no choice left us  but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the  Union.
> --Mississippi Secession Convention, 1861
> 
> [A]fter Lincolns proclamation any man that would not fight to the last ought to be hung as high as Haman.
> --Virginia Captain John Welsh, January 26, 1863
> 
> Although slavery  is one of the principles that we started to fight for  if it proves an  insurmountable obstacle to the achievement of our liberty and  nationality, away with it!
> --Montgomery (Alabama) Weekly Mail, September 9, 1863
> 
> This terrible war and extreme peril of our country [were] occasioned  more by the institution of negro slavery [than] by any other subject of quarrel.
> --Macon (Georgia) Telegraph and Confederate, March 30, 1865
> 
> [T]he mere agitation in the Northern States to effect the  emancipation of our slaves largely contributed to our separation from  them.
> --Charleston Mercury, November 3, 1864
> 
> What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?
> --Virginias Robert M. T. Hunter, March 7, 1865
> 
> To say that we are ready to emancipate our slaves would be to say,  that we are ready to relinquish what we commenced fighting for.
> --Galveston (Texas) Tri-Weekly News, March 3, 1865
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's pray to god you have an original thought in your head, should you decide to follow up.  Otherwise, not worth my time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hisw quotes come from Charles Adams who is the worlds leading scholor on the history of taxation. He is also born and raised in the North. No matter which way you toss it THE SOUTH DID NOT FIGHT FOR THE PROTECTION OF SLAVERY ANY MORE THAN THE NORTH FOUGHT TO ABOLISH IT.
Click to expand...

I've decided to give you one more shingle to dingle with (though ignorance at such a level is hard to overcome):

In order to give Adams any quarter, you have to ignore all that led up to the war, including
the decades long increasingly embittered debate that took place in  Congress, in states houses, in pulpits, on soapboxes,  and in  practically every newspaper and journal in the country.
It was THE topic. 

You'd  also have to ignore
The Compromise of 1850
the  Kansas-Nebraska Act  
Bleeding Kansas
The Dred Scott decision
The John Brown Affair
and the myriad other intensities growing wildfire by 1860 to reach his convoluted conclusions. 

You also have to ignore:

- the declarations of the causes of secession that gave slavery as the  reason for the rebellion,
-the secession commissioners that gave slavery  as the reason for the rebellion
-the newspaper editorials that gave  slavery as the reason for the rebellion

I guess they were all   lying.  

You'd have to make a case virtually all of the southern leadership was lying in order to get their people to fight for them 

Just think about that.


----------



## Publius1787

paperview said:


> Nearly all noted historians agree, the South fought the war primarily for the protection of slavery, the literal blood that kept the engine of the south going.  The North fought initially to keep the Union together.  With the Emancipation Proclamation, it became a war about slavery for the North.
> 
> This is 5th grade stuff.
> 
> I'm beginning to think you're about 14 years old.



Uh huh. So the overwhelming number of southerners in the Confederate States Army were risking their lives so that others can own slaves. And Lincoln had some fetish to see that the Union remained togather?

1. Why would someone fight so that others can own slaves?

2. Why would lincoln sacrafice lives in the bloodiest war in American history because he doesent want a divorce from a recently formed country that voted themselves out in a democratic republican fashon and is absolutly no threat to the north? So much for a government by the people, of the people, and for the people huh?


----------



## Publius1787

paperview said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> As long as you're going to take the lazy way out and do a cheap cut and paste from some idiot dude with a web page who knows diddly squat about Civil War history ...and proceeds to use cherry picked quotes to completely deny the root cause - and the decades long events which led up to it - which was the defense of slavery, I may as well take  the cheap route  too.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's pray to god you have an original thought in your head, should you decide to follow up.  Otherwise, not worth my time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hisw quotes come from Charles Adams who is the worlds leading scholor on the history of taxation. He is also born and raised in the North. No matter which way you toss it THE SOUTH DID NOT FIGHT FOR THE PROTECTION OF SLAVERY ANY MORE THAN THE NORTH FOUGHT TO ABOLISH IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've decided to give you one more shingle to dingle with (though ignorance at such a level is hard to overcome):
> 
> In order to give Adams any quarter, you have to ignore all that led up to the war, including
> the decades long increasingly embittered debate that took place in  Congress, in states houses, in pulpits, on soapboxes,  and in  practically every newspaper and journal in the country.
> It was THE topic.
> 
> You'd  also have to ignore
> The Compromise of 1850
> the  Kansas-Nebraska Act
> Bleeding Kansas
> The Dred Scott decision
> The John Brown Affair
> and the myriad other intensities growing wildfire by 1860 to reach his convoluted conclusions.
> 
> You also have to ignore:
> 
> - the declarations of the causes of secession that gave slavery as the  reason for the rebellion,
> -the secession commissioners that gave slavery  as the reason for the rebellion
> -the newspaper editorials that gave  slavery as the reason for the rebellion
> 
> I guess they were all   lying.
> 
> You'd have to make a case virtually all of the southern leadership was lying in order to get their people to fight for them
> 
> Just think about that.
Click to expand...


Before all this mess. Well more accuratly in the midsts of it. Why did South Carolina want to seceed the first time it made such threats? I will tell you it wasent over slavery. Is there a history your leaving out? If slavery was the only issue then there would have been no secession and no war.


----------



## paperview

Publius1787 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hisw quotes come from Charles Adams who is the worlds leading scholor on the history of taxation. He is also born and raised in the North. No matter which way you toss it THE SOUTH DID NOT FIGHT FOR THE PROTECTION OF SLAVERY ANY MORE THAN THE NORTH FOUGHT TO ABOLISH IT.
> 
> 
> 
> I've decided to give you one more shingle to dingle with (though ignorance at such a level is hard to overcome):
> 
> In order to give Adams any quarter, you have to ignore all that led up to the war, including
> the decades long increasingly embittered debate that took place in  Congress, in states houses, in pulpits, on soapboxes,  and in  practically every newspaper and journal in the country.
> It was THE topic.
> 
> You'd  also have to ignore
> The Compromise of 1850
> the  Kansas-Nebraska Act
> Bleeding Kansas
> The Dred Scott decision
> The John Brown Affair
> and the myriad other intensities growing wildfire by 1860 to reach his convoluted conclusions.
> 
> You also have to ignore:
> 
> - the declarations of the causes of secession that gave slavery as the  reason for the rebellion,
> -the secession commissioners that gave slavery  as the reason for the rebellion
> -the newspaper editorials that gave  slavery as the reason for the rebellion
> 
> I guess they were all   lying.
> 
> You'd have to make a case virtually all of the southern leadership was lying in order to get their people to fight for them
> 
> Just think about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before all this mess. Well more accuratly in the midsts of it. Why did South Carolina want to seceed the first time it made such threats? I will tell you it wasent over slavery. Is there a history your leaving out? If slavery was the only issue then there would have been no secession and no war.
Click to expand...

If you want to compare the tariff issue some 40 years earlier to the tariffs in 1860, be my guest.  It just makes you look stupid. 

The tariffs had been historically low for decades preceding the war.


----------



## paperview

But don't listen to me.  Listen to the man who would become the Vice President of the Confederacy:

Alexander Stephens, November 14, 1860 speech to the Georgia Legislature:



> *The  next evil that my friend complained of, was the Tariff. Well, let us  look at that for a moment.
> 
> About the time I commenced noticing public  matters, this question was agitating the country almost as fearfully as  the Slave question now is.
> 
> In 1832, when I was in college, South  Carolina was ready to nullify or secede from the Union on this account.  And what have we seen? The tariff no longer distracts the public  councils. **
> 
> Reason has triumphed.
> The present tariff was voted for by  Massachusetts and South Carolina. The lion and the lamb lay down  together-- every man in the Senate and House from Massachusetts and  South Carolina, I think, voted for it, as did my honorable friend  himself.
> 
> And if it be true, to use the figure of speech of my honorable  friend, that every man in the North, that works in iron and brass and  wood, has his muscle strengthened by the protection of the government,  that stimulant was given by his vote, and I believe every other Southern  man. So we ought not to complain of that.*


Alec Stephen's Speech to the Georgia Legislature


----------



## Toro

Publius1787 said:


> 1. Why would someone fight so that others can own slaves?.



Because much of the capital stock, the wealth, of the South was capitalized in slaves. Would you fight if someone, say communists, was going to take away your wealth?  It would also have raised the specter of revolution by freed black slaves, like in Haiti 60 years prior, given that in many counties, blacks significantly outnumbered whites.


----------



## paperview

I've often put it another way:

Never underestimate the power of wealthy men to get you to do their bidding for them.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

I fucking laugh at this bull shit thread. After reading some of the other 5 myth bullshit and the pussy who posted it can kiss my fucking southern ass.

What a fucking crock of shit.
1. American Muslims are foreigners
Islam was in America even before there was a United States. But Muslims didnt peaceably emigrate  slave-traders brought them here.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...ims-in-america/2011/03/30/AFePWOIC_story.html

Talk about being a revisionist.


----------



## paperview

Oh goody.  Too stupid to breath is here.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Sunni Man said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> It required a 75 percent vote to create the Union and it is reasonable to *assume* that it requires a 75 percent vote to leave it.
> 
> 
> 
> You "assume" too much.
> 
> The southern states were following the Constitution.
> 
> Lincoln and the Union trashed it.
Click to expand...


Nonsense.  The Supremacy Clause bound the individual states to the dictates of federal and Constitutional law.

To have legally seceded, the states would have had to have done so without breaking any federal law,

which is effectively impossible.


----------



## Polk

Toro said:


> I've always wondrered what would have happened had the South left successfully. Would there be two separate countries today?  What would the continent look like?  Would America be as powerful of a global power?  It's pretty fascinating.



I think Harry Turtledove's Great War trilogy gets the basic framework right (CSA allied with France and Britain, resulting in an American alliance with Germany and Austria).


----------



## Polk

hortysir said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone that claims that the Civil War wasn't about slavery is a fucking moron.
> 
> Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The hillbillies in West Virginia were smart enough to know it and seceded from the Confederacy.  They had nothing to gain from slavery.
> 
> My family all fought for the South.  I am glad they lost.  It was a disastrous cause.
> 
> 
> 
> In all fairness, this is one speech given by one man. It's just his opinion....just like any other poster on this board.
> If you were to poll soldiers and citizens from the North and South, in say 1866, and ask them the reason for the war, you'd probably get a dozen more different answers than what are already in this thread.
> What, exactly, makes his opinion more 'right' than any of ours or any of the opinions of those that actually lived through it all?
Click to expand...


Perhaps because his viewpoint was embodied in the resolutions?


----------



## Ringel05

I love all these people with opinions but no clue.  Break it down to it's common denominator and take a realistic, detached view.  Specifically for the south the question of slavery (with all it entails) and states rights were intertwined, they were one in the same.  Why?  Economics.  Cotton and tobacco were king, they were the primary export in the south, without slavery the south's economy would have been devastated.  Crop rotation was not well known or very well utilized and both cotton and tobacco deplete the soil very quickly hence the south's perception of the need for expansion of farming lands, i.e. the expansion of slavery.  The north's abolitionists demands to limit and eradicate slavery and the tariffs put in place by the north was viewed by the south as an attack on their very livelihood, (what would you do if someone(s) were acting to limit or take away your livelihood and the only way of life you've ever known).  
So as you can see, for the south, slavery and states rights were inseparable.  What today's southern apologists omit is the slavery connection to their states rights claim essentially because most want to focus on the original balance of power between the states and the federal government and because their opponents have painted them as pro slavery advocates who want to return to the bad old days.  Maybe for a very few this is true.  
As for the secession question, once again we turn to the word "intent", as in what was the intent of the founders.  The founders did not intend that the union be broken but granted implied consent to get some states on board the ratification of the Constitution.  After ratification James Madison realized to his horror that states could ostensibly use the 10th Amendment as a legal basis to secede from the union.  So yes, the intent, determined by interpretation, was there.


----------



## Publius1787

Ringel05 said:


> I love all these people with opinions but no clue.  Break it down to it's common denominator and take a realistic, detached view.  Specifically for the south the question of slavery (with all it entails) and states rights were intertwined, they were one in the same.  Why?  Economics.  Cotton and tobacco were king, they were the primary export in the south, without slavery the south's economy would have been devastated.  Crop rotation was not well known or very well utilized and both cotton and tobacco deplete the soil very quickly hence the south's perception of the need for expansion of farming lands, i.e. the expansion of slavery.  The north's abolitionists demands to limit and eradicate slavery and the tariffs put in place by the north was viewed by the south as an attack on their very livelihood, (what would you do if someone(s) were acting to limit or take away your livelihood and the only way of life you've ever known).
> So as you can see, for the south, slavery and states rights were inseparable.  What today's southern apologists omit is the slavery connection to their states rights claim essentially because most want to focus on the original balance of power between the states and the federal government and because their opponents have painted them as pro slavery advocates who want to return to the bad old days.  Maybe for a very few this is true.
> As for the secession question, once again we turn to the word "intent", as in what was the intent of the founders.  The founders did not intend that the union be broken but granted implied consent to get some states on board the ratification of the Constitution.  After ratification James Madison realized to his horror that states could ostensibly use the 10th Amendment as a legal basis to secede from the union.  So yes, the intent, determined by interpretation, was there.



Great Post but both Thomas Jefferson in his first inaugrial address and James Madison in the federalist papers talked of the right to secession. Even states like Virginia joined the union on the condition that they could secede.

From the earleyer post. 

the South paid an undue proportion of federal revenues derived from tariffs, and these were expended by the federal government more in the North than the South: in 1840, the South paid 84% of the tariffs, rising to 87% in 1860. They paid 83% of the $13 million federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35 million to Northern shipping interests which had a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports. The South, in effect, was paying tribute to the North. The address of Texas Congressman Reagan on 15 January 1861 summarizes this discontent: "You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue law, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of northern capitalists. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and institutions." As the London Times of 7 Nov 1861 stated: "The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....". 



I must request a break in descussion of this topic. I have enough references but if I am going to write a college thesis I would rather not do it on an internet forum. You game?


----------



## Ringel05

Publius1787 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love all these people with opinions but no clue.  Break it down to it's common denominator and take a realistic, detached view.  Specifically for the south the question of slavery (with all it entails) and states rights were intertwined, they were one in the same.  Why?  Economics.  Cotton and tobacco were king, they were the primary export in the south, without slavery the south's economy would have been devastated.  Crop rotation was not well known or very well utilized and both cotton and tobacco deplete the soil very quickly hence the south's perception of the need for expansion of farming lands, i.e. the expansion of slavery.  The north's abolitionists demands to limit and eradicate slavery and the tariffs put in place by the north was viewed by the south as an attack on their very livelihood, (what would you do if someone(s) were acting to limit or take away your livelihood and the only way of life you've ever known).
> So as you can see, for the south, slavery and states rights were inseparable.  What today's southern apologists omit is the slavery connection to their states rights claim essentially because most want to focus on the original balance of power between the states and the federal government and because their opponents have painted them as pro slavery advocates who want to return to the bad old days.  Maybe for a very few this is true.
> As for the secession question, once again we turn to the word "intent", as in what was the intent of the founders.  The founders did not intend that the union be broken but granted implied consent to get some states on board the ratification of the Constitution.  After ratification James Madison realized to his horror that states could ostensibly use the 10th Amendment as a legal basis to secede from the union.  So yes, the intent, determined by interpretation, was there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great Post but both Thomas Jefferson in his first inaugrial address and James Madison in the federalist papers talked of the right to secession. Even states like Virginia joined the union on the condition that they could secede.
> 
> From the earleyer post.
> 
> the South paid an undue proportion of federal revenues derived from tariffs, and these were expended by the federal government more in the North than the South: in 1840, the South paid 84% of the tariffs, rising to 87% in 1860. They paid 83% of the $13 million federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35 million to Northern shipping interests which had a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports. The South, in effect, was paying tribute to the North. The address of Texas Congressman Reagan on 15 January 1861 summarizes this discontent: "You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue law, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of northern capitalists. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and institutions." As the London Times of 7 Nov 1861 stated: "The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....".
> 
> 
> 
> I must request a break in descussion of this topic. I have enough references but if I am going to write a college thesis I would rather not do it on an internet forum. You game?
Click to expand...


