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.
No, the saddest fact is that people like Derrick actually believe the idea that somehow the South lost its right to representation in the US Congress when Lincoln was elected President. It's not history nor is it fact.
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
As we've discussed a few times, the fact a war was going on became an issue to many men of the South. Slavery was doubltess in the middle of much of the ruckus; no argument there.
As I have come to believe, it was the cause that overlayered everything, to include those men in the South that did NOT own slaves.
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
As you know, the saddest fact of all was that Congress didn't have the fortitude to work out those difference in the hallowed halls. Throwing lead balls through the air was a very poor alternative.
Northern and border-state congressmen and senators were working desperately to come up with a compromise that would placate the secesh elements: the Crittenden Compromise and the Corwin amendment are just two examples (there were others). Nothing was done, not because no one was trying, but because the secesh wouldn't budge.
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 secessionists were not secure enough to allow the spread of contrary information.) so were by themselves a powerful danger. Customs officials and minor governmental functionaries might also be replaced by activist Republicans.
THESE SECESH WERE JUST LIKE LINCOLN, AND HIS SHUTTING DOWN OF 300 NEWSPAPERS... (KINDA LIKE THE GUY WHO ERASES MY STUFF!)
I wouldn't put it past Lincoln to apply some pressure. But then, preaching the perceived threat was more valuable than any real damage.
I have yet to have anyone prove to me the number of newspapers shut down by Lincoln was 300.
It makes a nice shocker for a punch-line, but then again, when it comes up to finding or researching that number, people always seem to come up WAY short.
But don't let the facts confuse you.
Carry on with your unsupported rant.
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
I think Hanny is pointing out that the greatest impact fell primarily on the consumers of the more heavily tariffed goods. For example, the consumers of French spirits, silk, and cigars "suffered" more than the consumers of wooden buckets, salt, cotton cloth, and rum.
With apologies to Hanny if I've read that wrong.
ole
No your on the ball, the tariff has to be a uniform one, the effect of a uniform tariff was not bourne equally by all members of society, its an almost impossible thing to do, hence the loudest cry of secesion comes from the section feeling its right to uniform taxation, is being trampeled by the market forces and tarif bearing heavily on some sections of socity and not a uniform.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Why? It might indicate something else entirely. It might represent a desire to raise income to pay for the excesses and follies of the Buchanan (largely Southern) administration of 1857-61, which had quadrupled the national debt.
As you know, the saddest fact of all was that Congress didn't have the fortitude to work out those difference in the hallowed halls. Throwing lead balls through the air was a very poor alternative.
Not a problem with Congress, but a problem with the Republican party who were in Congress, who did not belive in comprimise, they believed the majority should dicatate to the minority and the minorty just had to take whatever was dictated to them by the majority, for the Republicans did not believe in government by consent either, and anyone who disagred was a traitor.
In Germany when such a party rose to power, people often ask, why did the citizens of a cultred nation allow such a thing to occur without resistance?, like for instance the legal constitional reseitance excercised by the ststes who secceded.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
__________________ "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.
Not a problem with Congress, but a problem with the Republican party who were in Congress, who did not belive in comprimise, they believed the majority should dicatate to the minority and the minorty just had to take whatever was dictated to them by the majority, for the Republicans did not believe in government by consent either, and anyone who disagred was a traitor.
In Germany when such a party rose to power, people often ask, why did the citizens of a cultred nation allow such a thing to occur without resistance?, like for instance the legal constitional reseitance excercised by the ststes who secceded.
Hanny,
How could the Republican Party do anything that the South did not want? It did not have to compromise with anyone because they could be outvoted or denied any legislation they wanted passed in the House or the Senate. Plus the Supreme Court was on the South's side. Where do you get the Republican Party held the majority anywhere but in the White House?
Slavery was the only issue that could not be compromised on, because the Republican Party had been voted in to the White House, with the pledge that slavery would not spread into the Territories.
The South became a minority in the federal government when it surrendered its representation in it by proceeding with unilateral secession and consigning the South to trial by combat.
As for anyone not agreeing with Republicans and be branded a traitor, it seems to me the remaining Democrats sure gave their all against them and Lincoln in the 1864 election. Name-calling is an old tactic in politics, but Lincoln and his party did not have it all their way, not even by a long-shot.
Comparing the rise of Hitler and the Nazi Party with Lincoln and the Republicans is really not a comparison at all in the light of historical fact.
The truth of the matter is the South had had it's way for over seventy years in the federal government and the North had finally gotten tired of it and expressed its desire for some change. You have the wrong aggressor, IMO.
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
