Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Toad on February 26, 2003, 03:47:27 PM
-
Don't want to hijack that airplane thread, so I'll start this one.
I'll take the opposing view. :D
Let me state right up front that I abhor slavery and believe the "South" was incredibly wrong and blind to the injustice created by the "peculiar institution". I'm glad it ended and wish they'd have voluntarily given it up much earlier.
OTOH, I think the Confederate Generals, many of them West Point grads, were overall a very intelligent group, schooled in the Constitution and the relationship of the Army to the government and the Constitution.
I've never been able to find anything in the Contstitution or Bill of Rights or other such documents up to the point of the Civil War that prohibited any State from removing itself from the Union. I've found nothing to that effect in the writings of the Founding Fathers, either.
Therefore, I am somewhat comfortable with the idea that the position of the Confederate Generals and indeed of the political leaders of the South were more astute scholars of the Constitution than Lincoln was. They, in my opinion, were Constitutionally correct in saying they could remove their States from the Union.
Remember too, that "ending slavery" was not a Northern War aim when it all started. The causus belli was "to preserve the Union", a Constitutionally unsupported aim, IMO.
Additionally, there's that pesky 2nd Amendment which meant to allow the people or states to remove themselves from a government that violates the Constitution or behaves in a tyrannical manner. The writings of the Founders support this view, I believe, quite clearly.
Of the two sides, it seems clear to me that Lincoln either had the least understanding of the Constitution or chose to ignore it.
He violated the civil rights of US citizens through conscription, suspended the writ of habeus corpus, and instituted an income tax which clearly was not allowed at that time and is in dispute even now. In the case of Ex Parte Merryman (1861), Lincoln not only ignored the Supreme Court’s ruling, he then wrote out a standing order for the arrest of Chief Justice Taney. Not exactly a Constitutional Champion, eh?
So, can I admire the Confederate Generals? Actually, yes, given that ending slavery was not a Northern War Aim until things were going so badly for the North that Lincoln tried it to put pressure on the South. The Confederates were more clearly Constitutionally correct. IMO.
There's another issue to be considered as cause of the war from which the Southern "states rights" grows. Before his election, Lincoln had promoted very high tariffs on foreign imports, using the receipts to build railroads, canals, roads, and other federal pork-barrel projects.
The tariffs protected Northern manufacturers from foreign competition, and were paid mostly by the non-manufacturing South, while most of the proposed "pork projects" were to be built in the North. Thus the South was being forced to subsidize Northern corporate welfare.
Not suprising they wanted to pull out of that sort of deal, is it?
-
I knew the Civil War was primarily about the right of states succeeding from the Union however was not aware of most of the other items mentioned in your post.
Very interesting and a good read Toad, I will have to do some more reading on the era and events leading up to, during, and immediately after the Civil War. Something other that battles fought is what I mean.
My sympathies lie with the "South" because I am a Southern native. At one time I was even in favor of the attempt at succesion, however looking at things in present day circumstances I have to beleive the right choices were made by all involved even though the "law" apparantly was "broken" in the process.
-
LOL Perfect!
What states rights did they wanna keep? Taxes? Trafic rules? Drinking ages? Slavery?
Anyway I always knew many of you true American patriot guys who supposedly view German WW2 soldiers in a lower light because of ideology of their nation would excuse the idelogical problems of an american who fought for the states right to maintain slavery..
And please dont insult me with distraction that the warwas not, at its core, about the fact that the souther states were afraid that slavery would not be allowed to expand in the united states and that ultimately that it wouls be outlawed in the country as a whole.
BTW I think they are all great Robert E. Lee was prolly the greatest general during the war, just like Erich Harmann was certainly the grestet fighter pilot of the war.
-
I realize you are playing devils advocate TOAD, but lets look at your points:
Therefore, I am somewhat comfortable with the idea that the position of the Confederate Generals and indeed of the political leaders of the South were more astute scholars of the Constitution than Lincoln was. They, in my opinion, were Constitutionally correct in saying they could remove their States from the Union.
Constitutionally correct? So what? I can make the same argument for Hitlers treatment of the Jews being "constitutionally correct". Legal does not equal moral or even right.
Remember too, that "ending slavery" was not a Northern War aim when it all started. The causus belli was "to preserve the Union", a Constitutionally unsupported aim, IMO.
Again a circular argument. "Presereve the Union" was the cause, but why was it being sundered? You and I both know that Slavery was the prime cause no matter how you spin the wording.
-
Grun, please point to the section in my reply to Toad's post where I mention, even in passing, that I support the states rights to maintain slavery. Also, point out to me where I view the Southern States ideology as being one I condone.
I said no such thing, did not even allude to it. The "sympathy" I held at one time was solely with the South's right to succeed, not to foster or maintain slavery.
To compare the "greatness" of Union and Confederate generals during a very dark time in our history to those of a Nazi's regime is a far stretch in my viewpoint.
Erich Hartman will never acheive the status of greatness in my opinion. But then again, that is MY opinion, not yours. You may keep your's and do with it as you will.
-
Secede for what reason - you cannot seperate secession from slavery.
I think you are being two faced and moralizing away the defenders of slavery as just great americans during a dark time.
The same could be said of german soldiers "during a very dark time" in their history....
You lose all right to moralize about the germans if you dont do the same for another failed idelogy - american slavery.
-
I can separate succession from slavery, you may not be able to. I won't be one to "moralize away" anyone for defending slavery.
If you think I am being two faced about anything then there is not much reason to carry this discussion any further. You and I have our minds made up.
-
Im curious how the southers secession was seperate from slavery?
Can you tell me with a straight face and with self respect that the confederate states would have seceded just the same if there was no issue of slavery between north and south?
-
It has become obvious to me that you think I am a liar. That is certainly your perogative. I won't answer that question. Ask those who either know me or have met me and let them tell you what they think.
I cant answer your question without a lot more investigating of the facts as they were at that time. Or at least recorded facts. If I get the time, I may answer you someday, but as of now with 7 day work weeks I don't have much of it.
My thoughts as a youngster were always the right of independence of each of the states. I took issue with "yankees" saying we couldn't do so. I was naive about a lot of things. If my investigation shows me that the only reason the states wanted succession was to support slavery then I guess you would be right about that.
Does that change my views on whether I think the "South" was wrong to try to succeed? No it doesn't. I do not condone the enslavement of humans by other humans any more than I can condone an ideology that likes to bake them in ovens.
The Nazis were sick. Anyone that chose to belong to the party has to take at least partial blame for what that ideology did. In my opinion of course.
If I had to choose though I would much rather make excuses for the "South" and "Confederacy" in general than to be continuously fawning over the Nazi war machine.
-
Who says Erich Hartmann was in the Nazi party? Or even Gunther Rall. What about Rommel and the 5,000 or so officers and soldiers who were implicated in the July 20 hitler assasination attempt - were they die hard nazis or even party members? ?Did you know german military officers were actually forbidden to join political parties?