Oh, I don't have a problem, it's the ones who rely on the high school version of history and only delve as far as they need or want to validate that truncated, idealized version.


----------



## Publius1787

Ringel05 said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love all these people with opinions but no clue.  Break it down to it's common denominator and take a realistic, detached view.  Specifically for the south the question of slavery (with all it entails) and states rights were intertwined, they were one in the same.  Why?  Economics.  Cotton and tobacco were king, they were the primary export in the south, without slavery the south's economy would have been devastated.  Crop rotation was not well known or very well utilized and both cotton and tobacco deplete the soil very quickly hence the south's perception of the need for expansion of farming lands, i.e. the expansion of slavery.  The north's abolitionists demands to limit and eradicate slavery and the tariffs put in place by the north was viewed by the south as an attack on their very livelihood, (what would you do if someone(s) were acting to limit or take away your livelihood and the only way of life you've ever known).
> So as you can see, for the south, slavery and states rights were inseparable.  What today's southern apologists omit is the slavery connection to their states rights claim essentially because most want to focus on the original balance of power between the states and the federal government and because their opponents have painted them as pro slavery advocates who want to return to the bad old days.  Maybe for a very few this is true.
> As for the secession question, once again we turn to the word "intent", as in what was the intent of the founders.  The founders did not intend that the union be broken but granted implied consent to get some states on board the ratification of the Constitution.  After ratification James Madison realized to his horror that states could ostensibly use the 10th Amendment as a legal basis to secede from the union.  So yes, the intent, determined by interpretation, was there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great Post but both Thomas Jefferson in his first inaugrial address and James Madison in the federalist papers talked of the right to secession. Even states like Virginia joined the union on the condition that they could secede.
> 
> From the earleyer post.
> 
> the South paid an undue proportion of federal revenues derived from tariffs, and these were expended by the federal government more in the North than the South: in 1840, the South paid 84% of the tariffs, rising to 87% in 1860. They paid 83% of the $13 million federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35 million to Northern shipping interests which had a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports. The South, in effect, was paying tribute to the North. The address of Texas Congressman Reagan on 15 January 1861 summarizes this discontent: "You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue law, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of northern capitalists. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and institutions." As the London Times of 7 Nov 1861 stated: "The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....".
> 
> 
> 
> I must request a break in descussion of this topic. I have enough references but if I am going to write a college thesis I would rather not do it on an internet forum. You game?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I don't have a problem, it's the ones who rely on the high school version of history and only delve as far as they need or want to validate that truncated, idealized version.
Click to expand...


Yeah well, tell that to someone who doesent hold a BA in history will ya?


----------



## paperview

Publius1787 said:


> ...
> 
> From the earleyer post.
> 
> the South paid an undue proportion of federal revenues derived from tariffs, and these were expended by the federal government more in the North than the South: in 1840, the South paid 84% of the tariffs, rising to 87% in 1860. They paid 83% of the $13 million federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35 million to Northern shipping interests which had a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports. The South, in effect, was paying tribute to the North. The address of Texas Congressman Reagan on 15 January 1861 summarizes this discontent: "You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue law, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of northern capitalists. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and institutions." As the London Times of 7 Nov 1861 stated: "The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....".
> 
> 
> 
> I must request a break in descussion of this topic. I have enough references but if I am going to write a college thesis I would rather not do it on an internet forum. You game?


Honestly?  I doubt you could write a high school term paper. 

Your posts are embarrassing.


----------



## Publius1787

paperview said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> From the earleyer post.
> 
> the South paid an undue proportion of federal revenues derived from tariffs, and these were expended by the federal government more in the North than the South: in 1840, the South paid 84% of the tariffs, rising to 87% in 1860. They paid 83% of the $13 million federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35 million to Northern shipping interests which had a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports. The South, in effect, was paying tribute to the North. The address of Texas Congressman Reagan on 15 January 1861 summarizes this discontent: "You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue law, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of northern capitalists. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and institutions." As the London Times of 7 Nov 1861 stated: "The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....".
> 
> 
> 
> I must request a break in descussion of this topic. I have enough references but if I am going to write a college thesis I would rather not do it on an internet forum. You game?
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly?  I doubt you could write a high school term paper.
> 
> Your posts are embarrassing.
Click to expand...


Yeah. My spelling is still horrible but this is a forum and is not worth taking the time to ensure proper spelling/grammar/punctuation etc. I suppose I am part of that generation raised on word processors. I feel sorry for all those who came before me who didnt have computers. Would you like to see one of my papers? Perhaps I could convince you that I write better than I put on.


----------



## Ringel05

paperview said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> From the earleyer post.
> 
> the South paid an undue proportion of federal revenues derived from tariffs, and these were expended by the federal government more in the North than the South: in 1840, the South paid 84% of the tariffs, rising to 87% in 1860. They paid 83% of the $13 million federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35 million to Northern shipping interests which had a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports. The South, in effect, was paying tribute to the North. The address of Texas Congressman Reagan on 15 January 1861 summarizes this discontent: "You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue law, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of northern capitalists. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and institutions." As the London Times of 7 Nov 1861 stated: "The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....".
> 
> 
> 
> I must request a break in descussion of this topic. I have enough references but if I am going to write a college thesis I would rather not do it on an internet forum. You game?
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly?  I doubt you could write a high school term paper.
> 
> Your posts are embarrassing.
Click to expand...



Everything in that post is documented history, I don't understand your objection.


----------



## JBeukema

Did anyone address the myth that we ever had a civil war?


----------



## paperview

Ringel05 said:


> Everything in that post is documented history, I don't understand your objection.


I've put forth a  lot of documented history.  History the Publius has chose to ignore.
It is a fact tariffs were historically low prior to the Civil war.

Why did he ignore the words of the Confederate VP just before secession I posted saying how tariffs were not really an issue?

Why does he ignore all the documented proof from nearly all the southern leaders saying what their main concern was?

No, an aggrieved voice from Texas is his hallmark, an out of context snip from an editorial, a comment from an Englishman.  These all mean more to him and the revisionist author he clings to.  Cherrypicking.  

That's what revisionist "Lost Cause" history is all about, and it's clear, he's a soldier in the Lost Cause parade.


----------



## Publius1787

Ringel05 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> From the earleyer post.
> 
> the South paid an undue proportion of federal revenues derived from tariffs, and these were expended by the federal government more in the North than the South: in 1840, the South paid 84% of the tariffs, rising to 87% in 1860. They paid 83% of the $13 million federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35 million to Northern shipping interests which had a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports. The South, in effect, was paying tribute to the North. The address of Texas Congressman Reagan on 15 January 1861 summarizes this discontent: "You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue law, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of northern capitalists. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and institutions." As the London Times of 7 Nov 1861 stated: "The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....".
> 
> 
> 
> I must request a break in descussion of this topic. I have enough references but if I am going to write a college thesis I would rather not do it on an internet forum. You game?
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly?  I doubt you could write a high school term paper.
> 
> Your posts are embarrassing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Everything in that post is documented history, I don't understand your objection.
Click to expand...


It doesent fit his/her narrative. See video for futher explanation.


----------



## Publius1787

paperview said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything in that post is documented history, I don't understand your objection.
> 
> 
> 
> I've put forth a  lot of documented history.  History the Publius has chose to ignore.
> It is a fact tariffs were historically low prior to the Civil war.
> 
> Why did he ignore the words of the Confederate VP just before secession I posted saying how tariffs were not really an issue?
> 
> Why does he ignore all the documented proof from nearly all the southern leaders saying what their main concern was?
> 
> No, an aggrieved voice from Texas is his hallmark, an out of context snip from an editorial, a comment from an Englishman.  These all mean more to him and the revisionist author he clings to.  Cherrypicking.
> 
> That's what revisionist "Lost Cause" history is all about, and it's clear, he's a soldier in the Lost Cause parade.
Click to expand...


Yeah. The Confederate Vp that voted against secession? The Confederate VP that wanted to remain loyal to the union? The same Confederate Vice President that disaproved of the Lecompton Constitution for Kansas making it a slave state? The same Vice President that wasent a Democrat until shortly before the war? He was against secession and for maintaining peace until the south seceded dispite his views.   

Here is a quote from THE SAME SPEECH you left out in reards to trade and tarrifs the Constitution etc. It is the first part of his speech to mostly wealthy people from Georgia  who got the best seats up front. I wonder if they owned slaves. The speech goes on after this segment with three paragraphs about slavery and the overwhelmingly majority about war. I would bolden, highlight and underline it but theres too much substance to do so.



> [At this point the uproar and clamor outside was greater still for the speaker to go out on the steps. This was quieted by Col. Lawton, Col. Freeman, Judge Jackson, and Mr. J. W. Owens going out and stating the facts of the case to the dense mass of men, women, and children who were outside, and entertaining them in brief speeches -- Mr. Stephens all this while quietly sitting down until the furor subsided.]
> 
> MR. STEPHENS rose and said: When perfect quiet is restored, I shall proceed. I cannot speak so long as there is any noise or confusion. I shall take my time-I feel quite prepared to spend the night with you if necessary. [Loud applause.] I very much regret that every one who desires cannot hear what I have to say. Not that I have any display to make, or any thing very entertaining to present, but such views as I have to give, I wish all, not only in this city, but in this State, and throughout our Confederate Republic, could hear, who have a desire to hear them.
> 
> I was remarking, that we are passing through one of the greatest revolutions in the annals of the world. Seven States have within the last three months thrown off an old government and formed a new. This revolution has been signally marked, up to this time, by the fact of its having been accomplished without the loss of a single drop of blood. [Applause.]
> 
> This new constitution, or form of government, constitutes the subject to which your attention will be partly invited. In reference to it, I make this first general remark. It amply secures all our ancient rights, franchises, and liberties. All the great principles of Magna Charta are retained in it. No citizen is deprived of life, liberty, or property, but by the judgment of his peers under the laws of the land. The great principle of religious liberty, which was the honor and pride of the old constitution, is still maintained and secured. All the essentials of the old constitution, which have endeared it to the hearts of the American people, have been preserved and perpetuated. [Applause.] Some changes have been made. Of these I shall speak presently. Some of these I should have preferred not to have seen made; but these, perhaps, meet the cordial approbation of a majority of this audience, if not an overwhelming majority of the people of the Confederacy. Of them, therefore, I will not speak. But other important changes do meet my cordial approbation. They form great improvements upon the old constitution. So, taking the whole new constitution, I have no hesitancy in giving it as my judgment that it is decidedly better than the old. [Applause.]
> 
> Allow me briefly to allude to some of these improvements. The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality. Honest labor and enterprise are left free and unrestricted in whatever pursuit they may be engaged. This subject came well nigh causing a rupture of the old Union, under the lead of the gallant Palmetto State, which lies on our border, in 1833. This old thorn of the tariff, which was the cause of so much irritation in the old body politic, is removed forever from the new. [Applause.]
> 
> *Again, the subject of internal improvements, under the power of Congress to regulate commerce, is put at rest under our system.The power claimed by construction under the old constitution, was at least a doubtful one-it rested solely upon construction. We of the South, generally apart from considerations of constitutional principles, opposed its exercise upon grounds of its inexpediency and injustice. Notwithstanding this opposition, millions of money, from the common treasury had been drawn for such purposes. Our opposition sprang from no hostility to commerce, or all necessary aids for facilitating it. With us it was simply a question, upon whom the burden should fall. In Georgia, for instance, we have done as much for the cause of internal improvements as any other portion of the country according to population and means. We have stretched out lines of railroads from the seaboard to the mountains; dug down the hills, and filled up the valleys at a cost of not less than twenty-five millions of dollars. All this was done to open an outlet for our products of the interior, and those to the west of us, to reach the marts of the world. No State was in greater need of such facilities than Georgia, but we did not ask that these works should be made by appropriations out of the common treasury. The cost of the grading, the superstructure, and equipments of our roads, was borne by those who entered on the enterprise. Nay, more-not only the cost of the iron, no small item in the aggregate cost, was borne in the same way-but we were compelled to pay into the common treasury several millions of dollars for the privilege of importing the iron, after the price was paid for it abroad. What justice was there in taking this money, which our people paid into the common treasury on the importation of our iron, and applying it to the improvement of rivers and harbors elsewhere?
> 
> The true principle is to subject the commerce of every locality, to whatever burdens may be necessary to facilitate it. If Charleston harbor needs improvement, let the commerce of Charleston bear the burden. If the mouth of the Savannah river has to be cleared out, let the sea-going navigation which is benefitted by it, bear the burden. So with the mouths of the Alabama and Mississippi river. Just as the products of the interior, our cotton, wheat, corn, and other articles, have to bear the necessary rates of freight over our railroads to reach the seas. This is again the broad principle of perfect equality and justice. [Applause.] And it is especially set forth and established in our new constitution.
> 
> Another feature to which I will allude, is that the new constitution provides that cabinet ministers and heads of departments may have the privilege of seats upon the floor of the Senate and House of Representatives-may have the right to participate in the debates and discussions upon the various subjects of administration. I should have preferred that this provision should have gone further, and required the President to select his constitutional advisers from the Senate and House of Representatives. That would have conformed entirely to the practice in the British Parliament, which, in my judgment, is one of the wisest provisions in the British constitution. It is the only feature that saves that government. It is that which gives it stability in its facility to change its administration. Ours, as it is, is a great approximation to the right principle.
> 
> Under the old constitution, a secretary of the treasury for instance, had no opportunity, save by his annual reports, of presenting any scheme or plan of finance or other matter. He had no opportunity of explaining, expounding, inforcing, or defending his views of policy; his only resort was through the medium of an organ. In the British parliament, the premier brings in his budget and stands before the nation responsible for its every item. If it is indefensible, he falls before the attacks upon it, as he ought to. This will now be the case to a limited extent under our system. In the new constitution, provision has been made by which our heads of departments can speak for themselves and the administration, in behalf of its entire policy, without resorting to the indirect and highly objectionable medium of a newspaper. It is to be greatly hoped that under our system we shall never have what is known as a government organ. [Rapturous applause.]
> 
> [A noise again arose from the clamor of the crowd outside, who wished to hear Mr. Stephens, and for some moments interrupted him. The mayor rose and called on the police to preserve order. Quiet being restored, Mr. S. proceeded.]
> 
> Another change in the constitution relates to the length of the tenure of the presidential office. In the new constitution it is six years instead of four, and the President rendered ineligible for a re-election. This is certainly a decidedly conservative change. It will remove from the incumbent all temptation to use his office or exert the powers confided to him for any objects of personal ambition. The only incentive to that higher ambition which should move and actuate one holding such high trusts in his hands, will be the good of the people, the advancement, prosperity, happiness, safety, honor, and true glory of the confederacy. [Applause.]
> 
> But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."*


*

3 paragraphs about slavery The rest on war. I honestly dont want to continue to throw this material in your face. My snippits are newspaper articles and in context quotes. Your the only one providing these one sentence snippits. Enough of this shit allready.*


----------



## Ringel05

paperview said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything in that post is documented history, I don't understand your objection.
> 
> 
> 
> I've put forth a  lot of documented history.  History the Publius has chose to ignore.
> It is a fact tariffs were historically low prior to the Civil war.
> 
> Why did he ignore the words of the Confederate VP just before secession I posted saying how tariffs were not really an issue?
> 
> Why does he ignore all the documented proof from nearly all the southern leaders saying what their main concern was?
> 
> No, an aggrieved voice from Texas is his hallmark, an out of context snip from an editorial, a comment from an Englishman.  These all mean more to him and the revisionist author he clings to.  Cherrypicking.
> 
> That's what revisionist "Lost Cause" history is all about, and it's clear, he's a soldier in the Lost Cause parade.
Click to expand...


