Grun & Mark AT...... Confederates :D

[GRUNHERZ]

Then say it. Respond wityh a simply worded post that says something like "The south would have seceded even there was no issue of slavery between them and the north"....  Just say something simple like that, no elaboration needed.

[Toad]

I did. Look at the first line of my previous post.

You're being pretty childish here, IMO.

[Toad]

BTW, your attempt to portray the Civil War as having its roots in the single issue of slavery is rejected by just about every historian worthy of the name.

It wasn't a "single issue" problem. Few things are.

[lazs2]

I'll say it... every indicator pointed to the fact that the South would have left the union even without the issue of slavery.   No one can be certain tho.
lazs

[GRUNHERZ]

What I find childish is this attempt to skirt around the whole issue of slavery by groping for every other possible cause. You bring up tariffs for example - do you know why the south was against high tarrifs so much? Because they did a lot of trade worldwide - primarily trade in cotton and tobbaco which were picked by their slaves.  Then you wax poetic about states rights - states rights to mainitain local customs - like slavery.  True most whites did not own slaves - but most of the politically inflential souterners did own them. You think they were not at all concerned about slavery not being allowed to continue in the USA.  And I think its pretty cheap that you try to discount slavery as a natioional political issue before the war. Wht was the compromise of 1850 about? What about the defacto Kansas slavery war - where both sides tried to populate the state with as many pro slavery and abolitionists as to tip the Kansas vote in their side. And then they started fighting and murdering.  What about the national media circus of Harper's Ferry and John Browns trial?

I think its rediculous that you try to minimize that so much.

[Toad]

Slavery was one issue but it was mainly an issue with respect to the extension of slavery into new States and territories. If you disagree with that, you need to do some more factual reading.

I didn't say it wasn't an issue, nor am I trying to "minimize" it. I said it was ONLY one issue an not the determining one in sucession. That's an opinion from my readings and one to which you are apparently vigorously opposed.

Unfortunately for your side of the argument, there are very few, if any, true scholars of American History and the Civil War that agree with your "single issue" viewpoint.

A cusory study of the Abolition movement would show you that it was indeed a minority movement, opposed even in the North. That remained true even after the outbreak of hositilities and there are contemporary newspaper articles and editorials that show that.

The South and tariffs? Your example is of the South as an exporting economy. First, the tariffs were applied to IMPORTS. The South, with nearly no industrial capacity exported relatively inexpensive raw materials and unfinished goods. They IMPORTED expensive finished goods. The tariffs on IMPORTED goods, in those days before the Income Tax, were almost the sole source of funding for the Federal government. Research will show you that the South was paying an extremely disproportionate amount of the bill, much to the delight and benefit of the North.

As Laz pointed out, slavery in the South was failing economically. It would have eventually died out on it's own because it simply was not "good business". Someone else pointed out that the overwhelming majority of Southerners owned no slaves at all.

States rights? It wasn't in the least about "local customs".  Again, in your mono-vision, the only thing you can see is slavery. Please take a look at the changes the Confederates made to the US Constitution when writing their own. It's an easy web search.

I think there you'll find the true "states rights" issues that they felt were not being correctly handled by the Federal Government. It's very important to note that the Confederate Constitution did not change any of the original US Constitution with respect to slavery. For example, the U.S. Constitution ended the importation of slaves after 1808 and the Confederate Constitution simply forbade it. Both constitutions allowed slave ownership, of course. Seems funny the Southern Constitution would forbid the importation of slaves if the war was only about slavery, don't you think?

Again I'll say it. Slavery was indeed an issue between the North and the South. Primarily, it was an issue with respect to the extension of slavery into new States and Territories. But it was only one issue, certainly not the most important issue and not the determining one in sucession.

[Toad]

BTW, how would you interpret this quote from Honest Abe?

From Lincoln's 1861 inaugural address:

 "Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican administration their property [is] to be endangered.... I have no purpose, directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the United States where it exists.... I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

Do you take this to mean that Lincoln was pro-slavery?  

[AKIron]

Slavery still exists today in America. Or at least it would if many had their way. It is perpetuated by a certain political party under the guise of kindness through various welfare programs but with the sole purpose of maintaining power.

Sure, it's slavery with an easier yoke, and may be well intentioned by many, but slavery nonetheless.

[Mark Luper]

If I have learned anything in this thread it is this: I will continue to read the posts in the O Club but shall refrain from any commentary. It is obvious to me I am no where near the scholar most of you are and am definately out of my league in here.

Toad, I thoroughly enjoy your posts, as StSanta has pointed out, you back up your statements with good solid evidence and I always look for your comments when browsing this forum.

