61
   

The Confederacy was About Slavery

 
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 05:07 pm
@Ionus,
To deny that the Civil War was NOT over slavery is incorrect and shows that someone has been peddled a bill of goods. ALl the activities that led up to the Secession of the several southern states had to do with trying to make compromises in slavery by
1limiting the slave states

2defining which new states entering the Union were slave states

3defining what a human v a slave was

4requiring citizens to assist "slave cathcers " to return human "proprty"

Several shootouts and riots occured during the 1850;s that presaged a coming conflict and further defining its root cause. In my home area "The Christiana Riots" were called the opening shots of the Civil War and they occured in 1851.
Grant, in a communication with a foreign dignitary a few years after the war stated that "Keeping the Union together and then, finally trying to bring it back together by force of arms was "All done to remove the evil practice of slavery from our continent".

"States rights" is actually nothing more than a code phrase of the revisionist righties.
David Tatum Jr
 
  0  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 05:10 pm
Slavery was a factor in the war true but not about abolishing it ! It was about who would control it ! The new western areas that were opening up were the battle ground. The north did not want the job competition that slavery presented.
Taxes andTariffs were the cause of the war. The taxes and tariffs caused the south to succeed !
And the south succeeding erased the tax base for the north’s infrastructure !
Had Lincoln allowed the states to leave the union the north would have collapsed.
Treason ? No way --
Without surrendering their sovereignty, the States ratified the
Constitution, entering into a voluntary compact under it. In so doing, each
State reserved for itself the full measure of sovereignty it held before
joining the compact, and expressed that in the 10th amendment to the
Constitution. State sovereignty meant that any or all of them had the right
to freely withdraw from that compact whenever it became destructive of the
ends for which it was established.

Rockhead
 
  3  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 05:11 pm
@David Tatum Jr,
secede...
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 05:15 pm
@joefromchicago,
Quote:
Even the poorest of the "poor white trash" could be reassured that there would always be someone lower than them on the socioeconomic ladder. Poor whites were some of the biggest supporters of the confederacy
Thats a rather dubious statement. The white farmers quite often, esp towards the end of the war, went home to plant crops. They were in the war out of pride in who they were and it had nothing to do with feeling superior to slaves.
Quote:
Quote:
mysteryman wrote:
Was slavery an issue in the war?
Yes, but it was a minor one.
What was the major one?
The south was never comfortable with joining the USA and this is reflected by the constitution, which goes too far to reassure the southern states that they will be catered for in the union. That legacy, plus the expanding union, convinced the southern states that their initial reservations were well founded. Using every excuse they could, they legally seceeded from the union. Not prepared to see another Europe on their continent, the North waited till the south acted to remove northern forts from southern territory. Claiming they were attacked, the north declared war.

The aftermath of the war was the south had been destroyed, not to release slaves, but to guarantee they would not have the option of seceeding again. Many blacks bought the noble idea the war had been fought to liberate them and moved north to look for work and also because they thought incorrectly, that the north wanted them.

Look at the big picture....from the 13 colonies to the end of the Civil War. There is a clear trend towards the rights of the individual, but there is more obviously a trend to keep the country together despite some states having misgivings about being members. The Confederacy was about states who were always reluctant members not prepared to lose anymore political power, but preferring to be independant. Slavery was not the issue. White indentured slaves continued on many years after black slaves were freed. Freeing the slaves was about winning a war, not starting one.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 05:27 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
What do you allege that Buchanan or the Congress were doing in the winter of 1860-61 to "dilute" the Southern vote which justified those states making war on the Federal government


it is not about what happened in 60-61, it was about what was going to happen. The Northern states were increasingly of the opinion that they had the right to ram anti slavery bills though Congress, and because the Southern Vote had been diluted by a bunch of states joining the union, almost all being free states, the anti slavery political pressure groups had the ability to do so. This minority, the Southern States, were powerless to stop it. This is reflected in the Texas Declaration of Secession:

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


0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 05:28 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
1limiting the slave states
2defining which new states entering the Union were slave states
These are about political power. No-one cared enough about blacks to kill more of their white countrymen (as a percentage of the pop) then the rest of their wars combined.
Quote:
3defining what a human v a slave was
4requiring citizens to assist "slave cathcers " to return human "proprty"
These had already been agreed upon and were not what the war was fought over.

Quote:
Grant, in a communication with a foreign dignitary a few years after the war stated that "Keeping the Union together and then, finally trying to bring it back together by force of arms was "All done to remove the evil practice of slavery from our continent".
Yes, and Wellington said of Waterloo that it wouldnt have done if he hadnt of been there. Brave noble words that are full of self-righteousness.