I have no idea why or even if he ignored those, I didn't read your full exchange.  Besides what I have read here is both sides cherry picking, but that's to be expected on such an emotional issue.  It's called lack of objectivity.


----------



## Publius1787

Ringel05 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything in that post is documented history, I don't understand your objection.
> 
> 
> 
> I've put forth a  lot of documented history.  History the Publius has chose to ignore.
> It is a fact tariffs were historically low prior to the Civil war.
> 
> Why did he ignore the words of the Confederate VP just before secession I posted saying how tariffs were not really an issue?
> 
> Why does he ignore all the documented proof from nearly all the southern leaders saying what their main concern was?
> 
> No, an aggrieved voice from Texas is his hallmark, an out of context snip from an editorial, a comment from an Englishman.  These all mean more to him and the revisionist author he clings to.  Cherrypicking.
> 
> That's what revisionist "Lost Cause" history is all about, and it's clear, he's a soldier in the Lost Cause parade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea why or even if he ignored those, I didn't read your full exchange.  Besides what I have read here is both sides cherry picking, but that's to be expected on such an emotional issue.  It's called lack of objectivity.
Click to expand...


My source comes from the worlds leading scholar on tax law who is a northerner. Objectivity in tact. It was an article about him that I referenced about his book that sits on my shelf.


----------



## Ringel05

Publius1787 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've put forth a  lot of documented history.  History the Publius has chose to ignore.
> It is a fact tariffs were historically low prior to the Civil war.
> 
> Why did he ignore the words of the Confederate VP just before secession I posted saying how tariffs were not really an issue?
> 
> Why does he ignore all the documented proof from nearly all the southern leaders saying what their main concern was?
> 
> No, an aggrieved voice from Texas is his hallmark, an out of context snip from an editorial, a comment from an Englishman.  These all mean more to him and the revisionist author he clings to.  Cherrypicking.
> 
> That's what revisionist "Lost Cause" history is all about, and it's clear, he's a soldier in the Lost Cause parade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea why or even if he ignored those, I didn't read your full exchange.  Besides what I have read here is both sides cherry picking, but that's to be expected on such an emotional issue.  It's called lack of objectivity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My source comes from the worlds leading scholar on tax law who is a northerner. Objectivity in tact. It was an article about him that I referenced about his book that sits on my shelf.
Click to expand...


I stated both sides, not all sides.  There is a definite distinction.


----------



## Publius1787

Ringel05 said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea why or even if he ignored those, I didn't read your full exchange.  Besides what I have read here is both sides cherry picking, but that's to be expected on such an emotional issue.  It's called lack of objectivity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My source comes from the worlds leading scholar on tax law who is a northerner. Objectivity in tact. It was an article about him that I referenced about his book that sits on my shelf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I stated both sides, not all sides.  There is a definite distinction.
Click to expand...


I dont get overheated or emotional. I dont call people names though there are a few exceptions. I dont resort to profanity or name calling in a debate in the absence of an arguement. I have fun and I learn things. Thats whats great about the history section. More people should visit here in this part of the forum.


----------



## Toronado3800

> The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right.



I found this at the end of that speech.  Interesting.

This state's rights stuff is convenient hogwash now as it was then.  Republicans now do not want Oregon to have any rights under the Constitution which disagree with Republican views on life, death, or burning cloth.

Sure in 1860 some folks who were born before 1776 might have thought of themselves as Georgians or Carolinians.  Someone in Texas might have even thought Texas was honestly a nation for a year so if they were born that year they were Texonian.

I figure it just comes down to racism and economics.  I'm white so I get to hear all the finer details of racism in the 21st century when I go to white bars in Missoura.  Economic problems like loosing all your slaves/captive labor would upset folks also.  Heck, modern economic problems got a black man with a funny name elected President.


----------



## Publius1787

Toronado3800 said:


> The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I found this at the end of that speech.  Interesting.
> 
> This state's rights stuff is convenient hogwash now as it was then.  Republicans now do not want Oregon to have any rights under the Constitution which disagree with Republican views on life, death, or burning cloth.
> 
> Sure in 1860 some folks who were born before 1776 might have thought of themselves as Georgians or Carolinians.  Someone in Texas might have even thought Texas was honestly a nation for a year so if they were born that year they were Texonian.
> 
> I figure it just comes down to racism and economics.  I'm white so I get to hear all the finer details of racism in the 21st century when I go to white bars in Missoura.  Economic problems like loosing all your slaves/captive labor would upset folks also.  Heck, modern economic problems got a black man with a funny name elected President.
Click to expand...


Thomas Jefferson also beleived in secession as did James Madison. In fact, New England were the first to threaten to secede. However the Confederate VP was against secession and could care less whether Kansas became a slave state.


----------



## paperview

Publius1787 said:


> Thomas Jefferson also beleived in secession as did James Madison. In fact, New England were the first to threaten to secede. However the Confederate VP was against secession and could care less whether Kansas became a slave state.


You see.  This is where it is obvious you are just bullshitting your way through.

Madison, sometimes called  the Father of the Constitution - was around to see the Nullification Crisis, and he spoke in no uncertain terms on secession.

Here's some reading for you to catch up on:

James Madison on Secession « Almost Chosen People

Right of Revolution: James Madison to Daniel Webster

The Framers and Secession « Almost Chosen People

Theres No Room for Secession in the Constitution

The Claremont Institute - The Case Against Secession

History Engine: Tools for Collaborative Education and Research | Episodes


----------



## Ringel05

paperview said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson also beleived in secession as did James Madison. In fact, New England were the first to threaten to secede. However the Confederate VP was against secession and could care less whether Kansas became a slave state.
> 
> 
> 
> You see.  This is where it is obvious you are just bullshitting your way through.
> 
> Madison, sometimes called  the Father of the Constitution - was around to see the Nullification Crisis, and he spoke in no uncertain terms on secession.
> 
> Here's some reading for you to catch up on:
> 
> James Madison on Secession « Almost Chosen People
> 
> Right of Revolution: James Madison to Daniel Webster
> 
> The Framers and Secession « Almost Chosen People
> 
> Theres No Room for Secession in the Constitution
> 
> The Claremont Institute - The Case Against Secession
> 
> History Engine: Tools for Collaborative Education and Research | Episodes
Click to expand...


Ummm, Madison hated the idea of secession which is why he continually addressed the subject however, as I posted previously he recognized the 10th Amendment was the potential "back door" for secession and he was horrified by it.  
I also showed that slavery and states rights were inexorably entwined for that period in history and that period only and how both current advocates and detractors of the states rights "movement" selectively present their arguments because of multiple factors, mostly because the modern antis negatively and erroneously paint the modern pros as pro slavery including claiming they want to reinstate it.  Of course they're going to selectively chose what they see as the positive aspects of states rights and ignore the negative while the antis are going to focus on just the opposite.   
Oh and your opponent in this argument agreed with this.  It tells me something, it should tell you something too but that's just my humble offering, take it or leave it.


----------



## Publius1787

paperview said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson also beleived in secession as did James Madison. In fact, New England were the first to threaten to secede. However the Confederate VP was against secession and could care less whether Kansas became a slave state.
> 
> 
> 
> You see.  This is where it is obvious you are just bullshitting your way through.
> 
> Madison, sometimes called  the &#8220;Father of the Constitution&#8221; - was around to see the Nullification Crisis, and he spoke in no uncertain terms on secession.
> 
> Here's some reading for you to catch up on:
> 
> James Madison on Secession « Almost Chosen People
> 
> Right of Revolution: James Madison to Daniel Webster
> 
> The Framers and Secession « Almost Chosen People
> 
> There&#8217;s No Room for Secession in the Constitution
> 
> The Claremont Institute - The Case Against Secession
> 
> History Engine: Tools for Collaborative Education and Research | Episodes
Click to expand...


Your not the one to talk about reading >>>> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3695881-post101.html

Thomas Jefferson:

First Inaugural Address said,

"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it."

letter to John C. Breckinridge,Aug. 12, 1803):

&#8220;&#8230;Besides, if it should become the great interest of those nations to separate from this, if their happiness should depend on it so strongly as to induce them to go through that convulsion, why should the Atlantic States dread it? But especially why should we, their present inhabitants, take side in such a question?&#8230;The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Missipi [sic] States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Missipi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better.&#8221;

letter to To Dr. Joseph Priestley, Jan. 29, 1804

&#8220;Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern, and I feel myself as much identified with that country, in future time, as with this; and did I now foresee a separation at some future day, yet I should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family which should fall within my power.&#8221;

letter to Secretary of War William Crawford

&#8220;If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative, to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying &#8220;let us separate." I would rather the States should withdraw which are for unlimited commerce and war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace and agriculture.&#8221;

letter to former U.S. Attorney General Richard Rush

&#8220;The experiment of separation would soon prove to both that they had mutually miscalculated their best interests. And even were the parties in Congress to secede in a passion, the soberer people would call a convention and cement again the severance attempted by the insanity of their functionaries.&#8221;

At Virginia's ratification convention, the delegates said,

"The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.

Federalist Paper 39, James Madison

The father of the Constitution, cleared up what "the people" meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong."


----------



## paperview

Ringel05 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson also beleived in secession as did James Madison. In fact, New England were the first to threaten to secede. However the Confederate VP was against secession and could care less whether Kansas became a slave state.
> 
> 
> 
> You see.  This is where it is obvious you are just bullshitting your way through.
> 
> Madison, sometimes called  the &#8220;Father of the Constitution&#8221; - was around to see the Nullification Crisis, and he spoke in no uncertain terms on secession.
> 
> Here's some reading for you to catch up on:
> 
> James Madison on Secession « Almost Chosen People
> 
> Right of Revolution: James Madison to Daniel Webster
> 
> The Framers and Secession « Almost Chosen People
> 
> There&#8217;s No Room for Secession in the Constitution
> 
> The Claremont Institute - The Case Against Secession
> 
> History Engine: Tools for Collaborative Education and Research | Episodes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ummm, Madison hated the idea of secession which is why he continually addressed the subject however, as I posted previously he recognized the 10th Amendment was the potential "back door" for secession and he was horrified by it.
> I also showed that slavery and states rights were inexorably entwined for that period in history and that period only and how both current advocates and detractors of the states rights "movement" selectively present their arguments because of multiple factors, mostly because the modern antis negatively and erroneously paint the modern pros as pro slavery including claiming they want to reinstate it.  Of course they're going to selectively chose what they see as the positive aspects of states rights and ignore the negative while the antis are going to focus on just the opposite.
> Oh and your opponent in this argument agreed with this.  It tells me something, it should tell you something too but that's just my humble offering, take it or leave it.
Click to expand...

_My opponent _claimed James Madison "_believed in secession_," which is wrong, very wrong. It's one thing to present original sources and influences that bolster one's argument, it's another to make up shit altogether.

He's continuing to try to make the Lost Cause case for tariffs being the main issue for secession, when pretty much all documentary evidence, shows otherwise. He ignores that, then when confronted, switches over to bullshit throw-aways like _Madison believed in secession."  _His grasp of basic facts is lacking.  Read back for further major errors.  You'll see. 

  As to your claim the "anti's" (which I guess is your term, for lack of a better one, for those not buying "the South was Right" garbage) paint the ne0-confederates as wanting to _reinstate slavery_...that's just hogwash.   I've been discussing civil war politics and causes for a long time now.  It's a rare bird that charges such a ridiculous claim. 

 It's not about anyone wanting to _reinstate slavery._  It's about resurrecting the honor lost in a battle 150 years ago, where the subjugation of human beings as chattel was the prime motivator. 

That's a hard pill to swallow, and still after all these years, the southern confederates refuse to accept *they lost. *


----------



## Publius1787

paperview said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see.  This is where it is obvious you are just bullshitting your way through.
> 
> Madison, sometimes called  the &#8220;Father of the Constitution&#8221; - was around to see the Nullification Crisis, and he spoke in no uncertain terms on secession.
> 
> Here's some reading for you to catch up on:
> 
> James Madison on Secession « Almost Chosen People
> 
> Right of Revolution: James Madison to Daniel Webster
> 
> The Framers and Secession « Almost Chosen People
> 
> There&#8217;s No Room for Secession in the Constitution
> 
> The Claremont Institute - The Case Against Secession
> 
> History Engine: Tools for Collaborative Education and Research | Episodes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm, Madison hated the idea of secession which is why he continually addressed the subject however, as I posted previously he recognized the 10th Amendment was the potential "back door" for secession and he was horrified by it.
> I also showed that slavery and states rights were inexorably entwined for that period in history and that period only and how both current advocates and detractors of the states rights "movement" selectively present their arguments because of multiple factors, mostly because the modern antis negatively and erroneously paint the modern pros as pro slavery including claiming they want to reinstate it.  Of course they're going to selectively chose what they see as the positive aspects of states rights and ignore the negative while the antis are going to focus on just the opposite.
> Oh and your opponent in this argument agreed with this.  It tells me something, it should tell you something too but that's just my humble offering, take it or leave it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _My opponent _claimed James Madison "_believed in secession_," which is wrong, very wrong. It's one thing to present original sources and influences that bolster one's argument, it's another to make up shit altogether.
> 
> He's continuing to try to make the Lost Cause case for tariffs being the main issue for secession, when pretty much all documentary evidence, shows otherwise. He ignores that, then when confronted, switches over to bullshit throw-aways like _Madison believed in secession."  _His grasp of basic facts is lacking.  Read back for further major errors.  You'll see.
> 
> As to your claim the "anti's" (which I guess is your term, for lack of a better one, for those not buying "the South was Right" garbage) paint the ne0-confederates as wanting to _reinstate slavery_...that's just hogwash.   I've been discussing civil war politics and causes for a long time now.  It's a rare bird that charges such a ridiculous claim.
> 
> It's not about anyone wanting to _reinstate slavery._  It's about resurrecting the honor lost in a battle 150 years ago, where the subjugation of human beings as chattel was the prime motivator.
> 
> That's a hard pill to swallow, and still after all these years, the southern confederates refuse to accept *they lost. *
Click to expand...