Grun, you and I may never agree on anything but even though I beleive you always take a slant I don't care for you too seem to have more knowledge than I on a variety of subjects. I would say though that I don't think you always read replys or posts by others as they are written but choose to read into them what you want.

Most of my views are not always based on facts gleaned from research and reading but on personal life experiences and observations. I find pure research tedious and don't often engage in it. I should I suppose, for my own edification if nothing else.

History has always been a favorite subject of mine and though I don't read as much as I would like or used to, when I do read I gravitate towards books with historical content by authors known for their knowledge of the "Facts". But it still needs to have a good story line .

I salute all posters on this forum, you all make for some interesting reading. As a quality technician I often have time on my hands at work so the first thing I do is bring up this forum and see what the latest discussion is about.

If you don't see any more posts from me it won't be because I'm not here anymore, I'm just lurking in the shadows .

[midnight Target]

Interesting reading all.

I would take exception to one thing I think Lazs said. Technological advances would NOT have had an adverse affect on slavery. In fact history shows just the opposite. The invention of the Cotton Gin in the late 18th century actually saved the slave trade.

Just saying.

[GRUNHERZ]

I was looking at it in a sense of free trade. The southern USA was far more free trade oriented than the north due to reasons both of us stated above. They needed to import a lot and did export a lot so they feared tarrifs for both reasons - on they had to pay a lot for imports and feared tariff reprisals from other governments on their exports. However they screwed the pooch when they introduced the 1828 tarriff that came to be called tarifff of aboninations. It was the south's fault.


But economics is not the point. This argument started when mark thought it inappropriate of me to think erich hartmann was the greatest fighter pilot because of ideological issues with his side during ww2. I simply pointed out that many US guys see no such idelogical issues when it comes to the greatness of certain americans who, perhaps among other things,  fought on the side which wanted to maintain the opression  and tyranny of slavery over some  4 million human beings in 1861 and support a sysem which previously enslaved millions more.  

And franky I dont think trying to minimize the impact of slavery in that war is any justifictaion for removing the moral implications of their actions. That would be like trying to justify ww2 by saying germany had economic opression by way of versailles treaty and that the nazi extermination of jews was not a key aspect in them going to war. You guys are just trying to justify or minimize one evil because you are partial to that side and demonize another evil because you are not.

My view is much simpler and more consitent - I just accept that what they faught for was flawed and evil and then just judge them on their accomplishments and personatities. That way I see both Erich Hartmann and Robert E Lee as "great" or among"the greatest" of their time in what they did - all the while recognizing the severe negative moral impications of what they defended.

[Frogm4n]

Slavery still exists today in America. Or at least it would if many had their way. It is perpetuated by a certain political party under the guise of corporations that pay slave wage's and supply no health care. While this party refuse's to raise the minimum wage to a living wage and supply a national health care service. The sole purpose of this is to make sure the power base in this country stays with the white males.  

Sure, it's slavery with an easier yoke, and may be well intentioned by many, but slavery nonetheless

and akiron is a idiot(had to add this because a political debate isnt a true political debate without name calling)

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Frogm4n
and akiron is a idiot(had to add this because a political debate isnt a true political debate without name calling)

that really hurts....dipshit

[Toad]

Well, as I said before there's that time thing.

Again, let me state that I abhor slavery. However, I cannot see it as the "single issue" that led to the Civil War or even a determining factor in sucession. There's just too much historical evidence to the contrary and that done by folks far more learned than myself.

The Civil War has it roots in a world environment that existed ~180 years ago. A time when slavery was not only accepted, but was "big business" in many, many parts of the globe. Roughly five or six generations removed from us and our world view.

World War II, on the other hand was fought by people that were and still are contemporary to me. Those people are still around and are the shapers of the current world environment.

While I can see some of the Southerners blindness towards the evils of slavery , I can accept that this view of slavery was prevalent in many parts of their "world". Even in the Northern part.  

I have much more difficulty seeing German blindness towards world conquest and the whole "Third Reich" mentality.

These contemporaries of our society HAD to know that the conquest Nazi Germany had embarked upon was immoral. Even in the '30's war and conquest had been "blacklisted" as national tools.

That was pretty much the whole focus and point of establishing the League of Nations, wasn't it?

So, no, I don't see them in the same light.

YMMV.

[Frogm4n]

just trying to prove both sides feel the same way about the middle and lower class's. oh wait i shouldnt say class, we dont have a class system in america:p  lower econmic levels, yea thats a better word. because we americans are above such petty things like class race and what not. thats why if you have money you get into ivy league schools no matter what your grades.

if they get rid of affirmitive action they should get rid of that practice as well and have all admissions based on grades alone. hell our president went to yale because of a kind of affimitive action.