Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Thanks for the reply.
I'm no historian, but I'm almost certain that the the South wouldnt have seceded from the Union if the Northern states were pro-slavery, and didnt present a threat to their right to work millions of Africans to their deaths on their plantations. I can care less if Lincoln was a racist, or whether or not he had ulterior motives for freeing the slaves; what instead is relevant to me is that he supported the abolition of slavery, plain and simple.
I dont know about you, but I simply cant support the South in any way when their #1 REASON or leaving the United States was because they wanted to uphold the institution of slavery. Obviously, I can see why it'd be harder for southerners to let go of this disgusting practice, but I don't think they're deserving of any sort of special sympathy. It's slavery, and it's wrong.
Where do you find justification for supporting the Southern cause?
Pretty much everything you said there is politically correct, but historically incorrect.
The troubles between North and South were over tariffs, not slavery. By 1860, the South was funding 85-87% of the Federal government's total revenue through tariffs that were increasing their cost of living. Almost 9 out of 10 Southerners owned no slaves at all.
American agriculture was booming in the mid-1850's as Southern farms were feeding Europe during the Crimean War. That boom slowed dowed down when the war ended in '56. In 1857, the Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Company had to close its New York office because of embezzlement, which almost caused a run on the banks. That, the economic slowdown, and the Dred Scott Decision caused an economic depression, the Panic of 1857.
Strangely enough, Congress actually did the right thing that year and lowered the tariff rates, and the economy stabilized and began to recover in two years. Just as the economy was beginning to recover, Congressman Justin Morrill of Vermont proposed the Morrill Tariff, threatening to raise the tariff rates through the roof with the Southern states bearing the brunt of it..
Lincoln campaigned in 1860 in favor of the Morrill Tariff. That was why he did not appear on the ballots in any of the Southern states, not slavery. After his election and before his inauguration, he gave a speech in Philadelphia promising to sign the tariff bill if Congress passed it. They did pass it and President James Buchanan signed it into law as one of his final acts.
Contrary to popular belief, Lincoln was not an abolitionist. He did not consider himself one, nor did the abolitionists consider him an abolitionist. Read his First Inaugural Address.
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.
Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them...
Eyeah..this old chestnut.
No..the troubles between the North and the South were very much about slavery. Aside from the moral implications of the practice, there were numerous slave revolts and the courts were being larded with indefensible cases about the rights of slaves.
Initially Lincoln hadn't thought blacks equal to whites, but thought the institution of slavery was wrong. He had no taste to go to war over it either. That changed..along Lincoln's other opinion, that if the American Blacks were liberated, they would be sent back to Africa.
The troubles between North and South were over tariffs, not slavery. [...]
Lincoln campaigned in 1860 in favor of the Morrill Tariff. That was why he did not appear on the ballots in any of the Southern states, not slavery. After his election and before his inauguration, he gave a speech in Philadelphia promising to sign the tariff bill if Congress passed it. They did pass it and President James Buchanan signed it into law as one of his final acts.
Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union:
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."
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.
For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.
On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.
Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.
We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.
Damn revisionist 1860 South Carolinians! Toeing the progressive line again that slavery was their motivation.
Delaware, Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland, and Missouri were all slave states that remained in the Union. If it was all about the "suffering of the black man," then why didn't Lincoln end slavery in those states?
He argued against secession as a Senator from Mississippi, but believed that the right to secession was natural and constitutional so he went along with his state. As to being a traitor, well, I suppose he was a traitor in the same sense that Samuel Adams or Thomas Jefferson were traitors to King George. As to the war leading to 600,000+ deaths, I suppose you should look at who actually wanted the war. That would be Lincoln, not Davis. Davis wanted to secede peacefully, whereas Lincoln was intent on forcing them back into the Union.
Thanks for the reply.
I'm no historian, but I'm almost certain that the the South wouldnt have seceded from the Union if the Northern states were pro-slavery, and didnt present a threat to their right to work millions of Africans to their deaths on their plantations. I can care less if Lincoln was a racist, or whether or not he had ulterior motives for freeing the slaves; what instead is relevant to me is that he supported the abolition of slavery, plain and simple.
I dont know about you, but I simply cant support the South in any way when their #1 REASON or leaving the United States was because they wanted to uphold the institution of slavery. Obviously, I can see why it'd be harder for southerners to let go of this disgusting practice, but I don't think they're deserving of any sort of special sympathy. It's slavery, and it's wrong.
Where do you find justification for supporting the Southern cause?
Pretty much everything you said there is politically correct, but historically incorrect.
The troubles between North and South were over tariffs, not slavery. By 1860, the South was funding 85-87% of the Federal government's total revenue through tariffs that were increasing their cost of living. Almost 9 out of 10 Southerners owned no slaves at all.