Quote:
"States rights" is actually nothing more than a code phrase of the revisionist righties.
Where is **** for brains and his disagreement with using throw away one liners ?

farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 08:30 pm
@Ionus,
Im being lectured by someone who is basically ignorant of this issue. Ive been a civil war freak becassue it fits in with my Love of Indian lore and geophysics really well. Historians argue that there were about 5 reasons for the civil war and 4 of those were about slavery.In no order of importance and off me head. LEt me relate/

1The abolition movement in the north was a vital and growing political force since the late 1700's. Uncle Toms Cabin used to play to packed houses all over the North.

2Economic differences betweenthe S and the N. The south was essentially a "one crop industrial base" (cotton). Cotton was grown in huge plantations and slaves were needed to make a plantation system work. The SOuth feared the Norths economic power and the industrial revolution that presented us with newere and bigger farm implements. The SOuth hung on to slavery as a kind of "tool"

3.States Rights-Its an issue that, while not slavery centered, was behind the paranoia of the SOuth and their march toward the "Nullification process" for whichever CFR's they chose to nullify.

4A demarcation between slave and non slave states was gettinh heated. LAws like The Missouri Compromise of 1820, Dred SCott, The Wilmot Proviso and the more successful 1850 Compromise, The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, the Kansas Nebraska Act of 1854--all were about slavery states and boundaries as I previously stated (there may be more but not off the top of my head do I recall em)

and importantly

5 The election of Lincoln. He was a known abolitionist and therefore was feared by the South

So, I ve presented 5 reasons, and four of which had to do with slavery.

hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 09:51 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
3.States Rights-Its an issue that, while not slavery centered, was behind the paranoia of the SOuth and their march toward the "Nullification process" for whichever CFR's they chose to nullify.
the south was not paranoid, this got proven when the North decided that this problem was worth going to war over. The rest of the nation was willing to use force to get the southerners to knuckle under.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 10:51 pm
Your persistence is not admirable because you persist in peddling lies. The states of the South began the war, they did not have war thrust upon them. Lt. Slemmer spiked the guns at Fort McCrae and Fort Barrancas after an armed mob had attempted to seize the Federal property there in January, 1861. Militia from Florida and Alabama had already seized Federal property, and Slemmer did not intend to let the military stores for which he was responsible fall into their hands. He did not act offensively.

The effective blockade of the Federal installations in the harbor at Charleston, South Carolina began in December, 1860. Major Robert Anderson withdrew muskets to arm his detachment from the Federal arsenal in Charleston, and state authorities began to occupy existing water batteries on the edges of the harbor and to construct new ones. Anderson then withdrew his forces from Fort Moultrie, rightly considering it indefensible, and took up a position in Fort Sumter. Anderson did not act offensively.

The states of the southern confederacy committed acts of war against the Federal government. They acted offensively, not defensively. They brought war upon themselves, they did not have it thrust upon them. They were guilty of criminal hubris which would claim the lives of more Americans than had all of her other wars. Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.

Not only are you peddling bullshit, you continue to offer comments which are not germane to the topic of the thread. This is understandable, given that you couldn't make it for two pages without implicitly admitting that the war was about slavery.
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 12:24 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
The effective blockade of the Federal installations in the harbor at Charleston, South Carolina began in December, 1860
South Carolina left the union Dec 20 1860, so the union assets on confederate land were illegal. Furthermore, the South went out of their way to sue for peace

Quote:
10, NORTHERN AGGRESSION AGAINST SOUTHERN STATES, Proof that Abraham Lincoln wanted war may be found in the manner he handled the Fort Sumter incident. Original correspondence between Lincoln and Naval Captain G.V.Fox shows proof that Lincoln acted with deceit and willfully provoked South Carolina into firing on the fort ( A TARIFF COLLECTION FACILITY ). It was politically important that the South be provoked into firing the first shot so that Lincoln could claim the Confederacy started the war. Additional proof that Lincoln wanted war is the fact that Lincoln refused to meet with a Confederate peace delegation. They remained in Washington for 30 days and returned to Richmond only after it became apparent that Lincoln wanted war and refused to meet and discuss a peace agreement. After setting up the Fort Sumter incident for the purpose of starting a war, Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to put down what he called a rebellion. He intended to march Union troops across Virginia and North Carolina to attack South Carolina. Virginia and North Carolina were not going to allow such an unconstitutional and criminal act of aggression against a sovereign sister Southern State. Lincoln's act of aggression caused the secession of the upper Southern States.
http://www.confederateamericanpride.com/10causes.html
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 02:54 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Im being lectured by someone who is basically ignorant of this issue.
When you use ESP to determine what I know you had better be correct. Apparently you arent here to debate but to arrogantly declare you CANT be told any different opinion. If it is not your opinion, then clearly it must be wrong and have no basis in fact, right ?

Quote:
Ive been a civil war freak becassue it fits in with my Love of Indian lore and geophysics really well.
Thats a bit puzzling....

