Slavery; THE Cause?

[unionblue]

Hal,

Then what am I left with to make judgments with? And why attack the messenger instead of addressing the issue that the South wanted to expand slavery throughout the nation through judical means, in fact, ANY means?

Lets see what else we have:

tool of proslavery interest

evidenced

uncritically proslavery

regardless of the wishes of the majority

I guess it depends on which words you wish to lift from the whole, doesn't it Hal?

And you see a problem with my conclusion on this post? I wish I knew what the problem was, but it is kind of hard to tell by your short response.

As for Senator Brown being right and the idea of the refuseul of some to abide by the Supreme Court's ruling on Dred Scott is something we both will never know, will we? After all, the South didn't give the Republican party of Lincoln a chance to show what they would do in regard to the question of slavery, in the south, the territories or anywhere in the nation for that matter.

And I don't give Senator Brown high marks in his above speech, seeing how his true intention was to destroy the Union with his introduction of a federal slave code, not to uphold the Constitution.

Sincerely,
Unionblue


(Message edited by Unionblue on January 20, 2005)

[hawglips]

Neil: "As for Senator Brown being right and the idea of the refuseul of some to abide by the Supreme Court's ruling on Dred Scott is something we both will never know, will we? After all, the South didn't give the Republican party of Lincoln a chance to show what they would do in regard to the question of slavery, in the south, the territories or anywhere in the nation for that matter."

Lincoln and his party made it crystal clear that they opposed, and had no intention to support their government's ruling on the Constitutional question of slavery in the common territories. He was in open rebellion against the Constitution and his government on this issue, and led an entire people in insurrection.

After all, our's was set up to be a government of laws, not a dictatorship of one, or several million.

Lincoln was quick to twist and construct "laws" that he could use as justification for doing what he wanted to do, but very slow to adhere to the actual laws, rulings and clear, concise prohibitions of the Constitution that didn't allow him to do what he wanted to do.

Neil: And I don't give Senator Brown high marks in his above speech, seeing how his true intention was to destroy the Union with his introduction of a federal slave code, not to uphold the Constitution.

I am no authority on Senator Brown's "true intention", and can only read the actual words of the speech. I'd encourage you to rely more on the actual words when passing judgment on the intentions of those that you only know through those words.

The paranoia and hyped up fears stoked by self-serving northern politicians and zeaolous clergy, does not condemn the South. I think one thing we can all agree on is that paranoia rarely reflects reality.

Hal



(Message edited by hawglips on January 22, 2005)

[hawglips]

"It would appear that Hal has agreed that Slavery was THE fundamental cause of the War... or am I missing something in his post #351 conclusion?"

You are missing several things regarding my position on the cause(s) of the war.

Slavery was not the fundamental cause of the war in question. That honor lies undisturbed at the feet of the one that held the decision for war or peace in his hands.

Hal

[revvladsbyte]

As a large fan in conspiracy theories, and having a basic mistrust, even a healthy paranoia of governments, Its my opinion that slavery may have been a catalyst, but not nearly the reason for the civil war.

The federal government was as morally corrupt and much too large then, as now. The only difference in the federal government then and now is that now it is exponentially too large and corrupt.

[johan_steele]

Hal, you are correct. His name was Jeff Davis.

[thea_447]

Beg to differ. Re-read Lincoln's inaugural address: his intent was quite clear on collecting his tariffs. Also read the Gustavus Fox letter. Abraham Lincoln got precisely the result he wanted: the South fired first....but Lincoln started the war.

[dawna]

I find that I can't look at the slavery issue without complete amazement at the audacity of the Republican party and their smug attempts at hiding greed behind anti-slavery morality. The Manifest Destiny's perpetuation of "God's white supremacy law," was a national obsession and not exclusive to the South.

The Northern capitalist vision of looking to the west as a huge area for profit making did not include living with people they believed to be inferior, and the Northerner's dream of expansion and settling in the west was based on racial purity.

What I find most hypocritical regarding the Northern viewpoint on slavery, is the atrocities that were occurring in their own factories, of which many were owned by abolitionists. In New York City alone, girls sewed umbrellas from 6:00 a.m. to midnight, earning $3.00 per week, from which their employer's deducted the cost of needles and thread. Girls who made cotton shirts received 24 cents for a 12 hour day. Other factories employed children as young as 8 years old and they were required to work the same hours as their mothers, or other female adult employees, often in unsafe and deplorable conditions. The Northern capitalists had their own version of cheap labour (and abuse), and at day's end, they turned these women and children out to fend for themselves.

