Except, in the south, the gentry were the slave owners. They had a vested interest in a successful secession. Secession was their baby, they were not about to put their feet down on it.
Even today--I think the citizens are not really given the 'nitty-gritty' and what back room deals are taking place. Could the citizens have prevented the revolution/Civil War themselves or, had they been dragged in by politicians who spun webs to mislead the voting public during the pre-Civil War days?
The problem, M.E., with these "best" or "worst" or "most" discussions is "when."
The primary problem in this 4-score years is who or what. I lean to the what. Radicalism in any form is the engine that drives societal movement. It is also dirver behind division, and resentment, and hatred.
Can't put a name to who.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
The primary problem in this 4-score years is who or what. I lean to the what. Radicalism in any form is the engine that drives societal movement. It is also dirver behind division, and resentment, and hatred.
Can't put a name to who.
ole
For M.E.
Should we not look back to the Nullification crisis and see what the first arguments for and their reasoning for secession was.
__________________
"States Rights are about States Wrongs" - Jesse Jackson
If one accepts that Slavery was the indigestible lump, over which, the Nation became divided (as I do). Then, of the choices enumerated for our selection, logic does lead to the 'great nullifier' and his artificial construct (theory of nullification) primarily designed to provide that extra protection for the "Peculiar Institution" that the south, believed it needed.
As noted by other posters, when tested, against tariffs, it did not fly, even in the South. But when used as Calhoun had intended, protecting slavery, it immediately unified the slaveowning oligarchy that controlled the south.
Interestingly, it also set in motion a growing together of Unionist feelings in the North, albeit at a much slower rate.
I found this to be relatively easy, but the glaring omission of Nat Turner is quite shocking. His actions precipitated a chain of events that cause a major shift in the South.
John C. Calhoun and Robert Barnwell Rhett were my choices because I believe that South Carolina was the central state behind the secessionist movement. No matter how many disagreements or arguments there were, only the act of secession in itself would have caused such a war. By seceding from the Union the way it did, South Carolina caused the dominoes to fall all across the South- and in my mind, only these two people on that list caused such a scenario. All of the rest widened the rift, but they did not precipitate the severing of the relationship.
How can you blame Abraham Lincoln? South Carolina chose its fate when it accepted secessionist feeling and drove the Federals out of Fort Sumter. Even in these times, if a state happened to commit such an act, it would be declared as treasonous and would be put down by the President. That is merely a reaction, not a cause.
__________________
Remembering: Heavy Artillery
LOUIS LAROCQUE, 2nd Massachusetts, Co 'E' Infantry
ENOS SUMNER, 67th Ohio Co 'G'
ABRAHAM KUNTZ, 45th Wisconsin, Co 'I'
Last edited by monsieurdl : 02-25-2008 at 10:13 AM.
I found this to be relatively easy, but the glaring omission of Nat Turner is quite shocking. His actions precipitated a chain of events that cause a major shift in the South.
I do not see the connection here with Nat turner's rebellion and secession in SC.
__________________
"States Rights are about States Wrongs" - Jesse Jackson
Nat Turner's Rebellion virtually guaranteed that there would be no more state movements toward emancipation. (I believe it was on the table in the Virginia Legislature.) It intensified southern fears of freedmen and hence the fear of losing control of Congress and of the split when Republicans became a reality
But I wouldn't have voted for it if it had been listed.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
IMO, the question is analagous to who is more responsible for exploding a mine i.e., the one who lays the charge and powder train (Calhoun) Or the one who fires the powder train (Stephens and his Kansas-Nebraska Bill)? One can make good arguments on both sides.
I do not see the connection here with Nat turner's rebellion and secession in SC.
There was none per se- it was a separate comment. From the Nat Turner rebellion on, the idea of another revolt caused a widespread fear and panic, making very clear to slave owners of all types the inherent dangers. Now it was not just a rich gentry, but a whole spectrum of owners that banded together to protect themselves, going to the worst of extremes.
__________________
Remembering: Heavy Artillery
LOUIS LAROCQUE, 2nd Massachusetts, Co 'E' Infantry
ENOS SUMNER, 67th Ohio Co 'G'
ABRAHAM KUNTZ, 45th Wisconsin, Co 'I'
None of the above - - The Founding fathers should have addressed it in the Constitution and knocked it out of the box then. The argument about getting this grand experiment off the ground first and dealing with it later does not wash with me. Look what happened when later arrived.
Memphis
__________________ I've seen these sweat soaked heroes fight, in superheated air,to keep their ship alive and right, though no one knows they're there. And thus they'll fight for ages on, till warships sail no more,amid the boilers mighty heat and turbines hellish roar. So when you see a ship pull out, to meet a warlike foe, remember faintly if you can "the men who sail below"
~ excerpted from "The Men Who sail below", Author unknown.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Who was most responsible for the Civil War? 
Heavy Artillery
Infantry
Linear Mode
