Slavery; THE Cause?

[unionblue]

The Slave Power, written in 1862.

http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/...a;idno=AFN8980

Seems like our debate has been raging for quite a while but it keeps coming back to the same subject as the cause of the war.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[thea_447]

The reason it keeps coming back to this subject, is because you won't allow your thinking process to go any ****her than slavery as the cause, Neil. I would suggest that instead of looking "through the eyes of slavery" you try looking through the eyes of the average farmer who fought this war. He didn't own slaves but left his home, hearth, family, etc. all to defend against what he perceived, RIGHTFULLY so, as an invasion. I would also bring up that dreaded word, Tariff again, as well as too many other things to list here. You, Neil, know my various points of view, so anything else said would be redundant.

You will of course tell me, as you have many previous times, that letters from these soldiers sometimes speak of fighting to keep the Negroes while I, and many others on this board, will point out to you that hundreds and hundreds of letters home speak ONLY of wanting the war to end, love of family, and wanting to get the YANKEES out of the South.

Just my two cents worth, now I will let you get back to your discussion with Hal.

I don't know too much Chinese like you fellas, but I will add this EMPHATICALLY:

Moo Goo Gai Pan AND Subgum Wonton!!

(Chopsticks raised in salute, Thea gracefully exits...)

[johan_steele]

Ummm, Mrs Thea. I belive all present know that the average Southern farmer did not start the war... he just died for the slave holders sins.

[unionblue]

Dear Thea,

Good to hear from you again. And I must admit, once again, you are right. I will not allow my thinking process to go any ****her than slavery as the cause. Not now, not anymore.

As for your suggestion to look through the eyes of the average farmer, I have according to my own lights and research. And I find the influence of slavery there also.

You know, Thea, its funny. I never started my research or my time here on this board with the idea that slavery was the central cause of the Civil War. I certainly never expected to 'champion' that cause either when 'Old Reb' aka Ron Goodwin told me about this board and invited me to participate in it. As hard as it will be for some to believe, I had no set opinion on the causes of the war, I was mainly interested in the life of the ordinary soldier, both North and South, and had no interest in the politics of the struggle.

But I will admit, that I came to this place and time and my conclusions on my own and mostly with the help of this board. What amazes me the most now is how people can completely ignore slavery and its effects on the country and the war, and I don't mean just agreeing with me that it was the cause of it. Just how they would like to make it some nothing issue or ignore it completely.

And yes, Thea, we have debated, argued, fought, drawn blood, etc., til we are both satisfied that each of us is firm in our convictions and our beliefs. That we arrived at them through honest discourse and discussion and have understood there is little chance of change in either of us.

But I thank you for letting me grow and for spending time with me on this board. I sincerely appreciate it.

YMOS,
Unionblue

[thea_447]

My dear Neil,

It is certainly true that you and I have fought to a draw. We have exchanged ideas on every topic that has been brought up on this board and I think on most of them we have seen it through shades of blue or gray. It can't be helped now. We are the products of our research, and yes, our heritage. On my side, I believe I have always championed the underdog, as you would, if you could, with true conviction.

Shall we say that the two of US at least, will just continue to knock heads, agreeing on love of country, but both weeping inwardly for the loss of life, the complete desolation of parts of this wonderful land , and continue this amazing friendship? (Perhaps if those sages of old had talked, argued and drawn "shadow blood" as many times as you and I the war wouldn't have taken place.)

In the meantime on this new venture about the CW serial I'm preparing my composite character, a fiesty young widow with Southern leanings naturally, and a penchanct for undercover work. I would consider it an honor if you could be drawn into developing a character of your own, or even two, and perhaps one of them could be "duped" temporarily into the wiles of my character, Mrs. Alethea Amanda Harmon Eaton (nickname "Aley",pronounced "Ailey"). (Or if anyone else out there would like to exchange letters with Miss Ailey, that would be most enjoyable.) As soon as I've fleshed out her character a bit more, I will introduce her.

Let me take this first opportunity, Neil, to wish for you and Sue and your family a very joyous Thanksgiving. Since the boards get sorta slow over holidays I wanted to be the first to wish you happiness in this festive season, hopefully avoiding the colds and flu that invariably go around this time of year.

We will meet again, my old friend. Same battlefields, same war, same friendship.

YMOS,

[unionblue]

Bill,

I remember our earlier talk on this thread concerning the power of the abolitionist faction in the North.

I thought you might like to read about this book concerning an aspect of it, antislavery violence.

http://www.cw-book-news.com/release%...tislavery.html

Might give you some ammunition on the subject.

YMOS,
Unionblue

[bill_torrens]

Neil,

Many thanks for this. I shall certainly attempt to obtain a copy.