How is enslaving people against their will and fully having their lives in your hands significantly different than enslaving them and then killing them? In fact many have said, not that I neccesarily agree to the fullest extent, that slavery was in fact a form of genocide in itself on account of lives lost and cultures destroyed.
And you use the word "fawn" - well arent secession apologists like you fawning over the late heroes of the south who fought for many years so that southern states could keep their right to enslave, including lynch runaways, seperate families, or steal babies from mothers to over 4 million human beings circa 1861?
I dont think I ever accused you of being a liar - in fact I think you are being exceedingly honest and therein lies the problem for you- your hyporcicy is exposed and challenged.
-
What they wanted to keep was the sovereignity of the individual state. I think if you'll do some serious reading, you'll find that slavery was NOT the issue with the men you are discussing.
I guess you'll take this as an insult ;) but the war was not intially at it's core about slavery.
Like I said, the deeper you read, the more you will come to this conclusion. Read the actual writings of the individuals involved.
-
MT, what is immoral about an individual state's right to secede? As I said, there is nothing in the writings of the Founder's or in the Constitution itself that indicates this would not be a state's choice.
To compare it to genocide is a bit of a reach, don't you think?
Sucession isn't a moral issue at all. Don't see how u can cast it as such.
-
Originally posted by Toad
What they wanted to keep was the sovereignity of the individual state. I think if you'll do some serious reading, you'll find that slavery was NOT the issue with the men you are discussing.
I guess you'll take this as an insult ;) but the war was not intially at it's core about slavery.
Like I said, the deeper you read, the more you will come to this conclusion. Read the actual writings of the individuals involved.
I REALLY don't want to get involved in this, BUT, you are dead on the money. The truth is that Lincoln was a wise man. He needed a war to obtain his goals. He wanted a true Union under one governing authority, the US government. The States at this time were not exactly sovereign, but were independant in the way they conducted interstate/intrastate commerce. Lincoln and his supporters wanted more control over the states.
Slavery, was another dividing issue, but was not foremost on the table. But Lincoln wisely saw its volatility and used it to gain support and further push the southern states to conflict.
People like to rewrite history in regards to slavery. Today it is still a touchy subject.
-
As for slavery itself, we see it in a much different light now with our 20/20 hindsight.
The Constitution allowed slavery. These men were part of that system, that Constitutionally allowed system, since birth. And in that era, slavery was not uniformly seen as abominable in the US or indeed across much of the globe. I believe it's a mistake to apply our values to them; it's about a 150 year difference. (Before you start, Grun, I believe our current morality is essentially the same as it was in the '30's and '40's. If anything we've become more permissive since then. But in the 30's conquest of your neighbors wasn't considered moral. Heck, WWI was just ~20 years past, well within the memory of those involved. In fact, many/most were prior participants.)
Here's a short clip on the Constitution & Slavery.
Thus, in spite of a warning from Virginian George Mason that slaves "bring the judgment of Heaven on a country," the continuance of slavery was clearly sanctioned in the U.S. Constitution, although the words slave and slavery are not found anywhere in the document.
Section 2 of Article I states that apart from free persons "all other persons," meaning slaves, are each to be counted as three-fifths of a white person for the purpose of apportioning congressional representatives on the basis of population. Section 9 of Article I states that the importation of "such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit," meaning slaves, would be permitted until 1808. And Section 2 of Article IV directs that persons "held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another," meaning fugitive slaves, were to be returned to their owners.
The Bill of Rights, adopted in 1791, says nothing about slavery. But the Fifth Amendment guaranteed that no person could "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Slaves were property, and slaveholders had an absolute right to take their property with them, even into free states or territories.
-
Grun, what have I said that makes me a hypocrite? I have maintained the same stance since we began this discussion in the other thread.
I do not support the ideoligy of slavery. I have said so repeatedly. If the South's reason for succession was in fact slavery then I dont support that ideoligy at all. I do not support the ideoligy of genocide either. Nazis did. If you flew an airplane or drove a tank with a swastika on it you supported the Nazis whether you beleived in their beleifs or belonged to the party or not. No difference.
Those Nazi pilots were part of Hitler's propaganda and his war machine. If they didn't want any part of it then they could have capitulated to the allies easy enough.
Now, I did say that if I "had to choose" to make excuses for one of the two mentioned ideoligies it would have been the Confederate one primarily since I havn't established to my satisfaction that the Civil War was just about slavery, but since I don't HAVE to choose, I prefer to not make excuses for either.
-
Many U.S. servicemen fought under the Confederate battle flag during World War II. The fighting ability of the Confederates is well recorded in history... even the Germans feared it!!! Whenever they saw that flag, they knew they were in for a fight.
I think mostly tank crews painted it on the side of their tanks.
I remember seeing a movie...could've been Midway , where one of the aircraft carriers had a Confederate battle flag flying from the topsail. (CSN battle ensign)
I believe this flag was in common use during WWII on all fronts. It is an American flag, and represents American ideals, values and courage. Infantry adopted a flag which was unmistakable in battle, because the First National Flag looked too much like the Union forces' flag. And the Second National Flag resembled a white flag of surrender. So, they adopted the naval jack of the CSN, which was at first was only flown from warships, i.e. Alabama, Florida (brigantines), and Virginia, Tennessee (ironclads.)
............................. ............................. ............................. ........................
The reasons for the Civil War (War Between the States) are very complex. Slavery, while a "cause de guerre" in the final conflict, was one of many issues leading up to the war. You would just about have to be a PhD in History to delve into this very complex study, and even then, there would be disagreements.
I believe the states' rights issue had much to do with taxation without representation, and was probably viewed by the Southern states as a hostile business tactic employed by the seat of the Union in Virginia (Washington), to squeeze tax money from the profits of slave labor, at the same time, counting Negro slaves as 3/5 rather than full "votes" in the U.S. Constitution. Thus short-changing the South on its representational strength by population. Not exactly fair, but accepted by Yankees.
The South still has not recovered from the Civil War, due to Reconstruction...the price paid for losing the most bitter war in American history.
Les
-
Point of fact... ready? VERY FEW Southerners owned slaves. These men didn't fight a war to protect the rights of the eliet to own human beings. The fought for a way of life and a culture that they saw threatened.
Second POF... WHAT was the name of the Confed's? Oh yea, Confederation? What does this imply? The North was a Federation ie Federalist type of goverment..ie strong central government w/most of the final authority. The Confederation was a group of states where most of the authority wass found w/in the State Governments.
What does the 2nd paragraph imply? Rights... states rights. There was a basic underlying difference of how the states should be governed and this was a basic underlying cause of the war.
History books like to write it as a war to end slavery. If the South had not of tried to leave the US I doubt that slavery would of been abolished untill the early 1900's or perhaps the late 1800's.