I never broke topic with you or changed it. You refused to respond to my response and responded to my response to another. Now your drawing concludsions based on nothing other than the way you wished things were. And your attempt to accuse people of wanting to reinstate slavery must be your true beleife on those who have my view. Thats BS!


----------



## paperview

Publius1787 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm, Madison hated the idea of secession which is why he continually addressed the subject however, as I posted previously he recognized the 10th Amendment was the potential "back door" for secession and he was horrified by it.
> I also showed that slavery and states rights were inexorably entwined for that period in history and that period only and how both current advocates and detractors of the states rights "movement" selectively present their arguments because of multiple factors, mostly because the modern antis negatively and erroneously paint the modern pros as pro slavery including claiming they want to reinstate it.  Of course they're going to selectively chose what they see as the positive aspects of states rights and ignore the negative while the antis are going to focus on just the opposite.
> Oh and your opponent in this argument agreed with this.  It tells me something, it should tell you something too but that's just my humble offering, take it or leave it.
> 
> 
> 
> _My opponent _claimed James Madison "_believed in secession_," which is wrong, very wrong. It's one thing to present original sources and influences that bolster one's argument, it's another to make up shit altogether.
> 
> He's continuing to try to make the Lost Cause case for tariffs being the main issue for secession, when pretty much all documentary evidence, shows otherwise. He ignores that, then when confronted, switches over to bullshit throw-aways like _Madison believed in secession."  _His grasp of basic facts is lacking.  Read back for further major errors.  You'll see.
> 
> As to your claim the "anti's" (which I guess is your term, for lack of a better one, for those not buying "the South was Right" garbage) paint the ne0-confederates as wanting to _reinstate slavery_...that's just hogwash.   I've been discussing civil war politics and causes for a long time now.  It's a rare bird that charges such a ridiculous claim.
> 
> It's not about anyone wanting to _reinstate slavery._  It's about resurrecting the honor lost in a battle 150 years ago, where the subjugation of human beings as chattel was the prime motivator.
> 
> That's a hard pill to swallow, and still after all these years, the southern confederates refuse to accept *they lost. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never broke topic with you or changed it. You refused to respond to my response and responded to my response to another. Now your drawing concludsions based on nothing other than the way you wished things were. And your attempt to accuse people of wanting to reinstate slavery must be your true beleife on those who have my view. Thats BS!
Click to expand...

Jesus Christ Almighty.  You can't even read.  

For God sakes man. READ my post again. I said no such thing, as a matter of fact I was *disputing* Ringle's false claim.

Man.


----------



## paperview

Publius1787 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson also beleived in secession as did James Madison. In fact, New England were the first to threaten to secede. However the Confederate VP was against secession and could care less whether Kansas became a slave state.
> 
> 
> 
> You see.  This is where it is obvious you are just bullshitting your way through.
> 
> Madison, sometimes called  the &#8220;Father of the Constitution&#8221; - was around to see the Nullification Crisis, and he spoke in no uncertain terms on secession.
> 
> Here's some reading for you to catch up on:
> 
> James Madison on Secession « Almost Chosen People
> 
> Right of Revolution: James Madison to Daniel Webster
> 
> The Framers and Secession « Almost Chosen People
> 
> There&#8217;s No Room for Secession in the Constitution
> 
> The Claremont Institute - The Case Against Secession
> 
> History Engine: Tools for Collaborative Education and Research | Episodes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your not the one to talk about reading >>>> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3695881-post101.html
> 
> Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> First Inaugural Address said,
> 
> "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it."
> 
> letter to John C. Breckinridge,Aug. 12, 1803):
> 
> <blah blah>
Click to expand...

Totally ignoring what I posted about Madison...

Snippets is what you bring, majority from Jefferson, who was not even *there *when the Constitution was written.  He was also an anti-federalist.  I should remind you, the anti-federalists lost.

You were presented with Madison's words, the guy who was, you know *there*, and who helped write it, and you ignored it.  

You're not here to learn.  You're here to regurgitate  Lost Cause pablum. 
Let nothing stand in your way!


----------



## Publius1787

paperview said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> _My opponent _claimed James Madison "_believed in secession_," which is wrong, very wrong. It's one thing to present original sources and influences that bolster one's argument, it's another to make up shit altogether.
> 
> He's continuing to try to make the Lost Cause case for tariffs being the main issue for secession, when pretty much all documentary evidence, shows otherwise. He ignores that, then when confronted, switches over to bullshit throw-aways like _Madison believed in secession."  _His grasp of basic facts is lacking.  Read back for further major errors.  You'll see.
> 
> As to your claim the "anti's" (which I guess is your term, for lack of a better one, for those not buying "the South was Right" garbage) paint the ne0-confederates as wanting to _reinstate slavery_...that's just hogwash.   I've been discussing civil war politics and causes for a long time now.  It's a rare bird that charges such a ridiculous claim.
> 
> It's not about anyone wanting to _reinstate slavery._  It's about resurrecting the honor lost in a battle 150 years ago, where the subjugation of human beings as chattel was the prime motivator.
> 
> That's a hard pill to swallow, and still after all these years, the southern confederates refuse to accept *they lost. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never broke topic with you or changed it. You refused to respond to my response and responded to my response to another. Now your drawing concludsions based on nothing other than the way you wished things were. And your attempt to accuse people of wanting to reinstate slavery must be your true beleife on those who have my view. Thats BS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus Christ Almighty.  You can't even read.
> 
> For God sakes man. READ my post again. I said no such thing, as a matter of fact I was *disputing* Ringle's false claim.
> 
> Man.
Click to expand...


ooo. sorry. Its just that your responces that invoke me are becoming less and less about the actual topic and I dont generaly take as much time to read bs that is off topic or tries to pin an unqualified label to anyone. You still havent responded to my confederate vp post. But then again that speaks volumes in it of itself. I wouldent recomend quoting someone who voted against secession to prove your point.


----------



## paperview

Yeah.  Obviously, _tariffs_.  lol

*Stephan Dodson Ramseur*, Confederate general: "...Slavery, the  very source of our existence, the greatest blessing both for Master  & Slave that could have been bestowed upon us." 

*Albert Gallatin Brown*, U.S. Senator from Mississippi, December  27, 1860: "Mr. President, it seems to me that northern Senators most  pertinaciously overlook the main point at issue between the two sections  of our Confederacy. We claim that there is property in slaves, and they  deny it. Until we shall settle, upon some basis, that point of  controversy, it is idle to talk of going any further." 

_Richmond Enquirer,_ 1856: "Democratic liberty exists solely because we have slaves . . . freedom is not possible without slavery." 

_Atlanta Confederacy,_ 1860: "We regard every man in our midst an  enemy to the institutions of the South, who does not boldly declare that  he believes African slavery to be a social, moral, and political  blessing."

*G. T. Yelverton, of Coffee County, Alabama*, speaking to the  Alabama Secession Convention on January 25, 1861: "The question of  Slavery is the rock upon which the Old Government split: it is the cause  of secession." 

*John B. Baldwin*, Augusta County delegate to the Virginia  Secession Convention, March 21, 1861: "I say, then, that viewed from  that standpoint, there is but one single subject of complaint which  Virginia has to make against the government under which we live; a  complaint made by the whole South, and that is on the subject of African  slavery...."


----------



## paperview

Publius1787 said:


> ooo. sorry. Its just that your responces that invoke me are becoming less and less about the actual topic and I dont generaly take as much time to read bs that is off topic or tries to pin an unqualified label to anyone. You still havent responded to my confederate vp post. But then again that speaks volumes in it of itself. I wouldent recomend quoting someone who voted against secession to prove your point.


Yeah.  I figured you weren't even reading.  Maybe you should slow down  and digest the information, rather than be so quick to make yourself  look like an idiot. 

Alexander Stephens _did_ vote again secession, but he also, at that  same convention  asserted the right to secede Union continued to allow  the North to nullify the Fugitive Slave Law..

That was a big part of the secession declarations, or did you forget?  Perhaps didn't even know?

By claiming Stephens was somehow a transient and insignificant dishrag  when it came to the Confederacy, when he was elected as the DAMN VICE  PRESIDENT, and remained VP until his arrest after the war, shows the  weakness of your argument in and of itself.  
He was moderately pro-slavery, earlier, and was ready to try and  compromise, yes, given the implications, but he most assuredly moved to  the full throated call of secession after.

Even still, look at how vigorously he defended the right to extend slavery, years earlier: "...[Stephens]  was a vigorous opponent of the Wilmot  Proviso, which would have barred the extension of slavery into  territories acquired by the United States during the war with Mexico. *This would later nearly kill Stephen*s  when he argued with Judge Reuben Cone, who stabbed him repeatedly in a  fit of anger. Stephens was physically outmatched by his larger  assailant,* but he remained defiant during the attack, refusing to recant his positions even at the cost of his life.*​With his life. 

His Cornerstone speech, years later,  made it clear, however much you want to deny, what it was about.

I'll remind you, the President of the Confederacy, also called slavery the Cornerstone.  

You're going to have to live with them facts.


----------



## paperview

The most primary of primary sources--->  the seceding states     themselves.        

South Carolina made it's case by telling us how pissed off they       were 14 states that " deliberately refused...to fulfill their       Constitutional obligations."
      They then point to that _Constitutional obligation _directly:       the 4th Article of the US Constitution.

      Yeah, that would be the Fugitive Slave clause written into the       Constitution protecting slaveowners property rights. 

        It was so material to them, they told us their representatives       never would have signed the Constitution, were that not there. 

      They then go on to tell us that since the election of a Republican       -  a war would *be waged against slavery until it shall cease         throughout the United States* and the agitation against the       slaveholding had been going on now for 25 years, and  therefore,       they had no choice but to secede.

       Alabama lamented   Lincoln's election  and scowled that *a         sectional party, avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions*       of the state. [domestic institutions = slavery]

       Georgia said the  (anti-slavery) Republican rise to power will       fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia to       secede.
      She provided a reason by stating *a brief history of the rise,         progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political         organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal         Government has been committed.*

      Texas  blamed *an unnatural feeling of hostility to these         Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of         African slavery.*

       Mississippi made no bones about it.  Right up front in it's       secession document, it begins:
*Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of         slavery...We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss         of property worth four billions of dollars, or we must secede         from the Union.*

       All there, for anyone who wants to read them:       Declaration of Causes of Secession


----------



## paperview

*In a broadside dated **January 5, 1863, and published at Richmond **::*








 
Original here: http://international.loc.gov/rbc/rbpe/rbpe18/rbpe187/18702100/001dr.jpg

"An Address To the People of the Free States by the President of the Southern Confederacy..."  

*"...all  free Negroes in the Southern Confederacy shall be placed  on the slave  status, and deemed to be chattels, they and their issue  forever."

So EVEN THE FREE BLACKS AFTER 1863 WERE NO LONGER FREE!
Even their children and children's children were bonded into slavery FOREVER!  

These were, prior to 1863, FREE BLACKS in the South.

*Neo-confederates: Wanna  tell me again how this  wasn't about slavery -- and that, as some like pretend, the  Institution itself was "on its way  out???"

Go head.  Try if you can.


----------



## paperview

Moreover, in that broadside, Davis proclaimed that all Negroes who were   captured in states where slavery did not exist were to be adjudged to   occupy the status of slaves,

*"...so that the respective normal condition of the white and black races may be ultimately placed on a permanent basis."*

Any of these neo-confederates starts to tell you the South did not fight primarily to defends slavery, or had _any_   intention of before, during the war, or long after - of getting rid of   slavery - or allowing it to "die out" Remind them of this declaration  by   the Confederate President, Jefferson Davis.


----------



## paperview

That broadside I just posted   also said:

"...it ought not to be considered polemically or politically improper in me  to vindicate *the   position which has been at an early day of this  Southern republic,   assumed by the Confederacy, namely, that slavery is  the corner stone of   a Western republic*."

The* CORNERSTONE.  *

  BOTH the Vice President and President of the Confederacy said it explicitly.


----------



## Toro

So, slavery wasn't a cause of the Civil War then?  Is that what y'all are saying?  It was more of a side issue, kind of like the birther issue today?


----------



## paperview

Toro said:


> So, slavery wasn't a cause of the Civil War then?  Is that what y'all are saying?  It was more of a side issue, kind of like the birther issue today?


Some here are still trying to make it about Tariffs. 

It's a way of saving face, of not having to face the reality and lost honor of knowing the foundation of the conflict rested on the continued subjugation of human beings.
Black human beings, which comprised more than a third of the Southern population and, in some states, population counts of *majority *slaves. Think of that.  More slaves than Free.

Tariffs you see...even though Southerners themselves had written the Tariff of 1857, and those rates were historically low, lower than at any point since 1816.

No major historian buys that argument, but Lost Causers still try.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

The fundamental problem is that we simply disagree on who started the Civil War.  If you look at why Lincoln fought the Civil War it's clear that he did so over tariffs.  He wanted the revenue that the south brought in, and didn't want to compete against a free trade Confederacy.  If you look at the reason why some of the southern States seceded, you see concerns over slavery.


----------



## Toro

paperview said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, slavery wasn't a cause of the Civil War then?  Is that what y'all are saying?  It was more of a side issue, kind of like the birther issue today?
> 
> 
> 
> Some here are still trying to make it about Tariffs.
> 
> It's a way of saving face, of not having to face the reality and lost honor of knowing the foundation of the conflict rested on the continued subjugation of human beings.
> Black human beings, which comprised more than a third of the Southern population and, in some states, population counts of *majority *slaves. Think of that.  More slaves than Free.
> 
> Tariffs you see...even though Southerners themselves had written the Tariff of 1857, and those rates were historically low, lower than at any point since 1816.
> 
> No major historian buys that argument, but Lost Causers still try.
Click to expand...


I studied economic history of North America from a pre-eminent economic historian.  His take on it was that tariffs played a fairly significant role in the Civil War.  Being a Canadian, that was the first I'd ever heard of it.  I thought he was exaggerating.  

The funny thing is that slavery retarded both social and economic development of the South.  All economic growth is a function of productivity growth, and all productivity growth requires higher levels of knowledge, which means more education.  Mechanization requires education.  The agrarian slave system required slaves remain uneducated meaning the South never had a chance to industrialize.


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> The fundamental problem is that we simply disagree on who started the Civil War.  If you look at why Lincoln fought the Civil War it's clear that he did so over tariffs.  He wanted the revenue that the south brought in, and didn't want to compete against a free trade Confederacy.  If you look at the reason why some of the southern States seceded, you see concerns over slavery.


The fires were burning years before, Kevin. You know this.

The slavery issue was a major one in the preceding presidential election. (not to mention the high intensity of the full decade...)

The South was itching for a fight, and they intended to take it home over that issue.

