Question about the south

[Brenjen]

I missed no point, you missed mine. I saw none of what you describe & have lived in the south over 30 years. It was you who stated some facts not in evidence. I merely pointed out the that your one unique experience was not in fact typical.

 I happen to know racism is more of a problem in the north from my wife who lived in northern Ohio her entire life & the 90% of my relatives who live in Indianapolis & have for decades.

 Excuse me if I see & understand the insinuations made by posters. I will not hesitate to say aloud what others hint at. People insinuate so they can later say "I didn't say that" when tey get an opposing opinion.

 Holden is wrong.

 You are wrong for implying racism is a rampant southern tradition & taught in schools.

 If people want to ignore the fact that the Confederacy fought the Federal govt. over states rights then be my guest. It is said the victor writes the history & yet the facts are still out there & people still choose to believe the war was over slavery & racism. Clearly it is you who believe this that are slaves; slaves to your own conscience over something you had nothing to do with.

[culero]

Originally posted by midnight Target
snip
The "states rights" issue was SLAVERY. The South didn't secede due to tarifs. As Holden pointed out so deftly SLAVERY was there before the constitution, it precipitated the silly 3/5ths compromise and it was the reason for the huge separation between North and South.

Actually, there was a strong push for secession in the South in the 1830's that was prompted specifically by Federal tariffs. It got far enough that President Andy Jackson prepared to make war to put the movement down. The tariffs tended to benefit the industrial North and strangle the agrarian South, due to the different nature of their income sources. Economics were the motivator of the tension.

Slavery was another facet of this disparity of economic interest between North and South. Its true that slavery became the final straw, and thus the issue most cite as the "cause", but its inaccurate to say that its what the South fought for.

In fact, the issue of state's rights had been festering since George Washington left office and economic interests were the root cause of the conflicts between North and South. The South finally felt backed into enough of a corner that it decided to secede because of its perception that the North was becoming predominate in political power enough to deny the South what it perceived as its right to self-governance. It wasn't morals that made them ready to fight if need be - it was economics.

culero

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Brenjen
Holden is wrong.

You are wrong for implying racism is a rampant southern tradition & taught in schools.

If people want to ignore the fact that the Confederacy fought the Federal govt. over states rights then be my guest.

Why was "states rights" not enumerated in the peace conference document?  Slavery was.

Why was slavery documented in the reasons for seccesion in SC, Miss, Georgia, and Texas?

I am just looking at the historical documents which don't single out stuff like tariff policy, but they do document slavery.

Mississippi said in its reason for seccesion document, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery--"  Look at the document and find a statement so blatently clear on tariff policy... There is one on "invasion", but this was passed in Jan 1861.  Well before Lincoln was president, and well before federal troops invaded the south to quell the armed insurrection already in progress.

Interesting that not one free state left the union...  I guess they had no greivance.

 here you go

And the coup de gras... MT agrees with me.  When Midnight Target and Holden agree there is only one conclusion.  It must be the truth.

[Toad]

Succintly well put Culero.

[Holden McGroin]

I would agree with Culero.  It was about economics.  It's nearly always about economics.  

It was about the possible loss of the second largest valued property (only behind land) in the south.
 
It was about whether stolen property was returned to it's rightful owner.

It was about allowing southerners to move to western lands and take their property with them.

It was about the agriarian economy of the south and how cotton, tobacco, and the other crops were harvested.

[Brenjen]

I can't state any more plainly than what I already have numerous times, but here goes.

  Lincoln was willing to leave slavery alone as an impetus for the South to stay in the federal union and they secceeded anyway, so how could it be the deciding factor? If it was they would have accepted & stayed in the union.

Slavery was another facet of this disparity of economic interest between North and South. Its true that slavery became the final straw, and thus the issue most cite as the "cause", but its inaccurate to say that its what the South fought for.

 And there is another fairly good way of expressing it.

 Even the Confederate commander Gen. Lee was quoted as saying he wished the south had freed the slaves first & then declared war. He understood the power the negroes plight would have on peoples emotions & thereby would increase the size of the union forces.

