Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
Well yes ive seen those reports as well, but since they also say that they ran up the Union flag after being taken under fire, it kinda defeats your logic, since they set sail under the Union jack as per there orders, were taken under fire and run up the colours and sailed into Chralston with them flying, does not mean that when fired on she was flying them, was my point, which all the first hand acounts agree on.
In the United States in 1861, the Union flag was the Stars and Stripes, not the British Union Jack.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
I like that phrase "plantation live as it was." Sounds so hopeful, so pleasant.
For anyone who wasn't a slave.
Unionblue
Okay, then. Two things:
First:
Chapter X of Davis' book, RISE AND FALL. Years after the event, he details what happened as he knew it. Anyone who was still alive could have argued him for being wrong about Slavery, and he knew that. Or their children could... He stood to look like a senile old fool if he was trying to change history, or change his mind, as the claim is made against him by your camp.
It is on-line. Go read it.
Have you noticed that I am the only Southerner who is 'eulogizing' slave plantation life? And that I did it on purpose, to show that I was the only one? And that the only reason I did it was because Letitia and Davis both saw how the institution could have been changed (as he did on his plantation, where there were no systematic beatings and where the slaves did their own disciplining in which he could make the punishment less but not greater...). So I was actually eulogizing their views of it, and not my own first hand account?
I personally don't want strangers of any color, living on my property, near my children... particularly those who might decide they want to leave through an act of violence... at the behest of some wild-eyed nuts in the North, (like the ones who later took liquor away under Temperance, and watched the crime rate skyrocket and NASCAR be born!)...
Why would modern Southerners want the Confederacy remembered, and adored, even... with flags and symbols and NOT bring back the slave system... IF SLAVERY WAS ALL THAT GREAT A PART OF THE SECESSION in the first place?
It is because there was ever so much more to Southern Independence than your excuse for the yankee invasion, in HINDSIGHT... that of 'Slavery'.
What is our point for bringing it up, at all, if not to get the whole deal reinstated?
It is because, like most Southerners from Jefferson to Jefferson Davis, they were born into it, and had the wolf by the ears, and could neither safely hang onto him, or let him go! But Davis wanted to compensatedly emancipate, and even Lincoln mentions such a thing, except we, you and I, and they, know why Lincoln wasn't about to do it. The cost was way too great for a government who had no slaves, any longer! And the 'Radicals' would have hanged every Abolitionist in effigy if the common treasury had been touched to that great a degree!
Compensation is just that, sir. Not just $900.00 for a field hand, but all he might bring in, children-wise and profit-wise, and status wise, less the cost to feed him, house him, and
the taxes paid to the government for personal property! You are talking about a great chunk of change, (or else years of Federal assistance which will cut into the Northern capitalist's plans to too great a degree) per each slave unit!
And you know how the Federal government does things! Once the negro is free from his master (the state), the Federals are now going to demand he take care of himself... at a very low economic profit to the slave, who will have to work on the plantation to help his own case for freedom, as a FREE MAN (we call it EMPLOYMENT today!) just to get Federally matching funds for him and his family's 'freedoms'... and how long before he can AFFORD to move? It would be cheaper, and faster, to ESCAPE from slavery, in the long run! No, the Federal government never at any time posited anything actually helpful to the black man, not even the FREEDMEN'S BUREAU. (Read about that in Conner!).
Were I a black man of the period, I would have prayed for Davis' plan of compensated emancipation to be successful... in a successful and thriving Confederacy.
Your war, sir, was over money. Nothing so noble as the negro slave!
And SOUTHERNERS, slaving and non-slaving, were too busy and preoccupied dealing with Greedy Federalists, Whigs, and RADICAL Collectivists (I like that term better than the
one you say isn't period! They were NEVER Liberals, anyway. They weren't FEDERALISTS, originally, for they fought against Federalism. They were never Whigs, because they fought against the ideas the original Whiggamores stood for. They were never Liberals because they were against the individual's right to be free from Totalitarian Rule, which they enforced through a mob-rule 'democracy', and much worse, under Lincoln. They were never Republicans, because they fought against representative Republican rule. They certainly aren't Democrats, today, because that implies a care for the common man through collectivism, which is actually a form of Marxism... So have your word LIBERAL, if you like. I don't insist upon it; they were, and aren't, really serious about it then, or now! What they ARE is good at hiding beneath labels that change with the years to hide their true identities!).