Quote:
So, I ve presented 5 reasons, and four of which had to do with slavery.
I could rephrase any reason for the Civil War to be about slavery. You are wrong because the war was not fought by the North to stop slavery, and it was not fought by the South to protect slavery. You should admit it was mainly about political power which gave the slave states more rights than other states. The expanding union was going to dilute their power. They legally left the union and were within their rigths to remove any foriegn military personnel. Politically the Union had to be careful about what the war was fought for before it was an illegal war fought to preserve the political power of a UNITED STATES of America and not end up like Europe, a squabbling group robbing themselves of power by fighting each other.

The reluctance of the Southern States to ratify the Constitution was more of a reason then the slavery issue.

Quote:
1The abolition movement in the north was a vital and growing political force since the late 1700's
Vital ? The north would collapse without it ? Growing - fetus grow but they are hardly powerful.

Quote:
Uncle Toms Cabin used to play to packed houses all over the North.
the musical "HAIR" played to packed audiences and still does...it is running the number of shows to meet the audience numbers. It has hardly started any wars.

Quote:
2Economic differences betweenthe S and the N. The south was essentially a "one crop industrial base" (cotton). Cotton was grown in huge plantations and slaves were needed to make a plantation system work. The SOuth feared the Norths economic power and the industrial revolution that presented us with newere and bigger farm implements. The SOuth hung on to slavery as a kind of "tool"
The South hung onto slavery as it gave them increased power in the voting system. If slavery became unprofitable they would have dropped it like a hot potato.

Quote:
3.States Rights-Its an issue that, while not slavery centered, was behind the paranoia of the SOuth and their march toward the "Nullification process" for whichever CFR's they chose to nullify.
No-one goes to war because their rights might be violated....the Southern States felt they had to seceed or be swamped politically, a fear they had even at the ratification of the Constitution.

Quote:
4A demarcation between slave and non slave states was gettinh heated. LAws like The Missouri Compromise of 1820, Dred SCott, The Wilmot Proviso and the more successful 1850 Compromise, The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, the Kansas Nebraska Act of 1854--all were about slavery states and boundaries as I previously stated (there may be more but not off the top of my head do I recall em)
I agree. This is a correctly framed issue and was about slavery. I ask, though, by itself, would it have led to a war ? Maybe....

Quote:
5 The election of Lincoln. He was a known abolitionist and therefore was feared by the South
Lincoln was just disliked period it had nothing to do with slavery. He barely got into office and the surest way of becoming a great leader in the view of the USA people is to just get into office, be considered unpopular during your term and then get assasinated...Lincoln and JFK both meet those criteria and yet now they are fondly thought of.....go figure.

Quote:
I ve presented 5 reasons, and four of which had to do with slavery.
By appearances storms are caused by the oceans but in reality they are caused by hot air.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 02:55 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
The states of the South began the war
Utter rubbish. They leagally seceeded and foriegn countries had no right to station troops on their soil...THAT in itself is an act of war.
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 05:35 am
@Ionus,
Your ignorance of the issues of the focus of the Civil war seems to be guided by beliefs other than scholarship . You have even tried to apply some "Aryan spin" to an issue that most all Civil War historians (including the beloved Shelby Foote) agree upon unequivocally .
The State of SOuth Carolina began the war (Lincoln was trying to hold the Union togethre even as the states seceeded ).
It was the state of SOuth Carolina that declared war on the Union a month after they opened fire on the Union troops in Ft Sumter..


All the issues of the seceeding states concerns had to do with slavery (as I attempted to explain above). In fact, Virginia, because it was broken into the Hill state of the WEst and a "asouthern plantation slaveholding state of the east and tidewater" actually split into two separate states over the slavery issue. West Virginia was entered into the Union.

If the issue was "political power', , not as I propose a sneaky maneuvering to retain slavery as the institution of agriculture, They surely applied such a strategy with little planning. Lincoln bent over backwards to retain border (read slave holding) states in order to maintain a map that had a convenient buffer distance from a southern potential enemy(All this was maneuvering that occured before Sumter)
Lincoln walked on eggs to take no precipitous action against slavery inorder to maintain the border states in the Union.
In a summary, the war was based upon the maintanance of a map, the shape and size of which determined the resolv e that Lincoln maintained going in.
As he said, considering the entire issue of slaveholding in the border states
"I think, to lose Kentucky is nearly the same as to lose the whole game. Kentucky gone, we cannot hold Missouri, nor, I think, Maryland. Those all against us, and the job at hand too large for us. We would as well consent to separation at once, including the surrender of this capitol"

Slavery underlay all these issues ALL OF THEM.