-
Toad wrote:
The Bill of Rights, adopted in 1791, says nothing about slavery. But the Fifth Amendment guaranteed that no person could "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Slaves were property, and slaveholders had an absolute right to take their property with them, even into free states or...
Interesting. This means that slaves weren't considered persons? In other words, their humanity was denied them, and they were relegated to the same status as for instance a wagon?
This view was common in Europe too. But back in the Viking days when we had 'træler', that is, captured/kidnapped enemies, while they were used as slave labour, there was no attempt at denying their personhood. And treatment was generally relatively fair by comparison.
So it seems with the introduction of Christianity and more importantly the passing of time, values shifted.
Please post more Toad; I am not always in agreement with you, but you always support your position with outside references, and I value that.
-
Santa, then you will enjoy this. A very good article. Even the footnotes are interesting.
A Jeffersonian View of the Civil War (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/miller1.html)
Here's one of the footnotes:
After the war Robert E. Lee also wrote, "The best men in the South have long desired to do away with the institution [of slavery], and were quite willing to see it abolished. But with them in relation to this subject is a serious question today. Unless some humane course, based on wisdom and Christian principles, is adopted, you do them great injustice in setting them free." (Thomas Nelson Page, Robert E. Lee: Man and Soldier [New York, 1911], page 38.) Lee did not own slaves (he freed his in the 1850s), nor did a number of his most trusted lieutenants, including generals A. P. Hill, Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson, J. E. Johnston, and J. E. B. Stuart.
The population of the United States in 1860 was 31,101,000, of which 21,244,000 lived in the North and 10,957,000 in the Confederacy. In the Confederate states 5,447,000 of these people were white, 133,000 free black, and 3,951,000 were slaves. There were 320,000 deaths in Union forces, 3.2 percent of the total male population; and 300,000 deaths in the Confederate forces, 9.7 percent of the (white) male population. This death rate, with the current population of the United States 284,050,000, would be equivalent to 6.5 million men being killed today. Most of those killed were teenagers and men in their 20s.
-
..... and Lee's view on slavery in his own words.
Robert E. Lee letter dated December 27, 1856:
I was much pleased the with President's message. His views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people at the North to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South are truthfully and faithfully expressed.
The consequences of their plans and purposes are also clearly set forth. These people must be aware that their object is both unlawful and foreign to them and to their duty, and that this institution, for which they are irresponsible and non-accountable, can only be changed by them through the agency of a civil and servile war. There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race.
While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy.
This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day.
Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?
-
And this snip from R. E. Lee: A Biography by Douglas Southall Freeman published by Charles Scribner's Sons, New York and London, 1934 :
THE ANSWER HE WAS BORN TO MAKE (http://www.ku.edu/history/index/europe/ancient_rome/E/Gazetteer/People/Robert_E_Lee/FREREL/1/25*.html)
Duly on the morning of April 18 Lee rode over the bridge and up to the younger Blair's house on Pennsylvania Avenue, directly opposite the State, War and Navy Building, where he found the old publicist awaiting him. They sat down behind closed doors. Blair promptly and plainly explained his reason for asking Lee to call. A large army, he said, was soon to be called into the field to enforce the Federal law; the President had authorized him to ask Lee if he would accept the command.
Command of an army of 75,000, perhaps 100,000 men; opportunity to apply all he had learned in Mexico; the supreme ambition of a soldier realized; the full support of the government; many of his ablest comrades working with him; rank as a major general — all this may have surged through Lee's mind for an instant, but if so, it was only for an instant. Then his Virginia background and the mental discipline of years asserted themselves. He had said: "If the Union is dissolved and the government disrupted, I shall return to my native state and share the miseries of my people and save in defence will draw my sword on none." There he stood, and in that spirit, after listening to all Blair had to say, he made the fateful reply that is best given in his own simple account of the interview: "I declined the offer he made me to take command of the army that was to be brought into the field, stating as candidly and as courteously as I could, that though opposed to secession and deprecating war, I could take no part in an invasion of the Southern States." That was all, as far as Lee was concerned. He had long before decided, instinctively, what his duty required of him, and the allurement of supreme command, with all that a soldier craved, did not tempt him to equivocate for an instant or to see if there were not some way he could keep his own honor and still have the honor he understood the President had offered him. Blair talked on in a futile hope of converting Lee, but it was to no purpose
-
One last bit on Lee:
Robert E. Lee
to
His Siblings
Arlington, Virginia
April 20, 1861
Mrs. Anne Marshall
Baltimore, Maryland
My Dear Sister:
I am grieved at my inability to see you. I have been waiting for a more convenient season, which has brought to many before me deep and lasting regret. Now we are in a state of war which will yield to nothing. The whole South is in a state of revolution, into which Virginia, after a long struggle, has been drawn; and though I recognize no necessity for the state of things, and would have forborne and pleaded to the end for redress of grievances, real or supposed, yet in my own person I had to meet the question whether I should take part against my native State.
With all my devotion to the Union, and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relative, my children, my home. I have, therefore, resigned my commission in the Army, and save in defense of my native State (with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed) I hope I may never be called upon to draw my sword.
I know you will blame me, but you must think as kindly as you can, and believe that I have endeavored to do what I thought right. To show you the feeling and struggle it has cost me I send you a copy of my letter of resignation. I have no time for more. May God guard and protect you and yours and shower upon you everlasting blessings, is the prayer of
Your devoted brother,
R. E. Lee
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Arlington, Virginia
April 20, 1861
Sydney Smith Lee
Washington, D.C.
My Dear Brother Smith:
The question which was the subject of my earnest consultation with you on the 18th instant has in my own mind been decided. After the most anxious inquiry as to the correct course for me to pursue, I concluded to resign, and sent in my resignation this morning. I wished to wait till the Ordinance of Secession should be acted on by the people of Virginia; but war seems to have commenced, and I am liable at any time to be ordered on duty which I could not conscientiously perform. To save me from such a position, and to prevent the necessity of resigning under orders, I had to act at once, and before I could see you again on the subject, as I had wished. I am now a private citizen, and have no other ambition than to remain at home. Save in defense of my native State, I have no desire ever again to draw my sword. I send you my warmest love.
Your affectionate brother,
R. E. Lee
-
Don't be so fast Toad
I'm just reading a book about independance war I can't keep up with ya ;)
-
Which one are you reading?
Can't help it.... I've been reading like a fiend since I was in about 4th grade. ;)
-
I've a french book as I reserve some English one you pointed to me for my next vacations :)
Look here :
http://www.amazon.fr/exec/obidos/ASIN/2070294129/171-9089553-7357818
For my library instead of counting books I've choosen a new method : I use meter :D (I'm to an avid reader)
I'm about 10 meters now from novel to sci-fi (comics included)
-
It looks like Kaspi writes a lot about Les Américains; enjoy.