(They are also, politically, the LIBERALS of today, and they always have been).
Now you cannot argue that, when you read Lincoln's Politics of the Old Woman's Dance, 'Short' and 'Sweet', (I see them as neither, but eternal and obnoxious!)
Second thing:
Slavery was Constitutionally protected. War Crimes never have been, at any time.
Chapter X of Davis' book, RISE AND FALL. Years after the event, ...
Beowulf
You appear to be far more concerned with issuing rhetoric than the search for truth. Just to mention one minor matter, the North never forced Prohibition on the South. By 1920 when National Probition went into effect, 33 different states had passed prohibition laws of their own. Prohibition was a major issue in Tennessee from the 1850s on, for example, and was one of those 33. Georgia had passed statewide Prohibition in 1906, effective 1908. (Georgia was actually the first to ban alcohol, in 1735, but it wasn't a state then.)
Try to rant less. Try to be objective. Especially, try to get away from this annoying habit of filling the ether with baseless charges.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Staying the heck away for a while. Haven't seen so much BS in years and years. Maybe later.
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
You appear to be far more concerned with issuing rhetoric than the search for truth. Just to mention one minor matter, the North never forced Prohibition on the South. By 1920 when National Probition went into effect, 33 different states had passed prohibition laws of their own. Prohibition was a major issue in Tennessee from the 1850s on, for example, and was one of those 33. Georgia had passed statewide Prohibition in 1906, effective 1908. (Georgia was actually the first to ban alcohol, in 1735, but it wasn't a state then.)
Try to rant less. Try to be objective. Especially, try to get away from this annoying habit of filling the ether with baseless charges.
Tim
CONNER says this:
"The Organization which had actually steered the Volstead Act through Congress was the Anti-Saloon League, run by prominent businessmen from Ohio..."
Other (Non-Conner) Sources:
Definition: The Anti-Saloon League was formed in 1893 in Oberlin, Ohio. It began as a state organization that was in favor of prohibition and in 1895 became a strong influence in the United States. As a non-partisan organization with ties to prohibitionists throughout the country, the Anti-Saloon League announced a campaign for the nationwide prohibition of alcohol. The league used the dislike for saloons by respectable people and conservative groups like the Woman's Christian Temperance Union to fuel the fire for prohibition. In 1916 the organization was instrumental in electing supporters to both houses of Congress so that what would become the 18th Amendment to the Constitution would have the 2/3 majority it needed to pass.
The prohibition of alcohol in the 1920’s and 30’s in the United States is one of most famous, or infamous, times in recent American history. The intention was to reduce the consumption of alcohol by eliminating businesses that manufactured, distributed and sold it. Considered by many as a failed social and political experiment, the era changed the way many Americans view alcoholic beverages, enhancing the realization that federal government control does not replace personal responsibility for one's actions!
(YOU THINK?!).
Beowulf
Not that the socialists ever wise up in this regard!
Just because I mention the North or the Left in my 'diatribes' does not mean I am 'ranting', (although political correction absolutely assures us that this is the case!).
From the Alien and Sedition Acts, on down, we Libertarians are always seen as on the edge!
"The Organization which had actually steered the Volstead Act through Congress was the Anti-Saloon League, run by prominent businessmen from Ohio..."
Other (Non-Conner) Sources:
Definition: The Anti-Saloon League was formed in 1893 in Oberlin, Ohio. It began as a state organization that was in favor of prohibition and in 1895 became a strong influence in the United States. As a non-partisan organization with ties to prohibitionists throughout the country, the Anti-Saloon League announced a campaign for the nationwide prohibition of alcohol. The league used the dislike for saloons by respectable people and conservative groups like the Woman's Christian Temperance Union to fuel the fire for prohibition. In 1916 the organization was instrumental in electing supporters to both houses of Congress so that what would become the 18th Amendment to the Constitution would have the 2/3 majority it needed to pass.
The prohibition of alcohol in the 1920’s and 30’s in the United States is one of most famous, or infamous, times in recent American history. The intention was to reduce the consumption of alcohol by eliminating businesses that manufactured, distributed and sold it. Considered by many as a failed social and political experiment, the era changed the way many Americans view alcoholic beverages, enhancing the realization that federal government control does not replace personal responsibility for one's actions!
(YOU THINK?!).