Quote:
They leagally seceeded and foriegn countries had no right to station troops on their soil...THAT in itself is an act of war.
Another nugget from the Hogswallop contingent. "Legally seceeding" was only settled by the war itself(Seems you were wrong on that point also). As Dr Foote said , before the War it was 'The United States ARE" and after the war we say "The UNited STates IS".
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 05:35 am
@hawkeye10,
Jesus Christ, you go to a pro-Southern web site and come up with **** like that and present it uncritically? You wanna buy a bridge, Bubba?

Lincoln was not inaugurated until March 4, 1861. He had no authority and attempted to exercise none until he had been inaugurated. You continue to ignore that forces of the states of Florida and Alabama had seized Federal property in January of 1861, long before any firing started in Charleston harbor. You ignore that the authorities in Charleston fired on Star of the West on January 9, 1861--almost two months before Lincoln was inaugurated.

These were Federal facilities before a minority of hot-heads in those states passed secession ordinances--remember that blacks and women did not vote so don't try to feed me some bullshit about majorities voting to secede. It was not their property before 1860, and it didn't become their property because some fools suddenly claimed it. Was any effort made to reimburse the Federal government, and the rest of the states who had paid for those Federal installations, before their seizure? Did the state congressional delegations make any effort to adjust any such claims before walking out and going home? Don't trouble yourself, the answers are no.

It's pathetic the way conservatives rant about not coddling criminals and not caving in to terrorists, but they expect that Mr. Buchanan's administration--that's Buchanan, Bubba, Lincoln was not inaugurated until March 4, 1861--to have caved into to a handful of states who wanted to seize forthwith the property of the Federal government and order the legally assigned garrisons off Federal property. How charming that you went to a white supremecist web site for that bullshit propaganda.

Given that there was no established legal basis for secession, it's completely bullshit to claim that Federal installations were illegal. To claim that the South went out of the way to sue for peace is stupid for two reasons--first it implicitly recognized that the South had caused a state of war to exist which they now wanted to ameliorate, and second, your bullshit web sites speaks of a delegation returning to Richmond after 30 days. Virginia did not secede from the Union until April 17, 1861. So such a delegation could not have left Richmond for Washington any earlier than that. Forces of the state of South Carolina, which had been besieging Federal installations since December, 1860, began their bombardment of the fort before Virginia seceded. You don't even know when you're being lied to.

Really, i've got this great bridge for you. Millions and millions of people cross going to and from Brooklyn every day. I'll let you have it cheap and you'll make a fortune.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  4  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 05:55 am
By the way, clown, you continue to offer non-sequiturs. The thread title is "The Confederacy was about slavery." You not only have not refuted that claim, you have implicitly acknowledged it. Furthermore, i have asked you what Buchanan and the Congress did to threaten the institution of slavery in the winter of 1860-61, and you just splutter about rejected peace initiatives from a band of terrorists who had already fired on Federal installations and seized Federal property. Leaving aside that no American President could ignore such actions without committing political suicide, none of your remarks constitute a reply to the questions i have asked you.

The confederacy was about slavery, and you have implicitly recognized that. Spare us any more non-sequiturs from white supremecist web sites, 'K, Bubba?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 06:54 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
South Carolina left the union Dec 20 1860, so the union assets on confederate land were illegal.

I guess you support the U.S. abandoning Guantanamo Bay, then.
gungasnake
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 07:14 am
@snood,
Slavery was a big part of it. The civil war was a conflict between two diametrically opposite systems of economics, an American system which tended towards universal enrichment, and an English system the major feature of which was total exploitation of the entire human population of the planet, from the man on the bottom to the man on the top and everybody else.

The most major question was and still is banking and the creation of money i.e. who or what is empowered to create money. There was a brief period during which Abraham Lincoln figured the whole thing out and started issuing total fiat money, but it didn't last, and team evil is still in charge of things now. THAT, i.e. the fact that there is no rational basis for money in the world, is still the biggest unresolved political problem in the world today.

Other than that, anybody who thinks of Jeff Davis or any of the leaders of the confederacy as heroes is basically somebody in need of a couple hundred dollars worth of history books.
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 07:39 am
@hawkeye10,
Finally figured out what was bothering me. Your little scenario basically casts the Confederacy in the role of Captain Queeg.

"Yeah, they tricked me, see? I've proved it with... geometric logic! They were taking my strawberries to Fort Sumter, so had I to shoot. They WANTED me to shoot! It's their fault, see? SEE?!?!?"
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 07:45 am
@gungasnake,
Quote:
an American system which tended towards universal enrichment,

Hilarious

Quote:
an English system the major feature of which was total exploitation of the entire human population of the planet,

Really?

Quote:
anybody who thinks of Jeff Davis or any of the leaders of the confederacy as heroes is basically somebody in need of a couple hundred dollars worth of history books.


Bingo!
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 07:47 am
@DrewDad,
Quote:
I guess you support the U.S. abandoning Guantanamo Bay, then.


Don't confuse us with logic, OK?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/01/2022 at 08:50:49