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.
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.
No basis for this I can see. The only issue upon which Republicans did not seem to compromise was the extension of slavery.
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.
Im posting that what you post is incositant with fact, like i usually have to do with you.
Let us know when you can explain clearly what you mean. Circular posts such as you make simply waste time and space.
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.
Rep party maninifesto, any use of secesion is treason.
Please present clear and explicit information so that we can see what you mean. What "manifesto" are you referring to?
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.
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.
"Uniform taxation"? Of all the types of taxation, tariffs are possibly the closest to "uniform" that you can get (depending how you define "uniform"). Just what is uniform about assessing taxes on property, income, luxury purchases, or how many kids you have? The Constitution required that tariff rates be the same in every port, and that was what was carried out.
If you want to claim that southerners paid heavier tariffs than those outside the South, then give us some examples of what dutiable articles they bought in great quantity that those outside the South did not. Show us that they bought more iron, or sugar, or fine worsteds, or hemp rope, or nails, or tobacco, or printed fabrics. Show us some articles that disproportionately burdened the South and then you can start to make a claim that tariffs were sectionally non-uniform.
Certainly if they were as numerous and egregious as they must have been to stir talk of secession, this should be an easy task, and your examples will be many.
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
Okay, I guess you have a number? Or the names of the ones who were shut down? And why?
Your 'side' always seems to satisfy you with their jargon and is always 'primary' enough for your tastes... always from those whom you trust.
Our 'side', on the other hand, has never been popular with those in charge, has had to many times go underground to survive, and may not have 'primary sources' lined up to
your discriminating taste...
A lot of our 'stuff' got destroyed and done away with by 'your people'. Many of 'us' were silenced, and socially sanctioned into silence, to not offend the majorities...
I believe that if we really knew what happened, we'd all be so speechless that we might never even mention this time period, ever again....
For any reason.
But, as I have silently been keeping score, here, your 'side' does not seem to have any great denial of anything we supposedly can't prove...
Such as the newspaper count.
You do come back, a lot of times, with PROVE IT.
Yet, for all your primary sources and documentations,
you don't ever offer to DISPROVE IT. You don't have Lincoln saying, "I'd never bother the press." You don't ever have him defending a dissenting press. You do have a reputation of dictatorship hanging about the man like a
disagreeable scent...
Something smells, here. But what is it?
You give accounts which seem to argue, here or there, but
you don't ever give a preponderance of the evidence against a thought.
Merely the majority argument for another thought.
It would seem to me that you could simply slam the door upon us, once and for all, if you had in your possession all you say you have.
And yet, you can't.
Or, you don't.
So maybe you are not in the solid position you think you are in...
Someone made those statements...
Why would they make them if there were not some basis in truth to them?
And from your vast and winning references, why do you not come back with more than a "Naa-ahh!"
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
I dont have much time today, so will addresse only one point.
Davis "We are not revolutionry, we are conservatives."
Southern leaders would not have Union with the republicans, it would have been as insane as 50s USA electing a communist party into power and not excpecting ststes to scede when a party who stood for things so antagonstic to them but to take no other course.
The CSA secedded because the Governmnet had fallen into the hands of a revolutionary party, lawfully and legally elected, just as was the Nazi party, after Seward speech the leaders of the deep south openely planned to secede and prepare for mil conflict in the event of the Republicns election in 60.
The Republican party changed the entire form and meaning of what was America, in a blizard of new laws it changed completly federal law and the constition, just as it said it would do if elected. Just as the Nazi said it would do, and did, in the US you got laws that made better use of the economic markets, and opurtunity for all in the homstead acts and so on, just as in germany the bulk of society benifited from econimic imporovement. On the down side, the gestapo were immune from civil prosection, the SS were imune from any prosection except the SS courts, and the head of state, the German army swore loaytly to the head of state,citizens the state deemed to be a problem were stripped of citizenship and exterminated and had all their wordly goods siezed in retro active laws. In the US all mil and poloitical figure were imune from the courts, the mil could do anything to anyone in any state and not be held to acount except to the head of state. Or in short, anyone the stste did not like, would be rubbed out.
Anyone in the USA the state wanted to brang a traitor was subject to the same loss of poliotical represenation, and loss of property, all with retro active laws as in nazi germany, they did not exterminate in camps, they just imposed tax laws in retroactive laws, which ment jail for some 75000 post war, and used them to drain swamp in internal impoprovemt project with a 80% mortality, which in part where the Nazi got the ideas of who to do what the USA had done in a less effiecnt manner to its own citizens and the native American indians on the reservations, ie forced sterlization to end the tribe, just as would the Germany sterlize those it did not want to breed.
If you take the time to look for parrlls with the Republicans and Nazi germany, who used the US along with Uk Indian and S African policys as the basis of what to do to those you dont like, because they offer resistance to the state, youl see my comment is based on historical reality.
the agressor is plain from historical fact, the north invaded southern states, not the other way around.
__________________ "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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