Let's go back, 4 years earlier, to just before the November, 1856 election.
Here is an article from ----> *OCT 1856*, from the New York Times,  quoting a Richmond *editorial*, entitled: *LOOK THE FUTURE IN THE FACE

*...where future secessionist threaten and the evil of what they term   "Black  Republicanism" (their term for the Republicans who favored black equality) is   castigated.

_I present a picture of the actual paper below...read it:

Here is the top line: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




_It begins: _*
"*_*The Southern political Press has never been more open and frank in its  avowal of political purposes and plans*, 
than it is during the present  canvass. *
The triumphs of Slavery during the past four years,--the  successful repeal of the Missouri Compromise, a measure for which oven  Mr. CALHOUN never dared to hope,--*and the ready, eager promptitude with  which the    Democratic party at Cincinnati *yielded to the exactions  of the Slaveholding power, seemed to have inspired the political leaders  of the South with the belief, that time has come when they can safely  and even with advantage to themselves, make open proclamation of the  projects they have in store for the future.*

....We invite attention to the following lead editorial from Richmond: 

  The great object of the South in supporting Buchanan is to promote and  extend the perpetuation of the "conservative institution of Slavery."   And the votes by which it is hoped he may be elected,* are to become the basis of a secession movement and the formation of a Southern Slave Confederacy*...​


​
_*Forewarned...Forearmed!" We see the numbers, the    characters, the designs of our enemies/  Let us prepare to resist  them   and drive them back*_

_* ...*_*.A common danger from without, and a common necessity (Slavery) within, *
* will be sure to make the South a great, a united, a vigilant and a warlike people...*

* ,...the division is sure to take place...*Socialism, communism*,  infidelity,licentiousness and agrarianism, now scarcely suppressed by  union with the conservative South will burst forth in a carnival of  blood...*

* See the full newspaper article here: (!) Bold Avowals--The Election of Buchanan to be a Stop Towards Disunion. - Article - NYTimes.com
*​


----------



## Publius1787

paperview said:


> Yeah.  Obviously, _tariffs_.  lol
> 
> *Stephan Dodson Ramseur*, Confederate general: "...Slavery, the  very source of our existence, the greatest blessing both for Master  & Slave that could have been bestowed upon us."
> 
> *Albert Gallatin Brown*, U.S. Senator from Mississippi, December  27, 1860: "Mr. President, it seems to me that northern Senators most  pertinaciously overlook the main point at issue between the two sections  of our Confederacy. We claim that there is property in slaves, and they  deny it. Until we shall settle, upon some basis, that point of  controversy, it is idle to talk of going any further."
> 
> _Richmond Enquirer,_ 1856: "Democratic liberty exists solely because we have slaves . . . freedom is not possible without slavery."
> 
> _Atlanta Confederacy,_ 1860: "We regard every man in our midst an  enemy to the institutions of the South, who does not boldly declare that  he believes African slavery to be a social, moral, and political  blessing."
> 
> *G. T. Yelverton, of Coffee County, Alabama*, speaking to the  Alabama Secession Convention on January 25, 1861: "The question of  Slavery is the rock upon which the Old Government split: it is the cause  of secession."
> 
> *John B. Baldwin*, Augusta County delegate to the Virginia  Secession Convention, March 21, 1861: "I say, then, that viewed from  that standpoint, there is but one single subject of complaint which  Virginia has to make against the government under which we live; a  complaint made by the whole South, and that is on the subject of African  slavery...."



Slavery was off the table by the time these seeches were made.  There was no need to seceed to maintain slavery. It was confimed by congress, the supreme court, and lincoln both during the debates and while president. There is absolutly positivly no reason to secede to maintain slavery. Unless your trying to hype it up.


----------



## paperview

Wow.  Just wow.


----------



## Publius1787

paperview said:


> Wow.  Just wow.



Please dont force me to post all of the Lincoln quotes and congressional affirmations of slavery. Whether you want to admit to it or not, by the time the southern states seceded slavery was off the table. That fact is non debateable. No one was going to legally or legislativly take the souths slaves away. There is no need to secede over somthing that isnt an issue.


----------



## Toro

Publius1787 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  Just wow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please dont force me to post all of the Lincoln quotes and congressional affirmations of slavery. Whether you want to admit to it or not, by the time the southern states seceded slavery was off the table. That fact is non debateable. No one was going to legally or legislativly take the souths slaves away. There is no need to secede over somthing that isnt an issue.
Click to expand...


So the slavery thing as a cause of the Civil War is all a myth then?


----------



## paperview

Publius1787 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  Just wow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please dont force me to post all of the Lincoln quotes and congressional affirmations of slavery. Whether you want to admit to it or not, by the time the southern states seceded slavery was off the table. That fact is non debateable. No one was going to legally or legislativly take the souths slaves away. There is no need to secede over somthing that isnt an issue.
Click to expand...

This just confirms for me, you really are either, as originally assumed:

1) 14 years old.

or 
2) Know very, very little about the actual history of the Civil War and all the associated original documents
3) Are somewhat retarded.

It has to be one of these.  There can be no other explanation.


----------



## paperview

Slavery  was _off the table _by the time the South Seceded,

 

Oh my.    I can't stop laughing at this absurd statement.


----------



## Toro

paperview said:


> Slavery  was _off the table _by the time the South Seceded,
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my.    I can't stop laughing at this absurd statement.



Sounds like revisionist history to me.  But I haven't studied enough of it.


----------



## paperview

Toro said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  Just wow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please dont force me to post all of the Lincoln quotes and congressional affirmations of slavery. Whether you want to admit to it or not, by the time the southern states seceded slavery was off the table. That fact is non debateable. No one was going to legally or legislativly take the souths slaves away. There is no need to secede over somthing that isnt an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the slavery thing as a cause of the Civil War is all a myth then?
Click to expand...

Guess so, huh?  Can you believe it?

Is this guy for real?

I guess we all these states actually telling us why they were seceding was a myth too. 

*Louisiana:*
"*Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery*, and of the free institutions of the founders of the Federal Union, bequeathed to their posterity...

The people of Louisiana would consider it a most fatal blow to African slavery, if Texas either did not secede or having seceded should not join her destinies to theirs in a Southern Confederacy. If she remains in the union the abolitionists would continue their work of incendiarism and murder. Emigrant aid societies would arm with Sharp's rifles predatory bands to infest her northern borders. The Federal Government would mock at her calamity in accepting the recent bribes in the army bill and Pacific railroad bill, and with abolition treachery would leave her unprotected frontier to the murderous inroads of hostile savages....

That constitution the Southern States have never violated, and taking it as the basis of our new government *we hope to form a slave-holding confederacy* that will secure to us and our remotest posterity the great blessings its authors designed in the Federal Union. *With the social balance wheel of slavery to regulate its machinery*, we may fondly indulge the hope that our Southern government will be perpetual."

Geo. Williamson 
Commissioner of the State of Louisiana 
City of Austin Feby 11th 1861.
Address of George Williamson to the Texas Secession Convention​





*The plea from South Carolina to the other southern states: *

"We prefer, however, our system of industry, by which labor and capital are identified in interest, and capital, therefore, protects labor; by which our population doubles every twenty years; by which starvation is unknown, and abundance crowns the land; by which order is preserved by unpaid police, and *the most fertile regions of the world where the Caucasian cannot labor are brought into usefulness by the labor of the African*, and the whole world is blessed by our own productions....

*We ask you to join us in forming a confederacy of Slaveholding States."
*Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States by Convention of South Carolina




Texas: The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, *have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact*, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.

"In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith  and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the  people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, *now strong  enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based  upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and  their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, *proclaiming  the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or  color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience  of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law.  *They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy,  the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races,  and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so  long as a negro slave remains in these States.
*Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union​




*Speech to Tennessee Legislature by the Governor: *In discharge of official duty, I had occasion, within the past year, to demand of the Governor of Ohio " a person charged in the State (of Tennessee) with the crime " of slave stealing, who had fled from justice, and was found in the State of Ohio.' The Governor refused to issue his warrant for the arrest and delivery of the fugitive, and in answer to a letter of inquiry which I addressed to him, said:* 'The crime of negro stealing not being known to either the common law or the criminal code of Ohio, it is not of that class of crimes contemplated by the Federal Constitution, for the commission of which I am authorized, as the executive of Ohio, to surrender a fugitive from the justice of a sister State, and hence I declined to issue a warrant," &c.; thus deliberately nullifying and setting at defiance the clause of the Constitution above quoted, as well as the act of Congress of February 12th, 1793, and grossly violating the ordinary comity existing between separate and independent nations, much less the comity which should exist between sister States of the same great Confederacy*; the correspondence connected with which is herewith transmitted.​It has, through the executive authority of other States, denied extradition of murderers and marauders.​It obtained its own compromise in the Constitution to continue the importation of slaves, and now sets up a law, higher than the Constitution, to destroy this property imported and sold to us by their fathers.

It has caused the murder of owners in pursuit of their fugitive slaves, and shielded the murderers from punishment.

It has, upon many occasions, sent its emissaries into the Southern States to corrupt our slaves; induce them to run off, or excite them to insurrection.

It has run off slave property by means of the "underground railroad," amounting in value to millions of dollars, and thus made the tenure by which slaves are held in the border States so precarious as to materially impair their value.           
 Alabama."
Speech of Tennessee Governor Isham G. Harris for Secession​(I particularly like this speech; if slavery was abolished and slaves set free, then Whites would be forced to commit murder!):




*ALABAMA: *"I wish, Mr. President, to express the feelings with which I vote for the secession of Alabama from the Government of the United States; and to state, in a few words, *the reasons that impel me to this act.*

I feel impelled, Mr. President, to vote for this Ordinance by an overruling necessity. *Years ago I was convinced that the Southern States would be compelled either to separate from the North, by dissolving the Federal Government, or they would be compelled to abolish the institution of African Slavery.* This, in my judgment, was the only alternative; and I foresaw that the South would be compelled, at some day, to make her selection. The day is now come, and Alabama must make her selection, either to secede from the Union, and assume the position of a sovereign, independent State, or she must submit to a system of policy on the part of the Federal Government that, in a short time, will compel her to abolish African Slavery.​Mr. President, if pecuniary loss alone were involved in the abolition of slavery, I should hesitate long before I would give the vote I now intend to give. If the destruction of slavery entailed on us poverty alone, I could bear it, for I have seen poverty and felt its sting. But poverty, Mr. President, would be one of the least of the evils that would befall us from the abolition of African slavery. T*here are now in the slaveholding States over four millions of slaves; dissolve the relation of master and slave, and what, I ask, would become of that race? To remove them from amongst us is impossible.* History gives us no account of the exodus of such a number of persons. We neither have a place to which to remove them, nor the means of such removal. They therefore must remain with us; and if the relation of master and slave be dissolved, and our slaves turned loose amongst us without restraint, they would either be destroyed by our own hands-- the hands to which they look, and look with confidence, for protection-- or we ourselves would become demoralized and degraded. The former result would take place, and we ourselves would become the executioners of our own slaves. To this extent would the policy of our Northern enemies drive us; and thus would we not only be reduced to poverty, but what is still worse, we should be driven to crime, to the commission of sin; and we must, therefore, this day elect between the Government formed by our fathers (the whole spirit of which has been perverted), and POVERTY AND CRIME! 
Speech of E.S. Dargan Secession Convention of Alabama 1861​




*South Carolina:*

 Quote:
                The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." *[Fugitive Slave Clause]*

*This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made*. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. 
In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States.* Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery;* they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States.* They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.           *
Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union




*Mississippi:*

 Quote:
*Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.* Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, *none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun*. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.           
Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Mississippi Secession




*Georgia: *F*or the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery*...

All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity. This question was before us. We had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding solution. This state of facts gave form and shape to the anti-slavery sentiment throughout the North and the conflict began. Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South...​*The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.*

With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers.

But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed *$3,000,000,000 of our property*** in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. *To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquility.           *​**property = humans
Georgia Declarations of Causes of Seceding States Civil War




Confederate Constitution Secession Articles of American Civil War

Yep...it was_ off the table_.


----------



## Publius1787

Toro said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  Just wow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please dont force me to post all of the Lincoln quotes and congressional affirmations of slavery. Whether you want to admit to it or not, by the time the southern states seceded slavery was off the table. That fact is non debateable. No one was going to legally or legislativly take the souths slaves away. There is no need to secede over somthing that isnt an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the slavery thing as a cause of the Civil War is all a myth then?
Click to expand...


No, it had its role. And they did beleive that slavery and states rights were inseperatable. BUT IF SLAVERY WAS THE ONLY ISSUE THEY WOULD NOT HAVE SECEDED.


----------



## Ringel05

Publius1787 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  Obviously, _tariffs_.  lol
> 
> *Stephan Dodson Ramseur*, Confederate general: "...Slavery, the  very source of our existence, the greatest blessing both for Master  & Slave that could have been bestowed upon us."
> 
> *Albert Gallatin Brown*, U.S. Senator from Mississippi, December  27, 1860: "Mr. President, it seems to me that northern Senators most  pertinaciously overlook the main point at issue between the two sections  of our Confederacy. We claim that there is property in slaves, and they  deny it. Until we shall settle, upon some basis, that point of  controversy, it is idle to talk of going any further."
> 
> _Richmond Enquirer,_ 1856: "Democratic liberty exists solely because we have slaves . . . freedom is not possible without slavery."
> 
> _Atlanta Confederacy,_ 1860: "We regard every man in our midst an  enemy to the institutions of the South, who does not boldly declare that  he believes African slavery to be a social, moral, and political  blessing."
> 
> *G. T. Yelverton, of Coffee County, Alabama*, speaking to the  Alabama Secession Convention on January 25, 1861: "The question of  Slavery is the rock upon which the Old Government split: it is the cause  of secession."
> 
> *John B. Baldwin*, Augusta County delegate to the Virginia  Secession Convention, March 21, 1861: "I say, then, that viewed from  that standpoint, there is but one single subject of complaint which  Virginia has to make against the government under which we live; a  complaint made by the whole South, and that is on the subject of African  slavery...."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was off the table by the time these seeches were made.  There was no need to seceed to maintain slavery. It was confimed by congress, the supreme court, and lincoln both during the debates and while president. There is absolutly positivly no reason to secede to maintain slavery. Unless your trying to hype it up.
Click to expand...


Now that's nothing more than individual interpretation of events without a clear understanding of cultural influences.  Once again, slavery, secession and states rights at this period in time cannot be separated, all historical facts taken in context with the cultural applications of the time prove this so your assessment is incorrect.


----------



## Publius1787

paperview said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please dont force me to post all of the Lincoln quotes and congressional affirmations of slavery. Whether you want to admit to it or not, by the time the southern states seceded slavery was off the table. That fact is non debateable. No one was going to legally or legislativly take the souths slaves away. There is no need to secede over somthing that isnt an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the slavery thing as a cause of the Civil War is all a myth then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guess so, huh?  Can you believe it?
> 
> Is this guy for real?
> 
> I guess we all these states actually telling us why they were seceding was a myth too.
> 
> 
> *The plea from South Carolina to the other southern states: *
> 
> "We prefer, however, our system of industry, by which labor and capital are identified in interest, and capital, therefore, protects labor; by which our population doubles every twenty years; by which starvation is unknown, and abundance crowns the land; by which order is preserved by unpaid police, and *the most fertile regions of the world where the Caucasian cannot labor are brought into usefulness by the labor of the African*, and the whole world is blessed by our own productions....
> 
> Yep...it was_ off the table_.
Click to expand...