 For some reason people even today will ignore facts because of these same emotions. I do not understand why. The institution of slavery was bad, it's wrong to keep another human being as property & I wish no one had ever brought one captive negro here. Then we would all be equal & there would be no reverse racism & affirmative action. The South would still have formed the Confederacy & would still have been beaten, but at least we wouldn't have to listen to all the BS about slavery for an endless eternity.

[Toad]

Originally posted by culero
The South finally felt backed into enough of a corner that it decided to secede because of its perception that the North was becoming predominate in political power enough to deny the South what it perceived as its right to self-governance.

culero

And again the Constitution enumerates no power to the Federal Government to prevent a State from leaving the Union.

As we've seen Lincoln had no qualms about violating any and all parts of the Constitution as he saw fit.

Thus the South was not allowed to depart the Union, an act to which they were Constitutionally entitled. (10th Amendment, powers reserved to the States).

No Constitutional violation by Lincoln, no Civil War.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Brenjen
I can't state any more plainly than what I already have numerous times, but here goes.

Lincoln was willing to leave slavery alone as an impetus for the South to stay in the federal union and they secceeded anyway, so how could it be the deciding factor? If it was they would have accepted & stayed in the union.

Apparently you haven't read Mississippi's reasons for secession:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery--[/b]

The Mississippi legislature wrote it down and published it.

[culero]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I would agree with Culero.  It was about economics.  It's nearly always about economics.  

It was about the possible loss of the second largest valued property (only behind land) in the south.
 
It was about whether stolen property was returned to it's rightful owner.

It was about allowing southerners to move to western lands and take their property with them.

It was about the agriarian economy of the south and how cotton, tobacco, and the other crops were harvested.

All true, but IMO it should also be said:

It was about the industrial economy and larger population of the North, and the South's (IMO accurate) perception that the North wished to achieve political superiority.

There is no denying that slavery was the catalyst that precipitated the conflict. However, its not true that slavery was the only impetus. The South seceded in an attempt to take control of its own political and economic destiny.

culero

[Brenjen]

I guess it's all in how the individual views it. I really didn't think it was possible, seeing as how it's pretty cut & dried. But Culero sees it a little differently than I do; we see it very close to the same, but not exactly. Toad & I vary by about the same degree. Holden, you putting up one State as an example & we are talking about the entire nation of the Confederacy, (actually a superbly highjacked thread entirely by accident of course).

 I have said it before, what is in your face obvious to me, isn't to someone else & vice/versa. We will never agree, but I respect your opinions.

 I will have my second natl. flag, it's the flag under which my counties volunteers whipped the Union regulars to a stand still & routed their advance, saving Little Rock for another year. A mere few hundred men against thousands.

 If I choose to fly it, I will show propper respect & fly the flag of the United States of America first. You just have to understand, we have a fighting spirit here that runs deep, a lot of the suburban areas of the U.S. are what the southerners used to be. We wave at people we don't even know driving down the back country roads, we're hospitable to strangers & will stop to help a child or a woman in distress, sometimes even a man if he looks out of place. We will also go toe to toe with 10 to 1 odds if we feel the need.

 Some people call us rednecks, mostly because of the outdoor labor a lot of us do, but the southern style can be found in Wyoming & Montana & Oregon; all sorts of quiet places where people are friendly & will speak to wrong numbers on the phone like a friend. I just keep in the back of my mind what my South African partner told me once, "There are bananas everywhere Brent" I knew that, I just needed reminded of it. There are racial tensions in the south, of course. But it seemed more prevalent in the urban north. There was segregation in the south (the north too in places) for decades, & Reggie White brought out some very interesting points in a book he wrote concerning how the negros were better off under segregation. It's an interesting read. Yes, it's all in the eye of the beholder.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Brenjen
Holden, you putting up one State as an example & we are talking about the entire nation of the Confederacy, ...edit... Yes, it's all in the eye of the beholder.

Well you read my snip from Mississippi...

Here's a snip from Georgia... (the very first lines)

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.  

Here's one from SC...

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.  

(so the unconstitutional behavior at which they were angry was related to...)

Here's Texas...

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--  

So of the four states that wrote down their reasons, slavery was preeminent in all four. The unconstitutional behavior at which they were angry was related to slavery as enumerated in the four documents.  they say things like,
 

"The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States"  

So the grievance about concentration of political power was threatening to, "use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States".  What institution did the slave holding states have that the non slave holding states did not have?