-
toad is correct as far as he goes.
mt.. there was no constitional freedom in germany that allowed for the extermination of jews.
The south should have been allowed to leave the Union (acording to our constitution). A war fought for human rights could still be fought and... even it the north had won the fight they should have still recognized the souths soverignty. I doubt that the north would have attacked a soverighn south over the issue of slavery... at least not for some time to come. Slavery, like all bad ideas was dieing out. even at that early stage... mechinization would have totaly eliminated it as well as world opinion. The south would have done much better under it's own trade rules with other nations and... other nations would have pressured the south into getting rid of it's immoral and ineficient slave system.
The north taking over the south was simply imperialism.
lazs
-
Genesis of the Civil War (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/civilwar.html)
But why would the South want to secede? If the original American ideal of federalism and constitutionalism had survived to 1860, the South would not have needed to. But one issue loomed larger than any other in that year as in the previous three decades: the Northern tariff. It was imposed to benefit Northern industrial interests by subsidizing their production through public works. But it had the effect of forcing the South to pay more for manufactured goods and disproportionately taxing it to support the central government. It also injured the South’s trading relations with other parts of the world.
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.
Not a factor?
-
Just come out and say that the south would have seceded even if there was no issue of slavery between them and the north.
Come on, go say that with a straight face....
OMG now the south slavery/secession apologistsis are complaining about the injustice of being held in slavery.
And I was waiting for you to bring up the "tariff of abomination" - that was in fact a southern idea and they only have themselves to blame for even bringinging it up for consideration.
-
Given the disparate economic situation between the North and the South and the North's exploitation of the South, yes, I'd say that.
Then there's the writings of those actually involved on both sides, North and South. You'll find Abolitionists are a very tiny, vocal minority even in the North.
I think you'd come to realize that slavery was not the determinant factor if you did any real study of American history from the 1820's up to Fort Sumter.
I'd also suggest reading the Confederate Constitution. Well, at least a summary of the changes. It's generally regarded as an amended US Constitution with changes where the South felt they were needed. I think you'll find those changes illuminating.
-
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.
-
I did. Look at the first line of my previous post.
You're being pretty childish here, IMO.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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? :D
-
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.
-
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 ;).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
Slavery was banned by the major European poeers early in the 1800s. Internatinal slave trad was also banned. I think only Brazil and the Southern states in the western/european world had slavery to such an extent by the 1850s and 1860s. I dont think Robert E Lee was so stupid or blind when he faught for virgina that one of the things he was fighting for was indeed the institution of slavery. Its quite clear slavery was largely taboo in the west by the mid 1800s.
As to slavery not being a key cause to secession and your arguments that the real reasons were economic differences between north and south and some issues of "states rights" with the exception of slavery. The key economic difference between north and south are rooted in slavery. The south was agricultural and was involved in the international trade of those goods - their agricultural system was based on large slave labor plantations. All implications of tjose ecomomic differences then are rooted in slavery. And thats why the south faught so hard before the war for expansion of slavery in the west and Kansas - they were afraid of becoming isolated if no more slave states joined the union.
States rights. Why didnt states like massachussets or pensylania secede? Surely the opressive federal governmebt took away their rights. The fact is the southern states were ultimately afraid of loosing their states rights to slavery because of northern abolitinists influence and federal meddling as was seen in the 1850s with regards to the westward expansion of slavery.
And its a funny thing how the nazis also made similar arguments but they are not valid because there are still people of that generation alive? Im not sure how that makes sense Toad. The simple matter is both cause were misguided and supported evil things while both made somwhat valid excuses for their actions.
-
Note I said "roots".
We'll agree to disagree then.
At least I got you two out of the airplane thread, eh?
-
I am almost surpised that no one has mentioned that there were several officials and prominent northerners that were slave owners (I understand that Ulysses Grant himself was a slave owner). Also, am I correct in stating that the Immancipation Proclamation released only those slaves in the southern states, not those above the mason dixon line?
edited for puncuation
-
Yea, this was a good thread on it's own. :)
-
Took me a minute.... or two.
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/aladem.html
Platform of the Alabama Democracy
Adopted at Montgomery, January, 1860
1. Resolved by the Democracy of the State of Alabama, in Convention assembled, That holding all issues and principles upon which they have heretofore affiliated and acted with the National Democratic party to be inferior in dignity and importance to the great question of slavery, they content themselves with a general re-affirmance of the Cincinnati Platform as to such issues, and also endorse said platform as to slavery, together with the following resolutions:
2. Resolved further, That we re-affirm so much of the first resolution of the Platform adopted in Convention by the Democracy of this State, on the 8th of January, 1856, as relates to the subject of slavery, to wit: "The unqualified right of the people of the slaveholding States to the Protection of their property in the States, in the Territories, and in the wilderness in which Territorial Governments are as yet unorganized."
3. Resolved further, That in order to meet and clear away all obstacles to a full enjoyment of this right in the Territories, we re-affirm the principle of the 9th resolution of the Platform adopted in Convention by the Democracy of this State on the 14th of February, 1848, to wit: "That it is the duty of the General Government, by all proper legislation, to secure an entry into those Territories to all the citizens of the United States, together with their property of every description, and that the same should remain protected by the United States while the Territories are under its authority."
At least in the State of Alabama, slavery seemed to be the most important issue.
-
"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.
It did not apply to slaves in border states fighting on
the Union side; nor did it affect slaves in southern areas already
under Union control. It would not apply to any State or part of a State that was under Union control or renounced sucession by January 1863...it was issued 22 September 1862.
Pretty thin as support for a "war against slavery", isn't it? Slaves are OK... unless they're in a State or part of a State still in rebellion against the Federal Government.
;)
-
You are twisting the point a might bit there TOAD. (Notice 19th century slang to get in the mood).
Never said it was a "War against slavery", I said Slavery was the primary cause of the seccession.
May 3, 1860: Democratic Convention adjourns after Deep South delegations withdraw over the slavery plank in the platform.
Then there is The Crittenden Compromise was one of several last-ditch efforts to resolve the secession crisis of 1860-61 by political negotiation. Authored by Kentucky Senator John Crittenden (whose two sons would become generals on opposite sides of the Civil War) it was an attempt to resolve the crisis by addressing the concerns that led the states of the Lower South to contemplate secession. As such, it gives a window into what the politicians of the day thought the cause of the crisis to be.
The Compromise, as offered on December 18, 1860, consisted of a preamble, six (proposed) constitutional amendments, and four (proposed) Congressional resolutions. The text given here is taken from a photocopy of the Congressional Globe for December 18, 1860.
The full text is
found here (http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/cc.html)
All 6 of the proposed amendments dealt with the issue of slavery.
-
roadkill.
-
Incisive comment there Leslie. All of it, some of it or just one part of it all? ;)
-
Gotta go work out, MT. Will return to this later. Just a note though; look at the platform adopted by the Dems in June, 1860 and tell me where it's anti-slavery.