Beowulf
Not that the socialists ever wise up in this regard!
Just because I mention the North or the Left in my 'diatribes' does not mean I am 'ranting', (although political correction absolutely assures us that this is the case!).
From the Alien and Sedition Acts, on down, we Libertarians are always seen as on the edge!
More of the same. As I pointed out to you THIRTY-THREE states had voted in their own Prohibition before the Federal law went into effect. Tennessee was one of those. Georgia was another of those. Mississippi passed state-wide Prohibition in 1907 and was the last state in the nation to repeal it, in 1966 -- THIRTY-THREE YEARS after the 18th Amendment was repealed. You are simply wrong on the facts, as I have seen you often be on many topics in the brief time I have been looking at your posts. You are more concerned with making a lot of noise about your beliefs than with trying to be accurate in what you say. That is why I referred to rants.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
More of the same. As I pointed out to you THIRTY-THREE states had voted in their own Prohibition before the Federal law went into effect. Tennessee was one of those. Georgia was another of those. Mississippi passed state-wide Prohibition in 1907 and was the last state in the nation to repeal it, in 1966 -- THIRTY-THREE YEARS after the 18th Amendment was repealed. You are simply wrong on the facts, as I have seen you often be on many topics in the brief time I have been looking at your posts. You are more concerned with making a lot of noise about your beliefs than with trying to be accurate in what you say. That is why I referred to rants.
Tim
So I am curious, now. How many of these states still have this nonsense, started as the Anti-Saloon League in Ohio in 1893?
Any of them still 'dry'?
You miss my point, Timothy!
This is another example of totalitarianism, and control by a few pushy, mouthy types!
What we need is a constitutional amendment to prohibit this class of person from even advancing these beliefs and doctrines. If a state decides to vote out liquor, we should be able to move to one that doesn't...
But if the Federal government does it, we have to leave the country to get a well-deserved drink, which Heaven knows we could all use after listening to 'those people',(as Lee referred to these totalitarians) and their desire to run everyone's life like some possessed third grade teacher voted into power!
In your world, there is no Libertarian party. In our world, there are no Yankees and no Totalitarians. You want a Union with us, stay on your side of the sandbox!
Assuming Virginia had remained in the Union, I think Lee might have resigned rather than lead troops into South Carolina (there's a good chance NC would not have seceded if VA had not).
Very true. Lee would resign rather than lead an army against southerners.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
But then Lee thought the War with Mexico was as unjust a war as there could be, said so clearly at the time -- and still obeyed his orders and left for Mexico, where he was one of the most celebrated of soldiers. I think, if push came to shove after VA chose to remain in the Union, Lee might have changed his mind. He did from time to time after a display of histrionics.
Tim
Quite a difference in the two. The Mexican War was highly popular among southerners, and provided additional territory for slavery. The War of the Slaveholders' Rebellion, on the other hand ... "
Quite a difference in the two. The Mexican War was highly popular among southerners, and provided additional territory for slavery. The War of the Slaveholders' Rebellion, on the other hand ... "
The secession and war was highly popular among Southerners in early 1861. Lee called secession treason, insisted the Founding Fathers had never intended such a "right" to exist, and compared secession to anarchy in the months before Sumter was attacked. His belief was that he had to be loyal to VIRGINIA first, and the United States second. It was a case of VIRGINIA right-or-wrong for Lee.
What Lee might have done if Virginia had remained in the Union will never be known. But if such an unlikely thing had happened, and Virginia had sent troops in harm's way for the cause of the Union, I personally doubt Lee would have let those men march off without him. It would, once again, be a case of Virginia right-or-wrong for Lee.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
So I am curious, now. How many of these states still have this nonsense, started as the Anti-Saloon League in Ohio in 1893?
Any of them still 'dry'?
...
More of the same empty and deliberately misleading rhetoric. I have just pointed out to you that Mississippi was the last state to repeal their Prohibition, in 1966. Now you ask me this silly question as if you have something to say, when you have already been told the answer. Stop this nonsense and stop making a spectacle of yourself.
In addition, the Temprance movement existed long before the Anti-Saloon league formed. It was very popular in the 1850s, particularly in a state like Tennessee, where a great convention on Temprance was held in Nashvile in 1853 . You will note that this is FORTY YEARS before the Anti-Saloon league was founded. Yet you want to blame it on "Northerners" You are a humbug.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