I'm not going to go through all the speeches of which you cherry picked paragraphs. I did click one and found this jewel from south carolina which is from the FRST part of the speech.

*The one great evil, from which all other evils have flowed, is the overthrow of the Constitution of the United States. The Government of the United States is no longer the government of Confederated Republics, but of a consolidated Democracy. It is, in face such a Government as Great Britain attempted to set over our Fathers; and which was resisted and defeated by a seven years&#8217; struggle for independence. *

Slavery was off the table. 

Lincoln on Slavery and Blacks

*On Slavery: *
"... when they [slaveowners] remind us of their constitutional rights, I acknowledge them, not grudgingly but fully and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the claiming of their fugitives." ~ Lincoln, speaking in support of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. 

"...in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you... I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that '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.' " 

"I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." ~ Lincoln, speaking in regards to slavery and in support of a proposed Thirteenth Amendment to explicitly guarantee slavery. 

As his own words demonstrate, Lincoln was willing to accomodate slavery. As was shown in the taxation section above, it was only the tariff that he would never compromise on. 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*On Blacks: *
"The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people." ~ Lincoln, on whether blacks &#8211; slave or free &#8211; should be allowed in the new territories in the west, October 16, 1854. 

"I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary." ~ Lincoln, Aug. 21, 1858, in remarks stating his belief that blacks were naturally inferior to whites, which was a nearly universal belief on the part of whites in both the North and South long before and long after the Civil War. 

"Root, hog, or die" ~ Lincoln's suggestion to illiterate and propertyless ex-slaves unprepared for freedom, Feb. 3, 1865. 

"They had better be set to digging their subsistence out of the ground." ~ Lincoln in a War Department memo, April 16, 1863 

"Send them to Liberia, to their own native land." ~ Lincoln, speaking in favor of ethnic cleansing all blacks from the United States. 

"I cannot make it better known than it already is, that I favor colonization." ~ Lincoln, in a message to Congress, December 1, 1862, supporting deportation of all blacks from America. 

"President Lincoln may colonize himself if he choose, but it is an impertinent act, on his part, to propose the getting rid of those who are as good as himself." ~ America's preeminent immediate Abolitionist and advocate of free trade, William Lloyd Garrison. 

"[Lincoln] had not a drop of anti-slavery blood in his veins." ~ William Lloyd Garrison. 

The comments shown here illustrate that abolition was not what motivated Lincoln. The coldness in Lincoln's remarks, the lack of thought and preparation about the process of emancipation, and how the freedman would cope without the necessary skills is readily apparent.


----------



## Publius1787

Ringel05 said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  Obviously, _tariffs_.  lol
> 
> *Stephan Dodson Ramseur*, Confederate general: "...Slavery, the  very source of our existence, the greatest blessing both for Master  & Slave that could have been bestowed upon us."
> 
> *Albert Gallatin Brown*, U.S. Senator from Mississippi, December  27, 1860: "Mr. President, it seems to me that northern Senators most  pertinaciously overlook the main point at issue between the two sections  of our Confederacy. We claim that there is property in slaves, and they  deny it. Until we shall settle, upon some basis, that point of  controversy, it is idle to talk of going any further."
> 
> _Richmond Enquirer,_ 1856: "Democratic liberty exists solely because we have slaves . . . freedom is not possible without slavery."
> 
> _Atlanta Confederacy,_ 1860: "We regard every man in our midst an  enemy to the institutions of the South, who does not boldly declare that  he believes African slavery to be a social, moral, and political  blessing."
> 
> *G. T. Yelverton, of Coffee County, Alabama*, speaking to the  Alabama Secession Convention on January 25, 1861: "The question of  Slavery is the rock upon which the Old Government split: it is the cause  of secession."
> 
> *John B. Baldwin*, Augusta County delegate to the Virginia  Secession Convention, March 21, 1861: "I say, then, that viewed from  that standpoint, there is but one single subject of complaint which  Virginia has to make against the government under which we live; a  complaint made by the whole South, and that is on the subject of African  slavery...."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was off the table by the time these seeches were made.  There was no need to seceed to maintain slavery. It was confimed by congress, the supreme court, and lincoln both during the debates and while president. There is absolutly positivly no reason to secede to maintain slavery. Unless your trying to hype it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now that's nothing more than individual interpretation of events without a clear understanding of cultural influences.  Once again, slavery, secession and states rights at this period in time cannot be separated, all historical facts taken in context with the cultural applications of the time prove this so your assessment is incorrect.
Click to expand...


Thats allready been addressed and proven in this thread. But you will enjoy this. PAY ATTENTION TO THE PART ABOUT THE TARRIFS BEING DOUBLED BEFORE LINCOLN TOOK OFFICE.


----------



## paperview

Publius1787 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the slavery thing as a cause of the Civil War is all a myth then?
> 
> 
> 
> Guess so, huh?  Can you believe it?
> 
> Is this guy for real?
> 
> I guess we all these states actually telling us why they were seceding was a myth too.
> 
> 
> *The plea from South Carolina to the other southern states: *
> 
> "We prefer, however, our system of industry, by which labor and capital are identified in interest, and capital, therefore, protects labor; by which our population doubles every twenty years; by which starvation is unknown, and abundance crowns the land; by which order is preserved by unpaid police, and *the most fertile regions of the world where the Caucasian cannot labor are brought into usefulness by the labor of the African*, and the whole world is blessed by our own productions....
> 
> Yep...it was_ off the table_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not going to go through all the speeches of which you cherry picked paragraphs. I did click one and found this jewel from south carolina which is from the FRST part of the speech.
> 
> *The one great evil, from which all other evils have flowed, is the overthrow of the Constitution of the United States. The Government of the United States is no longer the government of Confederated Republics, but of a consolidated Democracy. It is, in face such a Government as Great Britain attempted to set over our Fathers; and which was resisted and defeated by a seven years&#8217; struggle for independence. *
> 
> Slavery was off the table.
Click to expand...

Of course you won't take the time to read them.  that would mean educating yourself on the actual words spoken by the states at the time. 

Pretty damn important, but that would conflict with your stubborn Lost Cause narrative.   Each and every citation there is accompanied by a link of the entire document or speech.  You can't claim cherry-picking when you can read the whole thing in context.  I supplied portions in an effort to save space (and even then, took too much bandwidth) - but anyone is free to read the whole work.

But let's see...Ah yes, South Carolina. 

Let's look at the 

Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States by  Convention of South Carolina 

Yes,  Taxation is addressed, but a better portion of it deals with how  important their slaves were to them in the whole matter.  In fact, in  their actual Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union, pretty much most of it was about Slavery. Yes, they addressed what they saw as constitutional transgressions, but these centered around ...what? The constitutional protections of slavery!

But let's look at that Address:"[At the time the Constitution was written] *There was  then, no Tariff &#65533; no fanaticism concerning negroes*.

It was the  delegates from New England, who proposed in the Convention  which framed  the Constitution, to the delegates from South Carolina and  Georgia,    *that if they would agree to give Congress the power of regulating  commerce by a majority, that they would support the extension of  the African Slave Trade for twenty years.*

African Slavery, existed in  all the States, but one. The idea, that the  Southern States would be  made to pay that tribute to their Northern  confederates, which they had  refused to pay to Great Britain; or that  the institution of African  slavery, would be made the grand basis of a  sectional organization of  the North to rule the South, _never crossed the imaginations of our  ancestors._ *The  Union of the Constitution, was a union of slaveholding   States. It  rests on slavery, by prescribing a Representation in Congress  for  three&#65533;fifths of our slaves*."​The believed the Union _rested on Slavery_.  They believed the  Founders never could have _imagined _any proposed abolition of the system  of bondage and their way of life."But  if African slavery in the Southern States, be the evil  their   political combination affirms it to be, the requisitions of an   inexorable logic, must lead them to emancipation. If it is right, to   preclude or abolish slavery in a territory&#65533;why should it be allowed to   remain in the States? The one is not at all more unconstitutional than   the other, according to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United   States. And when it is considered, that the Northern States will soon   have the power to make that Court what they please, and that the   Constitution has never been any barrier whatever to their exercise of   power&#65533;*what check can there be, in the unrestrained councils of the  North, to emancipation?
*​In Ironies of Ironies, above they cite the Dred Scott decision, *the one  that states even Free Blacks could never be and never were Citizens of  this country. ..*
More than of third of the populace of the South were Non-Citizens, yet  they carry on about Freedom and Liberty, Contentment and Happiness:"Indeed, *no people ever expect to preserve its rights and liberties*,   unless these be in its own custody. To plunder and oppress, where  plunder and oppression can be practiced  with impunity, seems to be the  natural order of things. The fairest  portions of the world elsewhere,  have been turned into wilderness; and  the most civilized and prosperous  communities, *have been impoverished  and ruined by anti&#65533;slavery  fanaticism. ...*
 The very object of all Constitutions, in free popular Government, is to  restrain the majority. *Constitutions, therefore, according to their  theory, must be most unrighteous inventions, restricting liberty. 
....Contentment, is a great element of happiness, with nations as with  individuals. We, are satisfied with ours.*​What  they were concerned about, more than anything, was losing their free  labor and subjugating their Non-Citizens, their Africans :
"We  prefer, however, our system of industry, by which labor and capital   are identified in interest, and capital, therefore, protects labor&#65533;*by   which our population doubles every twenty years&#65533;by which starvation is   unknown, and abundance crowns the land&#65533;by which order is preserved by   unpaid police, and the most fertile regions of the world, where the   white man cannot labor, are brought into usefulness by the labor of the   African..."*


----------



## paperview

Publius1787:  Nothing but a parrot of neo-confederate bloggers and the idiot Paleocon and Southern Nationalist Thomas DiLorenzo.

Absurd revisionism.  No one takes that crap seriously.  You will never be convinced. 

I write now for only for the other readers.  You are obviously too thick to even intelligently converse.


----------



## paperview

I have 1000 times more respect for Kevin Kennedy, whom I have spent hundreds of pages debating, and he is on the neo-confederate side as well, but at least he brings forth intelligent debate and well thought out presentations. 

Publius, on the other hand, is simply ...no nice way to put this:  A tool and an idiot.


----------



## Ringel05

paperview said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see.  This is where it is obvious you are just bullshitting your way through.
> 
> Madison, sometimes called  the Father of the Constitution - was around to see the Nullification Crisis, and he spoke in no uncertain terms on secession.
> 
> Here's some reading for you to catch up on:
> 
> James Madison on Secession « Almost Chosen People
> 
> Right of Revolution: James Madison to Daniel Webster
> 
> The Framers and Secession « Almost Chosen People
> 
> Theres No Room for Secession in the Constitution
> 
> The Claremont Institute - The Case Against Secession
> 
> History Engine: Tools for Collaborative Education and Research | Episodes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm, Madison hated the idea of secession which is why he continually addressed the subject however, as I posted previously he recognized the 10th Amendment was the potential "back door" for secession and he was horrified by it.
> I also showed that slavery and states rights were inexorably entwined for that period in history and that period only and how both current advocates and detractors of the states rights "movement" selectively present their arguments because of multiple factors, mostly because the modern antis negatively and erroneously paint the modern pros as pro slavery including claiming they want to reinstate it.  Of course they're going to selectively chose what they see as the positive aspects of states rights and ignore the negative while the antis are going to focus on just the opposite.
> Oh and your opponent in this argument agreed with this.  It tells me something, it should tell you something too but that's just my humble offering, take it or leave it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _My opponent _claimed James Madison "_believed in secession_," which is wrong, very wrong. It's one thing to present original sources and influences that bolster one's argument, it's another to make up shit altogether.
> 
> He's continuing to try to make the Lost Cause case for tariffs being the main issue for secession, when pretty much all documentary evidence, shows otherwise. He ignores that, then when confronted, switches over to bullshit throw-aways like _Madison believed in secession."  _His grasp of basic facts is lacking.  Read back for further major errors.  You'll see.
> 
> As to your claim the "anti's" (which I guess is your term, for lack of a better one, for those not buying "the South was Right" garbage) paint the ne0-confederates as wanting to _reinstate slavery_...that's just hogwash.   I've been discussing civil war politics and causes for a long time now.  It's a rare bird that charges such a ridiculous claim.
> 
> It's not about anyone wanting to _reinstate slavery._  It's about resurrecting the honor lost in a battle 150 years ago, where the subjugation of human beings as chattel was the prime motivator.
> 
> That's a hard pill to swallow, and still after all these years, the southern confederates refuse to accept *they lost. *
Click to expand...


I also have been studying and discussing history, including the Civil War for at least three decades and my experience has shown my statement to be true of many but not all. So I obviously didn't make myself clear, you completely misconstrued what I stated and/or you are allowing emotional bias to cloud your objectivity.  I would hazard a guess and claim all three considering a couple of statements in your response, a typical human response sans any birds, rare or otherwise.  Now we can continue to toss thinly veiled insults at one another or conduct an unimpassioned, objective discussion on the issue.  The choice is yours, I'll happily oblige either way.


----------



## paperview

Publius1787 said:


> ...
> Thats allready been addressed and proven in this thread. But you will enjoy this.
> ...



Isn't that cute.  Fox News has a White Supremacist on. 

Thomas DiLorenzo + League of the South.  Lookitup.


----------



## Publius1787

The slave trade was outlawed by the constitution by 1808. 

"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall
think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one
thousand eight hundred and eight"

Genesis of the Civil War
Lincoln promised not to interfere with slavery, but he did pledge to "collect the duties and imposts": he was the leading advocate of the tariff and public works policy, which is why his election prompted the South to secede. In pro-Lincoln newspapers, the phrase "free trade" was invoked as the equivalent of industrial suicide. Why fire on Ft. Sumter? It was a customs house, and when the North attempted to strengthen it, the South knew that its purpose was to collect taxes, as newspapers and politicians said at the time.