Back later, but for now:
The intensifying sectional conflict signalled by the Dred Scott decision helped to splinter the Democratic party into three factions, each of which nominated a candidate to oppose Lincoln. Northern Democrats generally supported Stephen A. Douglas, Lincoln's old rival from Illinois; the "Little Giant" supported the notion of "popular sovereignty" and opposed a move by Southerners to include a repressive slave code plank in the Democratic platform.
After Douglas' nomination, a group of Southern delegates left the Democratic convention and adopted their own, more stringent proslavery platform. They eventually nominated John C. Breckinridge, Vice President of the proslavery Buchanan administration.
An effort to reunite the Democrats at a new convention failed when Douglas supporters blocked a move to readmit the Southern "bolters" who left the first convention.
he more moderate Southerners, claiming a power base located mainly the northern areas of the South, called themselves the Constitutional Union party and nominated John Bell of Tenessee on a platform calling for preserving the Union and enforcing its laws.
Despite the fact that the Republicans nominated Lincoln precisely because he was the consummate moderate on the issue of slavery, and therefore stood the best chance of carrying critical Northern states... .
... With only about 40 percent of the popular vote, Lincoln garnered 180 of the 303 electoral college votes, a testament to the comparative power of the Northern states. The splintering of the opposing party undoubtedly contributed to his victory; if the Democrats had pooled their votes, they may have been able to swing a sufficient number of Northern states their way.
Looks to me like the Dems self-destructed which undoubtedly helped Lincoln win. Remember, however, that Lincoln was the "moderate" on slavery.
So if you're going to make the case that the slavery issue fractionated the Dems, giving Lincoln, a moderate on slavery the White House and THIS caused secession... well, I can see the train, but I think it's a bit of a reach and ignores the State's Rights issues that underly the ENTIRE situation.
Again, look at the changes made to the US Constitution in the Confederate version. I think that tells you where THEY, the secessionists, think the problem was.
Off to work out. Later.
-
LOL. A debated thread between Grunherz and Toad, and I have to say Grun articulates my beliefs pretty much point by point.
one and all for a reasonable debate. I'm surprised this topic took so long to come up.
Charon
-
From the Douglas Faction of the Dems.
6. Resolved, That the enactments of the State Legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Law, are hostile in character, subversive of the Constitution, and revolutionary in their effect.
-
Take a look at that again, MT.
I think it is saying that attempts to defeat the faithful execution of the Fugitive slave law are wrong.
-
That is exactly what it is saying. Obviously an attempt to placate the souther faction of the Democratic party. Just more evidence that Slavery was "THE" issue. Attempts to downplay the role of slavery is just revisionism.
(I mean that with all due respect BTW. I am not comparing you to a Nazi apologist or a holocaust revisionist in any way..... sheesh I can just imagine the flame war that would start!)
-
Again a circular argument. "Presereve the Union" was the cause, but why was it being sundered? You and I both know that Slavery was the prime cause no matter how you spin the wording. [/B]
This is not true. Word it how you want it. It was not about slavery.
-
No sa 'massa sa was not bout slavery t'all.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
No sa 'massa sa was not bout slavery t'all.
“It is not humanity that influences you… it is that you may have a majority in the Congress of the United States and convert the Government into an engine of Northern aggrandizement… you want by an unjust system of legislation to promote the industry of the United States at the expense of the people of the South.”
Slavery would have faded away within 10 or 15 years without
the civil war...
It was about money and control.
Get a grip.
-
Are you saying that all the most powerful and influential souterners who made such a fuss about extending slavery to the newly acquried western territories and to kansas were convinced that slavery only had 10 to 15 years past 1860?
And again if there was no slavery motivation in secession and it was purely about federal agression and supression why didnt states like pennsylvania or massachusets or new york secede from the union as well - surely their states rights were violated by the federal goliath?
Nobody here has given a reason for the south to secede that did not find a root in slavery.
STATES RIGHTS ARGUMENT: The right to slavery...
ECONOMIC DIFFERENCES ARGUMENT: Rooted in south's slave agriculture....
TARIFF INJUSTICE ARGUMENT: Largely same as above...
FEDERAL OPRESSION ARGUMENT: Rooted in western areas slavery dispute...
What other reason is there?
It always comes down to slavery to a great extent, that was they key difference between north and south, be it in economics or politics.
-
I can't believe I'm on Grun's side on this one. :)
X2lee, go read the Crittenden Compromise, and the platform of the Alabama Democracy. Slavery Slavery Slavery..
-
Why are you suprised?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Why are you suprised?
Because you're a right wing reactionary, leather panty wearing, sheet toting, Limbaugh wannabe.....
;)
Other than that I don't have a clue why we agree. :D
-
Gettin' busy here.
Can we agree that the Dred Scott decision was the fork in the road that eventually led to the Civil War?
Now, you'll say that proves it was about slavery.
I'll say you are absolutely wrong.
The summary:
Supreme Court. In Scott v. Sanford the Court states that Scott should remain a slave, that as a slave he is not a citizen of the U.S. and thus not eligible to bring suit in a federal court, and that as a slave he is personal property and thus has never been free.
The court further declares unconstitutional the provision in the Missouri Compromise that permitted Congress to prohibit slavery in the territories.
In fact, the compromise is already under assault as a coalition of political leaders—some slaveholders, others westerners who resent the federal government's ability to dictate the terms of statehood—claim that territorial residents should be able to determine on what terms they enter the union.
The decision in Scott v. Sanford greatly alarms the antislavery movement and intensifies the growing division of opinion within the United State. The newly-formed Republican Party, which opposes the expansion of slavery, vigorously criticizes the decision and the court.
Question of slavery? No. Question of law. The Southerners "won" this one, no matter how morally reprehensible their support of slavery.
Nonetheless, despite their "win" their Constitutional "rights" as slaveholders were continually ignored and the laws that support them were unenforced.
This, IMO, is what drove sucession. It was the failure of the rule of law. The Southerners were well educated men. Many of the Founders had Southern backgrounds. They knew what their ancestors had put into the Constitution and they knew their "rights" were being denied.
Now, you can "shoot the messenger" but look at it from the other side:
Had the Constitutional guarantees provided for slavery been enforced, would their have been sucession and Civil War? (And those guarantees were there, were validated in the Supreme Court and were all the Southerners were asking for.)
Highly unlikely.
-
What would give you that impression? IIRC I dont think I ever heard or watched a single limbough program...
-
A law matter dealing with slavery.... Its like saying the holocaust of WW2 was not about exterminating jews but about laws, laws like the enabling act, that gave hitler the absolute power to commit such crimes.
And why were the laws not enforced? Maybe because many people found slavery abhorrent and voiced their opinions. Wouldnt that clash with your earlier general argument that the south had no cause to think slavery was passe or unacceptable?