American agriculture was booming in the mid-1850's as Southern farms were feeding Europe during the Crimean War. That boom slowed dowed down when the war ended in '56. In 1857, the Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Company had to close its New York office because of embezzlement, which almost caused a run on the banks. That, the economic slowdown, and the Dred Scott Decision caused an economic depression, the Panic of 1857.
Strangely enough, Congress actually did the right thing that year and lowered the tariff rates, and the economy stabilized and began to recover in two years. Just as the economy was beginning to recover, Congressman Justin Morrill of Vermont proposed the Morrill Tariff, threatening to raise the tariff rates through the roof with the Southern states bearing the brunt of it..
Lincoln campaigned in 1860 in favor of the Morrill Tariff. That was why he did not appear on the ballots in any of the Southern states, not slavery. After his election and before his inauguration, he gave a speech in Philadelphia promising to sign the tariff bill if Congress passed it. They did pass it and President James Buchanan signed it into law as one of his final acts.
Contrary to popular belief, Lincoln was not an abolitionist. He did not consider himself one, nor did the abolitionists consider him an abolitionist. Read his First Inaugural Address.
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.
Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them...
Delaware, Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland, and Missouri were all slave states that remained in the Union. If it was all about the "suffering of the black man," then why didn't Lincoln end slavery in those states?
He didn't have the power to do so.
Thanks for the reply.
I'm no historian, but I'm almost certain that the the South wouldnt have seceded from the Union if the Northern states were pro-slavery, and didnt present a threat to their right to work millions of Africans to their deaths on their plantations. I can care less if Lincoln was a racist, or whether or not he had ulterior motives for freeing the slaves; what instead is relevant to me is that he supported the abolition of slavery, plain and simple.
I dont know about you, but I simply cant support the South in any way when their #1 REASON or leaving the United States was because they wanted to uphold the institution of slavery. Obviously, I can see why it'd be harder for southerners to let go of this disgusting practice, but I don't think they're deserving of any sort of special sympathy. It's slavery, and it's wrong.
Where do you find justification for supporting the Southern cause?
Pretty much everything you said there is politically correct, but historically incorrect.
The troubles between North and South were over tariffs, not slavery. By 1860, the South was funding 85-87% of the Federal government's total revenue through tariffs that were increasing their cost of living. Almost 9 out of 10 Southerners owned no slaves at all.
American agriculture was booming in the mid-1850's as Southern farms were feeding Europe during the Crimean War. That boom slowed dowed down when the war ended in '56. In 1857, the Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Company had to close its New York office because of embezzlement, which almost caused a run on the banks. That, the economic slowdown, and the Dred Scott Decision caused an economic depression, the Panic of 1857.
Strangely enough, Congress actually did the right thing that year and lowered the tariff rates, and the economy stabilized and began to recover in two years. Just as the economy was beginning to recover, Congressman Justin Morrill of Vermont proposed the Morrill Tariff, threatening to raise the tariff rates through the roof with the Southern states bearing the brunt of it..
Lincoln campaigned in 1860 in favor of the Morrill Tariff. That was why he did not appear on the ballots in any of the Southern states, not slavery. After his election and before his inauguration, he gave a speech in Philadelphia promising to sign the tariff bill if Congress passed it. They did pass it and President James Buchanan signed it into law as one of his final acts.
Contrary to popular belief, Lincoln was not an abolitionist. He did not consider himself one, nor did the abolitionists consider him an abolitionist. Read his First Inaugural Address.
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.
Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them...
I don't disagree that taxation played a role in the reasoning to secede from the Union, but to say it was the main reason or the ONLY reason - in my view - is incorrect. I believe that without the issue of slavery, and the northern threat to abolish that institution via the Federal Gov't, I don't believe the Civil War would have ever occurred. To say that the threat of the abolition of slavery did not play into the reasoning behind the secession is laughable (sorry, but that's my opinion).
Also, why is it significant whether or not Lincoln was a pure abolitionist at heart anyways? He was driven by northern interests, and he did abolish slavery - didn't he? Actions speak much more strongly than words....
Delaware, Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland, and Missouri were all slave states that remained in the Union. If it was all about the "suffering of the black man," then why didn't Lincoln end slavery in those states?
He didn't have the power to do so.
If he didn't have the power to end slavery in the border states, then he certainly didn't have the power to end slavery in the Confederacy. ...