In effect, the South was being looted to pay for the North's early version of industrial policy. The battle over the tariff began in 1828, with the "tariff of abomination." Thirty year later, with the South paying 87 percent of federal tariff revenue while having their livelihoods threatened by protectionist legislation, it became impossible for the two regions to be governed under the same regime. The South as a region was being reduced to a slave status, with the federal government as its master


----------



## Publius1787

paperview said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Thats allready been addressed and proven in this thread. But you will enjoy this.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that cute.  Fox News has a White Supremacist on.
> 
> Thomas DiLorenzo + League of the South.  Lookitup.
Click to expand...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx32b5igLwA&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - &#x202a;Objection!&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## paperview

Ringel05 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm, Madison hated the idea of secession which is why he continually addressed the subject however, as I posted previously he recognized the 10th Amendment was the potential "back door" for secession and he was horrified by it.
> I also showed that slavery and states rights were inexorably entwined for that period in history and that period only and how both current advocates and detractors of the states rights "movement" selectively present their arguments because of multiple factors, mostly because the modern antis negatively and erroneously paint the modern pros as pro slavery including claiming they want to reinstate it.  Of course they're going to selectively chose what they see as the positive aspects of states rights and ignore the negative while the antis are going to focus on just the opposite.
> Oh and your opponent in this argument agreed with this.  It tells me something, it should tell you something too but that's just my humble offering, take it or leave it.
> 
> 
> 
> _My opponent _claimed James Madison "_believed in secession_," which is wrong, very wrong. It's one thing to present original sources and influences that bolster one's argument, it's another to make up shit altogether.
> 
> He's continuing to try to make the Lost Cause case for tariffs being the main issue for secession, when pretty much all documentary evidence, shows otherwise. He ignores that, then when confronted, switches over to bullshit throw-aways like _Madison believed in secession."  _His grasp of basic facts is lacking.  Read back for further major errors.  You'll see.
> 
> As to your claim the "anti's" (which I guess is your term, for lack of a better one, for those not buying "the South was Right" garbage) paint the ne0-confederates as wanting to _reinstate slavery_...that's just hogwash.   I've been discussing civil war politics and causes for a long time now.  It's a rare bird that charges such a ridiculous claim.
> 
> It's not about anyone wanting to _reinstate slavery._  It's about resurrecting the honor lost in a battle 150 years ago, where the subjugation of human beings as chattel was the prime motivator.
> 
> That's a hard pill to swallow, and still after all these years, the southern confederates refuse to accept *they lost. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I also have been studying and discussing history, including the Civil War for at least three decades and my experience has shown my statement to be true of many but not all. So I obviously didn't make myself clear, you completely misconstrued what I stated and/or you are allowing emotional bias to cloud your objectivity.  I would hazard a guess and claim all three considering a couple of statements in your response, a typical human response sans any birds, rare or otherwise.  Now we can continue to toss thinly veiled insults at one another or conduct an unimpassioned, objective discussion on the issue.  The choice is yours, I'll happily oblige either way.
Click to expand...

You've presented nothing to offer the charge that non-neo-confederate folks suggest neo's want to_ reinstate slavery.  _You  threw that out there and I called you on it. If you want to say  my  response was emotional, so be it.  It looks more like a way to impugn my  presentation than to actually debate. 

 If you have heard here or  there someone say (as if it's even  remotely possible) - _southerners want to reinstate slavery_, then you know it's not a common theme in CW  threads.  Have some numbskulls advanced such? Probably.  I think I have  heard *one* in all _my_ decades of discussions.

 I will also add that not only have I engaged the historical conversations for   about as long as you, I have for the last few decades made my living in  history. And a fine living at that.

 Much of my knowledge and perspective comes from touching, owning, archiving,   transcribing and researching literally thousands and thousands of pieces  of original Civil War history - letters,  diaries, journals and documents, some of which are now residing in  museums and Historical Societies. A few in the National Archives and Library of Congress.  They made their way there_ because of me._  Books have been written based on some of my original archives. 

   I also spend a great time reading the original source pamphlets,  magazines, newspapers  and books, written AT THE TIME OF THE WAR.   

  I have had original documents and letters  of nearly every President and most Founders pass through my hands;  works signed by confederate generals, union generals;  letters, diaries,  journals of the common folk, north and south, all the way down to the lowly private - by the thousands - all  giving me what I think is a rather unique perspective. 

History is not just a hobby for me, it is literally my life. I eat,  drink, live and breath it.  Every day.  Original works.  It sometimes  give me shivers how close I am to the actual human that wrote this or  that piece 150 or 200 years ago.  I live a truly blessed existence. 

Now, again, if you perceive that as emotional, so be it.  What it is is  *passion*.  A passion that has allowed me to not only swim in history,  doing what I love, every single day, for decades now, being my own  boss,  but also being able to enrich the future generations because of what I  discover in the past.

I could never have been able to do this for as long as I have were it not for this: Passion.  _Blessed, blessed passion_.


----------



## Toro

paperview said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> _My opponent _claimed James Madison "_believed in secession_," which is wrong, very wrong. It's one thing to present original sources and influences that bolster one's argument, it's another to make up shit altogether.
> 
> He's continuing to try to make the Lost Cause case for tariffs being the main issue for secession, when pretty much all documentary evidence, shows otherwise. He ignores that, then when confronted, switches over to bullshit throw-aways like _Madison believed in secession."  _His grasp of basic facts is lacking.  Read back for further major errors.  You'll see.
> 
> As to your claim the "anti's" (which I guess is your term, for lack of a better one, for those not buying "the South was Right" garbage) paint the ne0-confederates as wanting to _reinstate slavery_...that's just hogwash.   I've been discussing civil war politics and causes for a long time now.  It's a rare bird that charges such a ridiculous claim.
> 
> It's not about anyone wanting to _reinstate slavery._  It's about resurrecting the honor lost in a battle 150 years ago, where the subjugation of human beings as chattel was the prime motivator.
> 
> That's a hard pill to swallow, and still after all these years, the southern confederates refuse to accept *they lost. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also have been studying and discussing history, including the Civil War for at least three decades and my experience has shown my statement to be true of many but not all. So I obviously didn't make myself clear, you completely misconstrued what I stated and/or you are allowing emotional bias to cloud your objectivity.  I would hazard a guess and claim all three considering a couple of statements in your response, a typical human response sans any birds, rare or otherwise.  Now we can continue to toss thinly veiled insults at one another or conduct an unimpassioned, objective discussion on the issue.  The choice is yours, I'll happily oblige either way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've presented nothing to offer the charge that non-neo-confederate folks suggest neo's want to_ reinstate slavery.  _You  threw that out there and I called you on it. If you want to say  my  response was emotional, so be it.  It looks more like a way to impugn my  presentation than to actually debate.
> 
> If you have heard here or  there someone say (as if it's even  remotely possible) - _southerners want to reinstate slavery_, then you know it's not a common theme in CW  threads.  Have some numbskulls advanced such? Probably.  I think I have  heard *one* in all _my_ decades of discussions.
> 
> I will also add that not only have I engaged the historical conversations for   about as long as you, I have for the last few decades made my living in  history. And a fine living at that.
> 
> Much of my knowledge and perspective comes from touching, owning, archiving,   transcribing and researching literally thousands and thousands of pieces  of original Civil War history - letters,  diaries, journals and documents, some of which are now residing in  museums and Historical Societies. A few in the National Archives and Library of Congress.  They made their way there_ because of me._  Books have been written based on some of my original archives.
> 
> I also spend a great time reading the original source pamphlets,  magazines, newspapers  and books, written AT THE TIME OF THE WAR.
> 
> I have had original documents and letters  of nearly every President and most Founders pass through my hands;  works signed by confederate generals, union generals;  letters, diaries,  journals of the common folk, north and south, all the way down to the lowly private - by the thousands - all  giving me what I think is a rather unique perspective.
> 
> History is not just a hobby for me, it is literally my life. I eat,  drink, live and breath it.  Every day.  Original works.  It sometimes  give me shivers how close I am to the actual human that wrote this or  that piece 150 or 200 years ago.  I live a truly blessed existence.
> 
> Now, again, if you perceive that as emotional, so be it.  What it is is  *passion*.  A passion that has allowed me to not only swim in history,  doing what I love, every single day, for decades now, being my own  boss,  but also being able to enrich the future generations because of what I  discover in the past.
> 
> I could never have been able to do this for as long as I have were it not for this: Passion.  _Blessed, blessed passion_.
Click to expand...


Way cool.


----------



## Ringel05

paperview said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> _My opponent _claimed James Madison "_believed in secession_," which is wrong, very wrong. It's one thing to present original sources and influences that bolster one's argument, it's another to make up shit altogether.
> 
> He's continuing to try to make the Lost Cause case for tariffs being the main issue for secession, when pretty much all documentary evidence, shows otherwise. He ignores that, then when confronted, switches over to bullshit throw-aways like _Madison believed in secession."  _His grasp of basic facts is lacking.  Read back for further major errors.  You'll see.
> 
> As to your claim the "anti's" (which I guess is your term, for lack of a better one, for those not buying "the South was Right" garbage) paint the ne0-confederates as wanting to _reinstate slavery_...that's just hogwash.   I've been discussing civil war politics and causes for a long time now.  It's a rare bird that charges such a ridiculous claim.
> 
> It's not about anyone wanting to _reinstate slavery._  It's about resurrecting the honor lost in a battle 150 years ago, where the subjugation of human beings as chattel was the prime motivator.
> 
> That's a hard pill to swallow, and still after all these years, the southern confederates refuse to accept *they lost. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also have been studying and discussing history, including the Civil War for at least three decades and my experience has shown my statement to be true of many but not all. So I obviously didn't make myself clear, you completely misconstrued what I stated and/or you are allowing emotional bias to cloud your objectivity.  I would hazard a guess and claim all three considering a couple of statements in your response, a typical human response sans any birds, rare or otherwise.  Now we can continue to toss thinly veiled insults at one another or conduct an unimpassioned, objective discussion on the issue.  The choice is yours, I'll happily oblige either way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've presented nothing to offer the charge that non-neo-confederate folks suggest neo's want to_ reinstate slavery.  _You  threw that out there and I called you on it. If you want to say  my  response was emotional, so be it.  It looks more like a way to impugn my  presentation than to actually debate.
> 
> If you have heard here or  there someone say (as if it's even  remotely possible) - _southerners want to reinstate slavery_, then you know it's not a common theme in CW  threads.  Have some numbskulls advanced such? Probably.  I think I have  heard *one* in all _my_ decades of discussions.
> 
> I will also add that not only have I engaged the historical conversations for   about as long as you, I have for the last few decades made my living in  history. And a fine living at that.
> 
> Much of my knowledge and perspective comes from touching, owning, archiving,   transcribing and researching literally thousands and thousands of pieces  of original Civil War history - letters,  diaries, journals and documents, some of which are now residing in  museums and Historical Societies. A few in the National Archives and Library of Congress.  They made their way there_ because of me._  Books have been written based on some of my original archives.
> 
> I also spend a great time reading the original source pamphlets,  magazines, newspapers  and books, written AT THE TIME OF THE WAR.
> 
> I have had original documents and letters  of nearly every President and most Founders pass through my hands;  works signed by confederate generals, union generals;  letters, diaries,  journals of the common folk, north and south, all the way down to the lowly private - by the thousands - all  giving me what I think is a rather unique perspective.
> 
> History is not just a hobby for me, it is literally my life. I eat,  drink, live and breath it.  Every day.  Original works.  It sometimes  give me shivers how close I am to the actual human that wrote this or  that piece 150 or 200 years ago.  I live a truly blessed existence.
> 
> Now, again, if you perceive that as emotional, so be it.  What it is is  *passion*.  A passion that has allowed me to not only swim in history,  doing what I love, every single day, for decades now, being my own  boss,  but also being able to enrich the future generations because of what I  discover in the past.
> 
> I could never have been able to do this for as long as I have were it not for this: Passion.  _Blessed, blessed passion_.
Click to expand...


I said nothing to impugn your presentation so as not to actually debate, infact that's exactly what you did to me, reread your response, it was pretty dismissive and snide.  And where did I state all such comments derived from CW threads concerning this topic was my primary source not to mention the fact I only stated "many" which to my understanding doesn't mean most.  Congradulations on your knowledge and ability to make a living at this however the one thing that I've found to help those of us who delve into history is a solid understanding of Cultural Anthropology which gives us insight into the cultures and their norms.   
Also a simple understanding of basic behavioral psychology highlights the danger we as students of history face when delving into complex and emotionally charged subjects.  So, are you ready to come off the defensive and stop attacking me or shall we continue?  Again the choice is yours.  
By the way, have you actually taken the time to read my other posts and hence determine I agree with you about the reasons for the war but also that both arguments were intertwined?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fundamental problem is that we simply disagree on who started the Civil War.  If you look at why Lincoln fought the Civil War it's clear that he did so over tariffs.  He wanted the revenue that the south brought in, and didn't want to compete against a free trade Confederacy.  If you look at the reason why some of the southern States seceded, you see concerns over slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> The fires were burning years before, Kevin. You know this.
> 
> The slavery issue was a major one in the preceding presidential election. (not to mention the high intensity of the full decade...)
> 
> The South was itching for a fight, and they intended to take it home over that issue.
> 
> Let's go back, 4 years earlier, to just before the November, 1856 election.
> Here is an article from ----> *OCT 1856*, from the New York Times,  quoting a Richmond *editorial*, entitled: *LOOK THE FUTURE IN THE FACE
> 
> *...where future secessionist threaten and the evil of what they term   "Black  Republicanism" (their term for the Republicans who favored black equality) is   castigated.
> 
> _I present a picture of the actual paper below...read it:
> 
> Here is the top line:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _It begins: _*
> "*_*The Southern political Press has never been more open and frank in its  avowal of political purposes and plans*,
> than it is during the present  canvass. *
> The triumphs of Slavery during the past four years,--the  successful repeal of the Missouri Compromise, a measure for which oven  Mr. CALHOUN never dared to hope,--*and the ready, eager promptitude with  which the    Democratic party at Cincinnati *yielded to the exactions  of the Slaveholding power, seemed to have inspired the political leaders  of the South with the belief, that time has come when they can safely  and even with advantage to themselves, make open proclamation of the  projects they have in store for the future.*
> 
> ....We invite attention to the following lead editorial from Richmond:
> 
> The great object of the South in supporting Buchanan is to promote and  extend the perpetuation of the "conservative institution of Slavery."   And the votes by which it is hoped he may be elected,* are to become the basis of a secession movement and the formation of a Southern Slave Confederacy*...​
> 
> 
> ​
> _*Forewarned...Forearmed!" We see the numbers, the    characters, the designs of our enemies/  Let us prepare to resist  them   and drive them back*_
> 
> _* ...*_*.A common danger from without, and a common necessity (Slavery) within, *
> * will be sure to make the South a great, a united, a vigilant and a warlike people...*
> 
> * ,...the division is sure to take place...*Socialism, communism*,  infidelity,licentiousness and agrarianism, now scarcely suppressed by  union with the conservative South will burst forth in a carnival of  blood...*
> 
> * See the full newspaper article here: (!) Bold Avowals--The Election of Buchanan to be a Stop Towards Disunion. - Article - NYTimes.com
> *​
Click to expand...


I'm well aware that the south disliked the Republican Party based on the issue of slavery, and that it was an issue that dated back well before the Civil War.  My point, however, is if you look at why Lincoln fought the Civil War you can clearly see that he was worried about the south paying its duties to the federal government.  He said so himself in his first inaugural address.  You also mentioned in your earlier post how the tariff rate was fairly low, but you didn't mention how Lincoln campaigned on raising the tariff significantly and that after the states seceded the Morrill Tariff raised it considerably.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Publius1787:  Nothing but a parrot of neo-confederate bloggers and the idiot Paleocon and Southern Nationalist Thomas DiLorenzo.
> 
> Absurd revisionism.  No one takes that crap seriously.  You will never be convinced.
> 
> I write now for only for the other readers.  You are obviously too thick to even intelligently converse.



I'm fairly certain that Tom DiLorenzo is not a southern nationalist at all.