And by briniging up the scott case and its mention of the 1850 compromise we again see another exmple of the states rights and federal goliath argument framed with the issue of expansion and persitance of slavery.
So far you pretty much cannot bring up support for secession that is not linked to slavery.
Ask yourself why does your example, which you state proves it wasnt about slavery hinge on a legal case centered on slavery?
-
Nah, Grun you are merely overlooking the true cause here. Constitutionally, the South had every right to own slaves. Their rights were being denied. That's what caused secession. Not slavery per se... the denial of Constitutional rights.
Beyond that, you in your mono-vision fail to even consider the other grievances, like tariffs, that the South had. Tariffs were unrelated to the slave issue. Your insistance that they were ignores the fact that the South had little in the way of natural resources and little in the way of manufacturing capability as a result.
You want to pick one thing and focus on that to the exclusion of all others.
I'm not buying it; it's not that simple. The evidence is out there if you'll trouble yourself to read other views.
-
Lets look at Tarifss.
Q: Why did the south import so many foreign goods?
A: Because their economy was based on slave agriculture and they had little manufacturing of their own.
Q: Why did the south have so much business with foreign markets and how could they pay for all those high tarif froeign goods and complain about the tariffs in the first place?
A: Cotton, grown, picked, and processed by slaves and sold to foreigers.
Q: What comprised some 60% of all US (north and south) exports for the period?
A: Cotton, slavery cotton.
Q: Who's fault was the high tariffs after 1828?
A: The south, tariff of abominationatos was their idea and it backfired on them splendidly.
I find it strange how you characterize my argument as "mono" in fact I agree there were many causes but they were mainly rooted in the basic difference between north and south - the role slavery played in their world.
And again you say it wasnt about slavery, well why isnt a legal/constitutional dispute centered on slavery considered about slavery?
Do you think they would have seceded based on those grounds if there was no dispute about slavery?
You cant sererate them toad. So far your every example of of non-slave secession issues has centered on slavery.
Do you really expect people to accept your argument about the constitutionality of slavery to to not be considered a secesiision issue centered on slavery?
-
BTW since we have all the good confederates here any of ya'll got a good dixie mp3? I'd like a snappy instrumental brass one like you would hear in civil war movie when the rebs are marching off to war.
-
Actually, I think they'd have seceeded over the tariff issue eventually, if unresolved.
You see it perhaps as a Constitutional issue brought on by slavery.
I see it as a Constitutional issue, one example of which is slavery.
Be that as it may, I find I can respect Lee, particularly after reading his own writing on his reasons for resignation from the Union Army.
That's not something I am personally capable of doing with the men that conquered for the 3rd Reich.
But, you and I aren't going to agree on it... ever.... so there you go.
-
.. and no, I don't have "Dixie" nor do I have any Confederate flags.
-
Originally posted by Toad
.. and no, I don't have "Dixie" nor do I have any Confederate flags.
I could have gone all day without hearing that Toad. You need to get with the business my friend. What are you, a commie or something?:)
Les
-
I have two Confederate battle flags in my house. One is in the computer room, and the other is in my bedroom. I do not display this flag publicly, mainly because I don't want to have my house burned down.
On the other hand, I'm from Alabama, and having a Confederate flag in my bedroom helps me sleep at night. It works.
Les:cool:
-
I grew up in Fredricksburg, Va. If you go to places like the "Wildernes", Fort Ap Hill, Manasas, hell even stand on the hill looking across the Field at Gettysburg you cant possibly think that men, poor southern dirt farmers, who suffered as a result of slavery, fought and died for some rich plantation owners.
Thats just complete absolute roadkill.
They fough for the same reason men fought against the British during the War for Independence. These men were Virginians, Georgians 1st then Americans. Their state and their rights as a state were more important to them then any "Union". They were against an expanding intrusive Federal government and had no use for "Presidents" or "Kings". So much so the even Jefferson Davis had a tough time organizing the Confederation.
Slavery was on the way out any way, the world had changed and the South would have too.
Find
Hoyt Axton's
oh I'm a good 'ole Rebel .mp3
Its from Songs of the Civil War.
Great tune
-
Oh, I'm a good ole Rebel
That's just what I am.
For this fair land of freedom
I don't give a damn.
I'm glad I fought against it
Only wish we had won.
I want you to know.
I got the rhumatism
a camping in the snow.
But I killed a chance of Yankees
and love to kill some more.
Three hundred thousand Yankees
in snow and dirt and dust.
We got a hundred thousand
Before they conquered us.
I got the Rhumatism
a camping in the snow.
But I killed a chance of Yankees
and I'd love to kill some more.
I hate the Yankee nation
and everything they do.
I hate the nasty Eagle
with all its brag and fuss.
I hate the Constitution
and I won't be Reconstructed
and I don't give a damn.
But the lying, thieving Yankees
I hates 'em worst and worst.
:D
Les
-
Damn you kinda butchered but close enough :)
I got the mp3 and zip to ya if ya want :)
-
Thanks Batz, but I have the Julian Rayford version on a casette tape. Rayford was an artist during the 40s. Haven't listened to that tape in 20 years. But I still remember parts of it.:D
Still have the tape somewhere around here. Gotta be stoned to listen to it though. It's a good one.
Les
-
Lets really simplify this little issue.
South: We have the right to own slaves!
North: You may be right but slavery is wrong and we are going to try and stop it.
South: Told you we were right!
:rolleyes: <---for animal
-
Except, of course, that that is not at all what the North "said". But carry on. :D
-
Yea, I know, but this is way more fun than pasting all that evidence.
-
Yeah........ Weazel seems to agree... and a few others. :)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yeah........ Weazel seems to agree... and a few others. :)
But it takes way too long to do it. This took me a whole minute. ;)
In President Lincoln's first inaugural address, he said, "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." During the war, in an 1862 letter to the New York Daily Tribune editor Horace Greeley, Lincoln said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery."
From: http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/98/civil-war.htm
-
Doesn't matter what motivation led the North to fight for the Union. What matters is the motivation of the South to secede. Quote Lincoln all you want. Then go read the platform of the Alabama Democracy, or the text of the Crittenden Compromise and tell me the South's secession had nothing to do with the protection of their right to own slaves.
(in my best Foghorn Leghorn) - BS suh I say BS.
-
What I find funny is this southern attempt to skirt around the obvious.
Let me ask you this why should we place any credibility on the southern view that the war was not about slavery when many southerners of the time quite honestly belevied slavery was a good thing for blacks?
Why was it only that the big slave interest states secedded? Why didnt massachussets secede? Why did all the "states rights" sates just happend to be the big slave states?
Reading you guys skirting around the obvious is comedy...