Two reasons. For starters, as I've already stated in this thread, there were slave states that remained in the Union. So I suppose I can turn your question around on you: Where do you find justification for supporting the northern cause, given that they also practiced slavery? I give neither the side the moral high ground on this issue, and condemn them both. The second reason is that I believe in the right to self-government as put forth by our Declaration of Independence.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Furthermore, I'm of the opinion that if you condemn the Confederates then you must also logically condemn the colonists who seceded from the British Empire. The colonists practiced slavery at the time of their independence, and yet people seem far more willing to forgive them than they are the Confederates. It's hypocrisy, as far as I can tell.
He didn't have the power to do so.
If he didn't have the power to end slavery in the border states, then he certainly didn't have the power to end slavery in the Confederacy. ...
Of course he did, as Commander-in-Chief.
If he didn't have the power to end slavery in the border states, then he certainly didn't have the power to end slavery in the Confederacy. ...
Of course he did, as Commander-in-Chief.
... Then he also had the power to do it in the border states, as Commander-in-Chief.
Two reasons. For starters, as I've already stated in this thread, there were slave states that remained in the Union. So I suppose I can turn your question around on you: Where do you find justification for supporting the northern cause, given that they also practiced slavery? I give neither the side the moral high ground on this issue, and condemn them both. The second reason is that I believe in the right to self-government as put forth by our Declaration of Independence.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Furthermore, I'm of the opinion that if you condemn the Confederates then you must also logically condemn the colonists who seceded from the British Empire. The colonists practiced slavery at the time of their independence, and yet people seem far more willing to forgive them than they are the Confederates. It's hypocrisy, as far as I can tell.
As for what they would have done had things been different, you can only speculate. In reality, the north, generally speaking, was quite content with southern slavery. They didn't want those slaves freed and then emigrating north, which is why some northern states, such as Illinois, had laws against the emigration of blacks into the state. The abolitionists would, of course, have highly favored southern secession, as many had advocated the north seceding from the south. If there was no more political connection between the two regions then the abolitionists would no longer be bound by the the Fugitive Slave clause of the Constitution.
But Kevin, you dont think that there was a very real, and very powerful abolitionist movement brewing in the north? You dont think the southern states felt at all threatened by this, and the growing possibility that the Northern States via their representation within the Federal Govt could abolish slavery at the National level?
Sure, there were Northern practitioners of slavery, but when it comes down to it the North was the half of the country that was threatening to end slavery NOT the south. Agree?
Also, although I believe that States should be allowed to govern themselves to a much greater extent than they are allowed today, I do believe that there are certain rules (certain very important rules that protect the dignity of all human beings) that the Federal Government should be allowed to enforce across the entire country. Making slavery illegal in my view is one of those rules that I deem appropriate for a Federal Government to enforce. A state for instance shouldnt be able to vote that all Mexicans must volunteer at least 15 hrs a week to public service or else be forced to move; the Federal Government should have the ability to prevent that State from passing such a measure..
Furthermore, I'm of the opinion that if you condemn the Confederates then you must also logically condemn the colonists who seceded from the British Empire. The colonists practiced slavery at the time of their independence, and yet people seem far more willing to forgive them than they are the Confederates. It's hypocrisy, as far as I can tell.
Kevin at the time of the American Revolution, the abolition of slavery was not a key driving issue of the war, unfortunately. Both the British Empire and the Colonists supported slavery, so it's really a moot point. It's not hypocrisy at all.
If the British Empire supported the abolition of slaves, and that was one of the key reasons that the Colonists wanted independence, then perhaps there would be some hypocrisy present...
Of course he did, as Commander-in-Chief.
... Then he also had the power to do it in the border states, as Commander-in-Chief.
Only in those states in open rebellion against the Union during a time of war. Come on, you must know this.
Furthermore, I'm of the opinion that if you condemn the Confederates then you must also logically condemn the colonists who seceded from the British Empire. The colonists practiced slavery at the time of their independence, and yet people seem far more willing to forgive them than they are the Confederates. It's hypocrisy, as far as I can tell.
Kevin – at the time of the American Revolution, the abolition of slavery was not a key driving issue of the war, unfortunately. Both the British Empire and the Colonists supported slavery, so it's really a moot point. It's not hypocrisy at all.
If the British Empire supported the abolition of slaves, and that was one of the key reasons that the Colonists wanted independence, then perhaps there would be some hypocrisy present...
Surely slavery itself is the crime, and not wanting to secede to protect slavery? The fact is that the colonists practiced slavery, regardless of whether that was one of the issues that seceded from the British Empire over. Furthermore, the British offered any slave who joined them their freedom. So perhaps Britain really did have the moral high ground against the colonists?
Jefferson Davis was born June 3, 1808, and he was the first and only President of the Confederate States of America. He believed in peace, free trade, and the American idea of self-government.
"All we ask is to be let alone." - Jefferson Davis