----------



## paperview

Ringel05 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also have been studying and discussing history, including the Civil War for at least three decades and my experience has shown my statement to be true of many but not all. So I obviously didn't make myself clear, you completely misconstrued what I stated and/or you are allowing emotional bias to cloud your objectivity.  I would hazard a guess and claim all three considering a couple of statements in your response, a typical human response sans any birds, rare or otherwise.  Now we can continue to toss thinly veiled insults at one another or conduct an unimpassioned, objective discussion on the issue.  The choice is yours, I'll happily oblige either way.
> 
> 
> 
> You've presented nothing to offer the charge that non-neo-confederate folks suggest neo's want to_ reinstate slavery.  _You  threw that out there and I called you on it. If you want to say  my  response was emotional, so be it.  It looks more like a way to impugn my  presentation than to actually debate.
> 
> If you have heard here or  there someone say (as if it's even  remotely possible) - _southerners want to reinstate slavery_, then you know it's not a common theme in CW  threads.  Have some numbskulls advanced such? Probably.  I think I have  heard *one* in all _my_ decades of discussions.
> 
> I will also add that not only have I engaged the historical conversations for   about as long as you, I have for the last few decades made my living in  history. And a fine living at that.
> 
> Much of my knowledge and perspective comes from touching, owning, archiving,   transcribing and researching literally thousands and thousands of pieces  of original Civil War history - letters,  diaries, journals and documents, some of which are now residing in  museums and Historical Societies. A few in the National Archives and Library of Congress.  They made their way there_ because of me._  Books have been written based on some of my original archives.
> 
> I also spend a great time reading the original source pamphlets,  magazines, newspapers  and books, written AT THE TIME OF THE WAR.
> 
> I have had original documents and letters  of nearly every President and most Founders pass through my hands;  works signed by confederate generals, union generals;  letters, diaries,  journals of the common folk, north and south, all the way down to the lowly private - by the thousands - all  giving me what I think is a rather unique perspective.
> 
> History is not just a hobby for me, it is literally my life. I eat,  drink, live and breath it.  Every day.  Original works.  It sometimes  give me shivers how close I am to the actual human that wrote this or  that piece 150 or 200 years ago.  I live a truly blessed existence.
> 
> Now, again, if you perceive that as emotional, so be it.  What it is is  *passion*.  A passion that has allowed me to not only swim in history,  doing what I love, every single day, for decades now, being my own  boss,  but also being able to enrich the future generations because of what I  discover in the past.
> 
> I could never have been able to do this for as long as I have were it not for this: Passion.  _Blessed, blessed passion_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said nothing to impugn your presentation so as not to actually debate, infact that's exactly what you did to me, reread your response, it was pretty dismissive and snide.  And where did I state all such comments derived from CW threads concerning this topic was my primary source not to mention the fact I only stated "many" which to my understanding doesn't mean most.  Congradulations on your knowledge and ability to make a living at this however the one thing that I've found to help those of us who delve into history is a solid understanding of Cultural Anthropology which gives us insight into the cultures and their norms.
> Also a simple understanding of basic behavioral psychology highlights the danger we as students of history face when delving into complex and emotionally charged subjects.  So, are you ready to come off the defensive and stop attacking me or shall we continue?  Again the choice is yours.
> By the way, have you actually taken the time to read my other posts and hence determine I agree with you about the reasons for the war but also that both arguments were intertwined?
Click to expand...

Perhaps it was my first interaction with you on this thread, where you  came barreling on about people_ who didn't know what they were talking  about _and _high school versions of history..._

 Perhaps I misread and that wasn't meant to place me in that category.   Still, it was how I first encountered your comments, so maybe that put a  little hair across my hide with you first off.   If I was wrong, I  apologize.  

 You must admit the bulk of my frustrated commentary has been in dealing  with someone who claims a BA in history, yet doesn't even know when the  states seceded, was unaware of when the first shots were fired,  apparently hasn't even read the secessionist declarations, claims  Madison favored secession, didn't know submarines were used in combat in  the Revolutionary war, and says that slavery was "off the table" after  Lincoln was elected, amongst other tragically wrong historical facts.  (Not to mention employs 6th grade spelling, and hey, I'm no great  speller, I rarely concern myself with a poster's spelling or typos,   but man, there's some atrocious garble in those presentations) (Get a spell checker, Publius; they're free, you know...)

As to the fact economics and slavery were intertwined as reasons for  war, of course it was.  It almost goes without saying.  The economics of  the south was completely enmeshed in slavery though.  It was the  literal economic blood.  The tariff argument simply falls on its face  when taking the fact those tariffs had been at their lowest since 1816.   Now, an argument can be made as to how the agrarian economy of the  south was facing peril going forward in an industrial world, and the  threatened prohibition of expansion of slavery was certain to erode their economies  more, how they felt trapped by their own economic and cultural  foundation - but through and through, the preservation of slavery rides  high and above all else as the reasons.


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Publius1787:  Nothing but a parrot of neo-confederate bloggers and the idiot Paleocon and Southern Nationalist Thomas DiLorenzo.
> 
> Absurd revisionism.  No one takes that crap seriously.  You will never be convinced.
> 
> I write now for only for the other readers.  You are obviously too thick to even intelligently converse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm fairly certain that Tom DiLorenzo is not a southern nationalist at all.
Click to expand...

Ahem:
DiLorenzo responds to attacks | Southern Nationalist Network

Right there, on the front page, his smiling mug.

He was also an affiliated scholar at League of the South.  He can claim his lectures there were for historical purposes, and deny all he wants, but there are just too many connections to him and southern nationalists. 

Also worth checking out: DiLorenzo Rebuttal


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Publius1787:  Nothing but a parrot of neo-confederate bloggers and the idiot Paleocon and Southern Nationalist Thomas DiLorenzo.
> 
> Absurd revisionism.  No one takes that crap seriously.  You will never be convinced.
> 
> I write now for only for the other readers.  You are obviously too thick to even intelligently converse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm fairly certain that Tom DiLorenzo is not a southern nationalist at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahem:
> DiLorenzo responds to attacks | Southern Nationalist Network
> 
> Right there, on the front page, his smiling mug.
> 
> He was also an affiliated scholar at League of the South.  He can claim his lectures there were for historical purposes, and deny all he wants, but there are just too many connections to him and southern nationalists.
> 
> Also worth checking out: DiLorenzo Rebuttal
Click to expand...


Well to be a southern-nationalist one would have to first be a nationalist in the first place, and since I know that DiLorenzo happens to be a libertarian, not a paleo-con as previously stated, that doesn't really fit.  You and I have gone back and forth on this subject repeatedly, and I respect your knowledge on the subject despite our disagreement, but do you think that I'm a southern-nationalist for making the arguments that I make?


----------



## Ringel05

paperview said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've presented nothing to offer the charge that non-neo-confederate folks suggest neo's want to_ reinstate slavery.  _You  threw that out there and I called you on it. If you want to say  my  response was emotional, so be it.  It looks more like a way to impugn my  presentation than to actually debate.
> 
> If you have heard here or  there someone say (as if it's even  remotely possible) - _southerners want to reinstate slavery_, then you know it's not a common theme in CW  threads.  Have some numbskulls advanced such? Probably.  I think I have  heard *one* in all _my_ decades of discussions.
> 
> I will also add that not only have I engaged the historical conversations for   about as long as you, I have for the last few decades made my living in  history. And a fine living at that.
> 
> Much of my knowledge and perspective comes from touching, owning, archiving,   transcribing and researching literally thousands and thousands of pieces  of original Civil War history - letters,  diaries, journals and documents, some of which are now residing in  museums and Historical Societies. A few in the National Archives and Library of Congress.  They made their way there_ because of me._  Books have been written based on some of my original archives.
> 
> I also spend a great time reading the original source pamphlets,  magazines, newspapers  and books, written AT THE TIME OF THE WAR.
> 
> I have had original documents and letters  of nearly every President and most Founders pass through my hands;  works signed by confederate generals, union generals;  letters, diaries,  journals of the common folk, north and south, all the way down to the lowly private - by the thousands - all  giving me what I think is a rather unique perspective.
> 
> History is not just a hobby for me, it is literally my life. I eat,  drink, live and breath it.  Every day.  Original works.  It sometimes  give me shivers how close I am to the actual human that wrote this or  that piece 150 or 200 years ago.  I live a truly blessed existence.
> 
> Now, again, if you perceive that as emotional, so be it.  What it is is  *passion*.  A passion that has allowed me to not only swim in history,  doing what I love, every single day, for decades now, being my own  boss,  but also being able to enrich the future generations because of what I  discover in the past.
> 
> I could never have been able to do this for as long as I have were it not for this: Passion.  _Blessed, blessed passion_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said nothing to impugn your presentation so as not to actually debate, infact that's exactly what you did to me, reread your response, it was pretty dismissive and snide.  And where did I state all such comments derived from CW threads concerning this topic was my primary source not to mention the fact I only stated "many" which to my understanding doesn't mean most.  Congradulations on your knowledge and ability to make a living at this however the one thing that I've found to help those of us who delve into history is a solid understanding of Cultural Anthropology which gives us insight into the cultures and their norms.
> Also a simple understanding of basic behavioral psychology highlights the danger we as students of history face when delving into complex and emotionally charged subjects.  So, are you ready to come off the defensive and stop attacking me or shall we continue?  Again the choice is yours.
> By the way, have you actually taken the time to read my other posts and hence determine I agree with you about the reasons for the war but also that both arguments were intertwined?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps it was my first interaction with you on this thread, where you  came barreling on about people_ who didn't know what they were talking  about _and _high school versions of history..._
> 
> Perhaps I misread and that wasn't meant to place me in that category.   Still, it was how I first encountered your comments, so maybe that put a  little hair across my hide with you first off.   If I was wrong, I  apologize.
> 
> You must admit the bulk of my frustrated commentary has been in dealing  with someone who claims a BA in history, yet doesn't even know when the  states seceded, was unaware of when the first shots were fired,  apparently hasn't even read the secessionist declarations, claims  Madison favored secession, didn't know submarines were used in combat in  the Revolutionary war, and says that slavery was "off the table" after  Lincoln was elected, amongst other tragically wrong historical facts.  (Not to mention employs 6th grade spelling, and hey, I'm no great  speller, I rarely concern myself with a poster's spelling or typos,   but man, there's some atrocious garble in those presentations) (Get a spell checker, Publius; they're free, you know...)
> 
> As to the fact economics and slavery were intertwined as reasons for  war, of course it was.  It almost goes without saying.  The economics of  the south was completely enmeshed in slavery though.  It was the  literal economic blood.  The tariff argument simply falls on its face  when taking the fact those tariffs had been at their lowest since 1816.   Now, an argument can be made as to how the agrarian economy of the  south was facing peril going forward in an industrial world, and the  threatened prohibition of expansion of slavery was certain to erode their economies  more, how they felt trapped by their own economic and cultural  foundation - but through and through, the preservation of slavery rides  high and above all else as the reasons.
Click to expand...


I had a feeling something negative I posted you misconstrued as being aimed at you, none of that was which was my primary reason to bring up the emotional bias charge, not because of your presentation of the facts but specifically due to your response to me.  
BTW, don't worry about it, you're not the only one who has misinterpreted someone else's intent.


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm fairly certain that Tom DiLorenzo is not a southern nationalist at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Ahem:
> DiLorenzo responds to attacks | Southern Nationalist Network
> 
> Right there, on the front page, his smiling mug.
> 
> He was also an affiliated scholar at League of the South.  He can claim his lectures there were for historical purposes, and deny all he wants, but there are just too many connections to him and southern nationalists.
> 
> Also worth checking out: DiLorenzo Rebuttal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well to be a southern-nationalist one would have to first be a nationalist in the first place, and since I know that DiLorenzo happens to be a libertarian, not a paleo-con as previously stated, that doesn't really fit.  You and I have gone back and forth on this subject repeatedly, and I respect your knowledge on the subject despite our disagreement, but do you think that I'm a southern-nationalist for making the arguments that I make?
Click to expand...

No.  You're just a sweet, lovable guy, who adores southern heritage and has a lot of facts wrong.


----------



## paperview

Publius1787 said:


> ...
> From the earleyer post.
> 
> ...The address of Texas Congressman Reagan on 15 January 1861 summarizes this discontent: "You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue law, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of northern capitalists. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and institutions."
> ...
> I must request a break in descussion of this topic. I have enough references but if I am going to write a college thesis I would rather not do it on an internet forum. You game?



I just had to follow up on this, as one final jab, in hopes to make you open your eyes some.  
You quoted the above a few times, and use this as some kind of _gotcha_ on how Texas Gov. Reagan emphasized the Tariff. 

I've seen this speech bandied about on quite a few neo-confederate websites and by those hoping to drive the_ tariff _point home.

Let me show you what that same Gov. Reagan, in that speech, said in the very next breath:
(Note: This is how revisionism works

Let's pick it up at the last line of the first paragraph you quoted in exaltation of Congressman Reagan:"...You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage relentless crusade against our rights and institutions."

 Now let's see what follows exactly after: *




* 
"*A*nd now you tender us the inhuman  alternative of unconditional submission to Republican rule on abolition  principles, and ultimately to free negro  equality and a government of mongrels or a war of races on the one hand,  and on the other secession and a bloody and desolating civil war, waged  in an attempt by the Federal Government to reduce us to submission to  these wrongs. 

It was the misfortune of Mexico and Central and South America, that they  attempted to establish governments of mongrels, to enfranchise Indians  and free negroes with all the rights of freemen, and invest them, so far  as their numbers go, with the control of those governments. It was a  failure there; it would be a failure here. It has given them an  uninterrupted reign of revolutions and anarchy there; it would do the  same thing here. Our own Government succeeded because none but the white  race, who were capable of self-government, were enfranchised with the  rights of freemen. The irrepressible conflict propounded by abolitionism has produced now its legitimate fruits-- disunion. 

Free negro equality, which is its ultimate object, would make us re-enact the scenes of revolution and anarchy we have so long witnessed and deplored in the American governments to the south of us. 

Congressional Globe, 36th Congress, 2nd Session, I, p. 391​You see? Ignore that part and Gov. Reagan sure looks makes it's clear what the conflict was about.

By all means: Puff up the tariff-imbibed Mr. Reagan  some more.


----------



## Toro

paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahem:
> DiLorenzo responds to attacks | Southern Nationalist Network
> 
> Right there, on the front page, his smiling mug.
> 
> He was also an affiliated scholar at League of the South.  He can claim his lectures there were for historical purposes, and deny all he wants, but there are just too many connections to him and southern nationalists.
> 
> Also worth checking out: DiLorenzo Rebuttal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well to be a southern-nationalist one would have to first be a nationalist in the first place, and since I know that DiLorenzo happens to be a libertarian, not a paleo-con as previously stated, that doesn't really fit.  You and I have gone back and forth on this subject repeatedly, and I respect your knowledge on the subject despite our disagreement, but do you think that I'm a southern-nationalist for making the arguments that I make?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  You're just a sweet, lovable guy, who adores southern heritage and has a lot of facts wrong.
Click to expand...


Kevin's one of the best posters here. He should post more often.


----------



## paperview

Bumping an oldie but a goodie.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Bumping an oldie but a goodie.



Seems relevant considering the pointless "secession petition" nonsense.


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bumping an oldie but a goodie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems relevant considering the pointless "secession petition" nonsense.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I though so as well.

Good to see you Kevin!


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bumping an oldie but a goodie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems relevant considering the pointless "secession petition" nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I though so as well.
> 
> Good to see you Kevin!
Click to expand...


----------