-
Educate Yourselves (http://The Constitution of the Confederate States of America)
In framing the Constitution of the Confederate States, the authors adopted, with numerous elisions and additions, the language of the Constitution of the United States, and followed the same order of arrangement of articles and sections. The changes made in this adaptation of the old Constitution are here shown. The parts stricken out are enclosed in brackets, and the new matter added in framing the Confederate Constitution is printed in italics.
-
The Short Version:
The Confederate Constitution
By Randall G. Holcombe
Special interests have long used the democratic political process to produce legislation for their own private benefit, and the U.S. Constitution contains flaws that make this easier. One attempt to remedy these flaws was the Confederate Constitution.
The Confederate Constitutional Convention opened in February 1861. Robert Barnwell Rhett of South Carolina, called the "Father of Secession" for initiating his state's breakoff from the union, thought that the U.S. model was the best. The other 50 delegates agreed. He nominated Howell Cobb, a Georgia attorney and former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, to preside over the meeting, which was completed by March I 1, 1861. By the end of that year, 13 states had ratified the new Constitution.
In broad outline, the Confederate Constitution is an amended U.S. Constitution. Even on slavery, there is little difference. Whereas the U.S. Constitution ended the importation of slaves after 1808, the Confederate Constitution simply forbade it. Both constitutions allowed slave ownership, of course.
In fact, slavery only became a constitutional issue after the war had begun. In his 1861 inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln said, "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 inclina6on to do so."
But the differences in the documents, small as they are, are extremely important. The people who wrote the Southern Constitution had lived under the federal one. They knew its strengths, which they tried to copy, and its weaknesses, which they tried to eliminate.
One grave weakness in the U.S. Constitution is the "general welfare" clause, which the Confederate Constitution eliminated.
The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the 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."
The Confederate Constitution gave Congress the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, for revenue necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States..."
The Southern drafters thought the general welfare clause was an open door for any type of government intervention. They were, of course, right.
Immediately following that clause in the Confederate Constitution is a clause that has no parallel in the U.S. Constitution. It affirms strong support for free trade and opposition to protectionism: "but no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importation from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry."
The use of tariffs to shelter domestic industries from foreign competition had been an important issue since tariffs were first adopted in 1816. Southern states had borne heavy costs since tariffs protected northern manufacturing at the expense of Southern imports. The South exported agricultural commodities and imported almost all the goods it consumed, either from abroad or from Northern states. Tariffs drastically raised the cost of goods in the Southern states, while most of the tariff revenue was spent in the North.
The Confederate Constitution prevents Congress from appropriating money "for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce" except for improvement to facilitate waterway navigation. But "in all such cases, such duties shall be laid on the navigation facilitated thereby, as may be necessary to pay for the costs and expenses thereof..."
"Internal improvements" were pork-barrel public works projects. Thus the Southern Founders sought to prohibit general revenues from being used for the benefit of special interests. Tax revenues were to be spent for programs that benefited everyone, not a specific segment of the population.
In another attack on pork-barrel spending, the Confederate Constitution gave the President a line-item veto. "The President may approve any appropriation and disapprove any other appropriation in the same bill." Anticipating the U.S. Constitutional amendment that would become necessary after Franklin Roosevelt's four terms, the President himself would serve only one, six-year term.
In many circumstances, Confederate appropriations required a two-thirds majority rather than a simple majority. Without the President's request, for example, a two-thirds majority of both Houses would have been necessary for Congress to spend any money. This one provision, if adopted in the U.S. Constitution, would eliminate much of the spending that goes on today.
The Confederate Founders also tried to make sure that there would be no open-ended commitments or entitlement programs in the Confederate States. "All bills appropriating money shall specify...the exact amount of each appropriation, and the purposes for which it is made," said the document. "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." Such a provision would have eliminated the cost-overrun," a favorite boondoggle of today's government contractors.
The Confederate Constitution also eliminated omnibus spending bills by requiring all legislation to "relate to but one subject," which had to be "expressed in the title." There would be no "Christmas-tree" appropriations bills or hidden expenditures.
These changes would have had a profound effect in keeping government small and unintrusive. Their inclusion demonstrates much wisdom on the part of Confederate statesmen in improving on the Founding Fathers. Unfortunately, the federal government was not willing to let them give their system a try.
---------
Randall G. Holcombe, an adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute, teaches economics at Florida State University.
The Confederate Constitution (http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=353)
-
What were the confederate states exporting?
-
What did the Confederate states find so onerous in the US Constitution that they felt they had to change it?
:p
-
Toad tell me what the south was exporting?
-
Primarily agricultural products.
Now, did you read the Constitution?
You have to answer, or I'll keep posting the same question.
A few questions for you:
During the US Slave Trade, what were the two primary home ports of slave ships?
At the outbreak of the Civil War, what percent of the Southern population were slaveholders?
The money generated by what prior industry funded much of the North's subsequent industrialization?
Like your questions, though, the questions themselves and the answers to them have nothing to do with the primary cause of the Civil War.
However, if you bother to read the Confederate Constitution, the changes tell you EXACTLY what areas caused the problem.
And, it's about the oldest reason for war around.
-
Northern States, on entering into the Federal Compact, pledged themselves to surrender such fugitives; and it is in disregard of their constitutional obligations that they have passed laws which even tend to hinder or inhibit the fulfillment of that obligation. They have violated their plighted faith. What ought we to do in view of this? That is the question. What is to be done? By the law of nations, you would have a right to demand the carrying out of this article of agreement, and I do not see that it should be otherwise with respect to the States of this Union; and in case it be not done, we would, by these principles, have the right to commit acts of reprisal on these faithless governments, and seize upon their property, or that of their citizens, wherever found. The States of this Union stand upon the same footing with foreign nations in this respect.
A statement during the debate for secession in the Georgia legislature.
Toad - You keep trying to prove that the Southern States were rightiously wrapped in the Constitution. They were! The Constitution agreed with all of their points of protest. But the above quote points up the gist of the problem. Northern States had chosen to ignore or to pass laws that were in direct contravention of the Fugitive Slave Act. These laws were illegal as hell. But they were also Moral as hell. There were also powerful factions in the North that wanted to ensure that new States did not allow slavery. Also essentially illegal, but moral as hell. So you can argue that the South had the rule of law in their favor and be correct, yet the real problem had everything to do with the ownership of human beings.
-
MT, there's two ways of looking at it and perhaps I haven't explained that as well I might.
Slavery was obviously AN issue. I don't see it as THE issue.
The crux, to me, was that the Southerners would no longer tolerate deprivation of their Constitutional rights. That's THE issue.
I acknowledge that slavery was ONE of the factors that brought the "Constitutional rights" issue to the point of secession.
I'm sorry but I don't see slavery as the ONE thing that led to secession.
The ONE thing was deprivation of Constitutional rights.
The Confederate Constitution highlights the areas where the Southerners felt the US Constitution need amending to provide the protection intended by the founders for the indvidual states. Notice that they essentially didn't change the Constitution with respect to slavery. But there are OTHER areas that clearly concerned them and the tariff situation is one of them.