It appears that the Southern government at least stayed true to it's own Constitution on matters such as habeas corpus and freedom of the press, or creating a state at whim. I am in amazement at the number of newspapers that were shut down during the Lincoln administration but then I find that President Lincoln lived with his own share of paranoia. Excerpts from a letter that the President wrote to Eratus Corning and others in N.Y, who had petitioned against Lincoln's trampling of civil liberties:

"...[A]rrests are made, not so much for what has been done, as for what probably would be done. ... The man who stands by and says nothing when the peril of his Government is discussed, cannot be misunderstood. If not hindered, he is sure to help the enemy; much more, if he talks ambiguously -- talks for his country with 'buts' and 'ifs' and 'ands.' "

"... [H]e who dissuades one man from volunteering, or induces one soldier to desert, weakens the Union cause as much as he who kills a Union soldier in battle. Yet this dissuasion or inducement may be so conducted as to be no defined crime of which any civil court would take cognizance."

"The insurrectionists had been preparing for it more than thirty years, while the Government had taken no steps to resist them. The formerly had carefully considered all the means which could be turned to their account. It undoubtedly was a well-pondered reliance with them that, in their own unrestricted efforts to destroy Union, Constitution, and law, all together, the Government would, in great degree, be restrained by the same Constitution and law from arresting their progress. Their sympathizers pervaded all departments of the Government and nearly all communities of the people."

"From this material, under cover of 'liberty of speech,' 'liberty of the press,' and 'habeas corpus,' they hoped to keep on foot among us a most efficient corps of spies, informers, suppliers, and aiders and abettors of their cause in a thousand ways. They knew that in times such as they were inaugurating, by the Constitution itself, the 'habeas corpus' might be suspended; but they also knew they had friends who would make a question as to who was to suspend it; meanwhile, their spies and others might remain at large to help their cause. Or, if, as has happened, the Executive should suspend the writ, without ruinous waste of time, instances of arresting innocent persons might occur, as are always likely to occur in such cases; and then a clamour could be raised in regard to this, which might be, at least, of some service to the insurgent cause.
"It needed no very keen perception to discover this part of the enemy's programme, so soon as, by open hostilities, their machinery was fairly put in motion. Yet, thoroughly imbued with a reverence for the guaranteed rights of individuals, I was slow to adopt the strong measures which by degrees I had been forced to regard as being within the exceptions of the Constitution, and as indispensible to the public safety."

I have such respect for anyone who can write almost anything, and I consider President Lincoln to be a literary genius. But I also believe that the President became very good at using this gift as a disguise for what he really intended. And how did President Lincoln later justify this statement during the Mexican War: Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better."

To me, the belief that the Civil War was only about slavery, is not much different than believing that the Boston Tea Party was all about tea. The North was much more than "abolitionists," just as the South was far more than slavery, or moonlight and magnolias. In scapegoating the South, the North is far from squeaky clean, and in the end, the South put up one hell of a fight. And while Northern war profiteer fortunes piled up, the South was literally gutted.

It would seem the more I learn, the less I know!

Dawna

[revvladsbyte]

I agree heartily with your post on all points Dawna. The propaganda ruse of the 1800s Federal government worked, convincing northerners and sadly some southerners of the morality of the war cause.

The worst part about the moral high ground propaganda blitz waged on the world ? It was successful. We still are suffering a terrible propaganda hangover that won't go away. Anyone have a good hangover cure?

[thea_447]

Greg,
I think a good start would be for every single newspaper in these United States to fire every single reporter. Then let the junior high schools with the highest scholastic ratings present their best seventh graders to take over the jobs of reporting the news.

They would do so without the jaded, jaundiced eye of the seasoned reporters who are so obsessed with force-feeding their agenda that nothing new penetrates their tiny minds.

[johan_steele]

Thea... My God that is the best idea I've ever heard voiced... Though, when you say Fire every single reporter can we shoot them instead? Then move on to the Lawyers and career politicians? If you say yes... I'll persoanally nominate you for the head of the republican party and if you wish to run as a Democrat I'll seriously consider changing parties.

Dawna, Neil suggested an excellent book that detailed the myth of CS civil liberties. I don't recall the title and borrowed through an interlibrary loan so I can't track it down. I know how much it woke me CS justice/liberty and integrity ideals was just so much propoganda.

In morals, the South was no better and little worse than the North, both sides equally guilty of wrongdoing and power plays. Slavery though, was the economic power of the CS; their economy was so dependent upon it that the concept of a slave free society was a ludicrous one.