Cheers,

Bill

[unionblue]

Friends,

It has been too quiet of late on this thread, so here goes.

It has been said, here on this board and elsewhere in the internet universe, that the South had no designs on the North nor that it intended any aggressive moves that would threaten Northern states, such as expanding the institution of slavery into the Free states.

From the book, The Slave Power, The Free North and Southern Domination, 1780-1860, by Leonard L. Richards, Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, Chapter 8, Collapse of One Pillar, page 199:

"Two days after President Buchanan's inauguration, the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, thus opening all federal territories to slavery. The Buchanan administration's official organ, the Washington Union, immediately joined southerners in singing the praises of the Court. So did Caleb Cushing of Massachusetts, Pierce's attorney general, who insisted that Chief Justice Taney was "the very incarnation of judicial purity, integrity, science and wisdom."

The Republicans, in contrast, not only denounced the decision but blamed it on Buchanan. Had Fre'mont been elected president, David Dudley Field told a New York convention, the Supreme Court would not have dared to violate "the principles we have received from our forefathers." Was this an exaggeration? Not as much as it might at first seem. The southern judges, historians later discovered, had wanted all along to issue a proslavery decision, but they knew that the authority of such a decision would be weak if they had only a one-vote majority and no northern judge was on their side. They set about to persuade one of the northern Democrats on the Court, Robert C. Grier of Pennsylvania, to join them. Unbeknown to his Republican critics, Buchanan helped them in this effort, and his intervention undoubtedly contributed to Grier's decision to join the southern majority in declaring the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional.

The Republicans also raised the question, "What next?" David Duddley Field and his fellow delegates to the New York Republican convention had no doubt about the answer. They assumed that the Court's next step would be to declare that under the Constitution slaveholders could live with their slaves in the free states. For how long? To most Republicans it hardly mattered. One month would lead to two, one year to a second year, one decade to another decade. Republicans in the New York Assembly noted that Dred Scott had lived for two years in the free state of Illinois, and under the Court's decision that had not dissolved "the relation of master and slave." What then would? The answer, they assumed, was "nothing." The Court was determined to "bring slavery within our borders, against our will, with all its unhallowed, demoralizing, and blighting influences."

This was not just paranoia. In November 1857 the Washington Union, the administration's official organ, declared that the abolition of slavery in the North was clearly an unconstitutional attack on private property. And New York Republican were well aware of a case in their own court system that might provide the Supreme Court with the opportunity the justices allegedly desired. In 1852 a New York judge had ruled that eight Virginia slaves had become free the moment their owner brought them into the Empire State. It mattered not in the least that the owner was just passing through, waiting for a ship to take them immediately to New Orleans. New York no longer recognized a slavemaster's right of transit or temporary sojourn. A middle-level court had upheld the judge's decision, but the state of Virginia had challenged the New York freedom law and appealed to New York's highest court. What if the state's highest court upheld the New York freedom law? Would the Taney court override the New York decision? Republican lawyers had no doubt that it would."

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[ole]

Neil.

You wrote: It has been said, here on this board and elsewhere in the internet universe, that the South had no designs on the North nor that it intended any aggressive moves that would threaten Northern states, such as expanding the institution of slavery into the Free states.

Educate me, please. How is a political maneuver like "expanding the institution..." an aggressive move or a design on the North? Secession was a threat, firing on Sumter was a warlike action. Expanding into Free States seems more a legitimate power play than ominous.

Just seeking information.

Ole

[unionblue]

Ole,

Welcome and thanks for the comments and questions. Here goes.

I base my comment on the idea of the vaunted position taken by my friends of the South here on this board, the one called, 'State Rights.' The whole idea that the South left the Union over this issue to escape the evils of a overpowering central government seems a bit silly of an idea when those very same states are trying to manuver an institution the free states do not want or desire in their states.

From what I gather from the above, never mind the stated opinions and desire of those who reside in the state, the very citizens who make it up, when it comes to slavery, its protection and its expansion, the rights of those folks don't matter. Never mind it has been expressed in the form of Personal Liberty Laws in those states, the whole theory of State Rights falls by the wayside when it comes back, again, to the institution of slavery.

I guess my main point that I have been trying to get over on this particular thread and elsewhere on this board, is that slavery was the one issue that kept bumping up against everyone and every state, the one issue that would not go away. The one issue that caused the war.

I get a little tired of the argument that somehow the South was 'mugged' by the evil North, like it was some sort of innocent bystander and not a participant in the troubles and causes of the war.

You may have a point that expanding slavery into the Free States may have been a 'legitimate' power play on the part of the Court and the President, but that power play didn't make it 'right.' In my opinion.

Sincerely,
Unionblue