So, we're not going to agree. You and Grun and assign the whole secession issue to slavery alone. Fine. Some scholars have done that.
There are others that take a wider view and include other important factors.
I still respect Lee. I don't respect the Nazis.
Lee said he wouldn't draw his sword unless Virginia, his sovereign home state, was invaded.
Galland went off to Spain and later the rest of Europe as an invader.
Big difference.
Was Galland a great stick? Yep. Do I admire him? Nope.
There... there's some more wood on the fire! ;)
-
Funny, I agree with you completely regarding Lee and Galland.
-
Originally posted by -ammo-
I Also, am I correct in stating that the Immancipation Proclamation released only those slaves in the southern states, not those above the mason dixon line?
It freed slaves in those states "in rebellion against the United States"
In all other states it was up to the state goverment. Kinda ironic?
-
Did some research on the Crittenden Compromise, and this is what I gathered from it. Alabama was probably the most moderate state involved in the secession crisis, and could have been swayed either way concerning secesssion.
On January 7, 1861, the Secessionist govt. and legislature called for elections to a convention. Cooperationists opposed immediate secession. In preliminary votes, cooperationist resolutions opposing immediate secession were narrowly down by a count of 53-46. However, on January 11, following news that Mississippi and Florida had seceeded, and that South Carolina had repelled Federal efforts to relieve Ft. Sumter, the convention adopted an ordinance of secession by a vote of 61-39. Secession of other states proceeded after this, having a domino effect.
The U.S. Senate refused to consider Crittenden's proposal, which was an extension of the Missouri Compromise, only the Crittenden Compromise included territories all the way to the Pacific. Six Southern Democrats in attendence refused to vote. The vote record shows that the entire Republican party opposed consideration of Crittenden's Compromise, and this was the major reason for the compromises' failure.
A Peace Convention was called by Virginia on January 19 to avert war by finding a compromise to restore the Union. Seven seceeding states boycotted the peace convention. Also Arkansas, California, Oregon, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnisota did not send representatives.
The Montgomery Convention convened on the same day as the Peace Convention. Most of the delegates were moderates and not ardent secessionists. They rapidly put together a provisional constitution, which was adopted four days later.
Here's my source:
http://www.tulane.edu/~latner/Dilemmas/DJan16.html
Les
-
Thanks toad... I had never really read the confederate constitution. I like it a lot. We would be well served by it.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Toad
During the US Slave Trade, what were the two primary home ports of slave ships?
And, it's about the oldest reason for war around.
Its so amazing that history has been rewritten
"the civil war was fought over slaves"
The northern aggressors didnt give a hoot about the slaves.
They wanted control over the south.
They still pass unconstitutional laws to this day.
They had no right to do what they did.
It still burns my arse hot when I think of Atlanta...
-
Hehe...All I know is that as a Kansas Resident who works in Missouri, I watch my back :)
I've got guys working for me that still wear Quantrail T-Shirts! :eek: (j/king on the watch the back thing, but NOT on the Quantrail thing!)
Those guys still hold a grudge from the "Bloody Kansas" days.
Cobra
-
Originally posted by Fridaddy
It freed slaves in those states "in rebellion against the United States"
In all other states it was up to the state goverment. Kinda ironic?
Not ironic, hypocritical is the word.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
A law matter dealing with slavery.... Its like saying the holocaust of WW2 was not about exterminating jews but about laws, laws like the enabling act, that gave hitler the absolute power to commit such crimes.
No, its like saying "ww2 was fought over the jews"
-
I'm getting in late on this topic. Haven't read all the posts but would like to offer a few comments on some of the statements made in those I have read.
1. The Civil War had multiple causes. When Toad states that slavery was not the major issue impelling the Southern states to the separation he is correct. Slavery did not become the cause celebre of the Northern government until Great Britain began rattling it's sabre in 1862. How many of you realize that the British had begun massing an army in Canada for a possible invasion of the North? Lincoln used McClellan's victory at Antietam and the Emancipation Proclamation to place the North's war effort on a "higher moral footing" in the hopes that this would derail attempts by members of the British Parliament to intervene in the conflict. All references to the war, prior to Antietam, by Lincoln or the press, speak of the war as a struggle to preserve the Union. One wrap on the knuckles Grun, for sleeping during history class.
2. The war WAS fought largely by members of the Southern yeoman class. While some of them were slave owners, most owned only two or three, and worked beside them in the fields. The impression held by many modern Americans that southern agricultural society was made up mainly of large plantations is erroneous. The impression left by "Gone With the Wind" is a crock. Two thirds of all southern farmers did NOT own slaves. When they fought, they fought to expel invading armies from their home states and to protect their farms against the depredations of those armies.
3. MT, you are mistaken to believe that technology would not have eliminated slavery. It would not have happened quickly, but it would definitely have happened. The use of manual labor to hoe and pick cotton persisted until my lifetime. The cotton picker eliminated that need completely about 30 years ago, which was about the last time I remember seeing "pore fokes" picking cotton by hand in the fields. However, slavery would not have persisted that long. Competition for foreign markets, principally by Egypt and India, drove a stake through the heart of the Southern cotton economy during the late 1800s. Slavery would "probably" have died a natural death by the year 1900.
4. Grunherz, the state of South Carolina seriously considered seceding from Union because of the tariff as early as 1828. The central argument then, as it was in 1860, was the issue of "state's rights." While slavery, and its spread into the western territories purchased from France and seized from Mexico, remained a volatile issue, it was the heavy taxation of imports by the tariff that the Southern states felt were the greatest threat to their economic way of life. Another rap on the knuckles for sleeping during history class.
5. MT, if stating that slavery was not the main cause of the Civil War is "revisionist history" then what are we to say about the claim that "the tariff was not a major contributing factor to the war." One rap on the knuckles for falling hook, line, and sinker for the myth of the "Great Crusade."
Regards, Shuckins
-
a modern example of techno eliminating "slavery" is farm workers. Anyone recall the tomato picking/sorting machines? they had 20 illegals on each side of running board like extensions of what was basicly, a 40 foot conveyor belt. the illegals (well, mostly illegals) would sort the tomatoes as they went by.. red or green... we were told that we couldn't get rid of this form of modern slavery since tomatoes would go to 40 bucks apiece or so if we paid decent wages and didn't turn a blind eye to illegals.
I said... good... let the friggin tomatoes go to 100 bucks a piece... It will get fixed then.
The mexicans themselves brought it to a head... they unionized and people strengthened the border patrol. tomatoes went up maybe double maybe a little worse for a SHORT while.
Someone put a lazer on the sorter. It could tell red from green. We are still left with the legacy tho... If you watch a sorter in the field you will see a long machine with running boards the entire length of both sides but.... it will have only 3-6 people on it.
lazs