Slavery; THE Cause?

[bill_torrens]

In which case the departure of one of the contending parties from the Union guaranteed to the remaining party all the power it needed within the United States. So why the invasion and conquest of the Confederacy?

Nietsche joined the National Socialist German Workers' Party? Wow! I learn something new every day.......

[dave_kelly]

>Nietzsche joined the National Socialist German Workers' Party? Wow! I learn something new every day.......<

The referenced url busies itself with condemning Nietzsche as a nihilist and protonazi; a phenomena which post dates the philosopher. A thourough reading of Nietzsche disabuses anyone of any sense that he was a fascist or racist. Nietzsche was a poet and his vision of a master race is Plato's Republic of intellectually gifted philosophers and artists. (German philosophers make lousy politicians. Karl Marx had the same problem with facing practical reality.) Just 'cause you asked...

[dave_kelly]

>In which case the departure of one of the contending parties from the Union guaranteed to the remaining party all the power it needed within the United States. So why the invasion and conquest of the Confederacy?<

That smacks of a nice matronly settlement of a kids after dinner ruckus. I suppose letting the Confederacy set up its own digs was a humane way of sparing a lot of bloodshed and wasted fortune. But the Confederates weren't leaving the Union, they were just repainting the billboards to read under new management; whether the old management likes it or not.

It didn't solve anything. It didn't preclude future crises as secession established as precedent would threaten future alignments of states every time somebody decided they didn't like the sleeping arrangements.

Watched my college roomate and some of his pals play some bunged out hippie baseball in college. No bags, everyone plays whatever position they wanted, any number of balls in play. Only apparent rule was that at least half the pot heads on the field had to be laughing stupidly at all times. My take on secession and international communism. It isn't, well, English.

[thea_447]

" But the Confederates weren't leaving the Union, they were just repainting the billboards to read under new management; whether the old management likes it or not."

Ah, so you do realize that the old management consisted of Northern bias. The fair distribution of power was changing, the South was being overwhelmed and still picking up the tab.

The North couldn't stand the idea that perhaps the South could make a go of it without them because Northern politicians and their banker backers were quite certain that they could not keep their own portion of the Union afloat without the money generated by the South.

The whole idea of secession was repugnant to the North simply on the basis of their need of the South. That, and their already growing thirst for expansion. Somewhere on these boards APHillbilly has listed all the expansions, takeovers, call them what you will, that these United States have "committed" since the Declaration of Independence was signed and the number is absolutely astounding. It would be interesting to have a read-out of all those takeovers from countries, territories,etc. who came begging for the United States to take them in. Let me think: Alaska and Hawaii come to mind. How many had their arms twisted out of their sockets first?

And after all this we still feel like Big Brother to the entire world. Why? Three fourths of the other countries hate us, partially because when they "invite us to dinner" ( a polite term for helping them with some tyrant, or a mean neighbor), we don't leave after dessert!

This question still hasn't been answered to my satisfaction: The North could have continued their Union, with only a smaller number of states. Why, other than the obvious motive of greed, would they go to war with their brothers to hold them in an alliance that the South so desperately wanted to abandon?

Since the WBTS the South has never been allowed to be on equal footing again and is treated like a wayward step-child. After over one hundred forty years, does anyone on this board feel that the hostility is over? A Union forced on sovereign states cannot be kept intact at the end of a bayonet or a bomb. Now it is kept intact by three fourths of the industries in this country being located anywhere but the South, by so-called "guidelines" for Southern schools, etc. that have been in place for over forty years, with Federal interference in every conceivable phase of state government.

And the "will to power" goes marching on...

[unionblue]

Thea,

Long time, no argue! DOWN REB!

The ability of the South to ram down the throats of anyone who stood in the way of what they considered right for their own section was being overwhelmed.

Any serious look at the tariff situation and the supposed unfair tab of the South explodes the myth that the South left the Union over that issue, as it was a dead one from the 1840's on, and even recognized as such in the South.

And again, the South's desire to expand the institution of slavery, by any means in the old Union, and failing that, deciding to keep it in the hands of a minority out of it by an illegal rebellion, is ignored, excused or buried under a storm of supposed dollar bills.

And yes, Tommy has went to great lengths to show US expansion and interference overseas after the Civil War. I wonder how many Southern Congressmen and Senators were at Washington at the time those votes were taken? A good many of those excursions were not done during a Southern power vacuum in Washington, but after they had returned to their chairs in government. So how about stopping the finger-pointing as if the North was entirely alone up there during our expansionist period? Like slavery, if this period was a sin, it was a national, not a sectional sin.

As for your comments on State sovereignty and the supposed 'get out of the Union free card', you are entitled to your beliefs, both religious and sectional, but there is enough period documentation around to say it ain't so (or enough to cast very serious doubt on the subject!).

And I agree, there is a reason why Southerners consider the War of the Rebellion the Second American Revolution and why they felt the Union was injurious to their interests, the one big one called slavery comes to mind. As for where the cash was coming from to finance the evil North, your right again, I'll have to guess, because it sure wasn't coming from the South.

As to the Federal government having no power before the war and Lincoln not seeing it that way, do you think if he had all the power you assume he had that he would not have stopped the South dead in its tracks at the first hint of secession? The whole theory of Lincoln having the power at his fingertips goes out the window the day South Carolina left the Union and not one US soldier marched to the capitol and arrested the state legislature.

And once you start reading on what the South did to maintain law and order, my only advice is that other, old biblical saying.

Take the illegal use of martial law from thine own eye before removing the habeas corpus from thy brother's eye.

See you on the field, Thea.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
PS I hope it was a good for you as it was for me!

[unionblue]

Thea,

Thought you would find the following web site interesting as it concerns an article on Lincoln's ideas concerning colonization of the blacks in America.

http://dinsdoc.com/wesley-1.htm

And the above document and many others can be found at this site called Dinsmore Documentation, Classics on American Slavery:

http://www.dinsdoc.com/slavery-1.htm

Enjoy,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on October 23, 2004)

[hawglips]

I disagree totally with the idea that ANY other issue was worth the killing in the hundreds of thousands, to include the tariff, big government (which simply did not exist in 1861) or the very fanciful idea that 'millions' of Americans wished to turn their backs on the United States. The very fact that hundreds of thousands of Southerners fought for the Union shows that this theory is not as solid as some would leave you to believe.

The only issue that could bring forth blood was slavery.

It is too bad that Lincoln did not use slavery as the reason for that blood. It would have been so much better than his "preserve the union" imperialism.

But I disagree with the statement.

The only issue that could bring forth the blood was that of a much deeper struggle over the founding principles of the republic.

Hal

(Message edited by hawglips on October 26, 2004)

[unionblue]

Hal,

You mean like the one that says, "All men are created equal?"

Unionblue

I believe All men are created equal was a document of revolution, of separation. Not creation.. The leaving of a country. Not the founding of a new one. Nor did 'all men' include anyone in existence but propertied white males.