[101ABN]

Originally posted by nirvana
Piggly Wiggly?

oh no... not Piggly Wiggly.... ha ha ha.. that has to be the poorest store in the nation.. ha ha ha

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
And the coup de gras... MT agrees with me.  When Midnight Target and Holden agree there is only one conclusion.  It must be the truth.

Or time for a snowball fight in hell.

[Toad]

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

And here's the part Holden left out of Georgia's Secession document, It just happens to be the very next sentence:

They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.

"Constitutional obligations".

In the case of South Carolina, this quote has lain unused:

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

 

In the matter of Texas, this quote was overlooked.

For these and other reasons, solemnly asserting that the federal constitution has been violated and virtually abrogated by the several States named, seeing that the federal government is now passing under the control of our enemies to be diverted from the exalted objects of its creation to those of oppression and wrong, and realizing that our own State can no longer look for protection, but to God and her own sons-- We the delegates of the people of Texas, in Convention assembled, have passed an ordinance dissolving all political connection with the government of the United States of America and the people thereof and confidently appeal to the intelligence and patriotism of the freemen of Texas to ratify the same at the ballot box, on the 23rd day of the present month.

Gee...they all mention that their Constitutional rights have been "violated and virutally abrogated" by the Federal Government. Of course, they were absolutely and unarguably correct.

That they were mad as hell and they weren'nt not going to take it anymore.

And there's not a thing in the Constitution that says they can't withdraw from the Union. There's no enumerated power given to the Federal Executive to use force to stop a State from withdrawing from the Union.

So th South was right on both Constitutional issues.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Toad
And here's the part Holden left out of Georgia's Secession document, It just happens to be the very next sentence:

-----
They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.
-----
"Constitutional obligations".

"Constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property"...  Just what was "that property"?  ... Slaves

Good point Toad.

Originally posted by Toad

In the case of South Carolina, this quote has lain unused:
----
The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.
----

Did you mean to mention a passage that had the line, "The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government"? This is in reference to westward expansion and the legislative balance between slave and free states being upset.  Why would they care unless they were trying to protect something that the slaveholding states had that the non-slave holding states did not have?

Once again you butress my argument that the right to hold slaves was the preeminent reason for secession.

In the matter of Texas, this quote was overlooked.
---
For these and other reasons, solemnly asserting that the federal constitution has been violated and virtually abrogated by the several States named, seeing that the federal government is now passing under the control of our enemies to be diverted from the exalted objects of its creation to those of oppression and wrong, and realizing that our own State can no longer look for protection, but to God and her own sons-- We the delegates of the people of Texas, in Convention assembled, have passed an ordinance dissolving all political connection with the government of the United States of America and the people thereof and confidently appeal to the intelligence and patriotism of the freemen of Texas to ratify the same at the ballot box, on the 23rd day of the present month.
---
[/B]

And what were "these reasons"?

As I said before,

Originally posted by Holden McGroin

Now the declaration of Texas does have some other reasons, although Slavery is the first one mentioned and is mentioned frequently throughout the document. Texas does include greivances of lack of protection against Indian attacks and "Banditti" from Mexico. But it asserts that the reason for this lack of protection was because it was a slave holding state, and it seems that a strong reason for it's secession was it did not wish to be left alone in the south as a union outpost and felt it was more akin to the Confederacy.

Originally posted by Toad

In the case of South Carolina, this quote has lain unused:

----
The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.
----

"The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government,"--- why not just the "states" why just the slaveholding states?  Weren't all the states under the same constitution?  I wonder (once again) what was it that seperated slave holding states from non-slave hoilding states?  Maybe slavery?

Originally posted by Toad
Gee...they all mention that their Constitutional rights have been "violated and virutally abrogated" by the Federal Government. Of course, they were absolutely and unarguably correct.

That they were mad as hell and they weren't not going to take it anymore.

And there's not a thing in the Constitution that says they can't withdraw from the Union. There's no enumerated power given to the Federal Executive to use force to stop a State from withdrawing from the Union.

So the South was right on both Constitutional issues.

The constitutional issues were driven by slavery.  

As SC said,

A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.

No state north of that line seceeded.  The issue was slavery.