Slavery; THE Cause? - Page 62

unionblue · #**611** 10-07-2005, 05:28 AM

Bill,

A pleasure, as always.

I draw no distinction between revolution and secession. I thought I had made it clear in my post #609 that secession is nothing but revolution. Please reread my post.

What I refer to when I call secession a contrivance is when the Southern leadership tried to spin it into a claim that it had some sort of legal standing, when it clearly was simply an act of rebellion/revolution.

As to what I am really saying is just this. That a majority of the citizens of the United States (NOT the North) are entitled to sit in judgement on a minority of their fellow citizens. We call such judgement an 'election.'

And again, you have the problem reversed in my opinion. At what point does the notion that the will of the minority should prevail by bullying the majority over what it concieves as its 'right' to do so?

I will admit the fundamental difference between us is the concept of consent. After all my time on this board, I still cannot understand why no one of the forced slavery question will give me a clear explanation of why a minority is excused from its bullying to have slavery extended everywhere in the country, even when the majority objects. I have no problem with your statement that democracy and consent are inextricably connected. Why do you think I have one, just because I do not consent that a minority should dictate to the majority of the nation?

Hell, I can't even get those who support the South to even admit such events took place because a minority was doing all it could to ignore the wishes of the majority, let alone admit that slavery was the cause behind the bullying.

And it would be a horrible prospect, that even if I were part of that majority who said, 'you may keep it in your section but don't force me to have it in mine' and they ignored my wishes and tried to force me into it without my consent and that of the majority of others. Must I submit and condone an instiitution, live with it, when I want nothing to do with it? Help its spread and help it along by being forced to particpate in it by law? And fined when I don't? All because a minority is thinking it is best for them?

FLip the coin, Bill, and please look at the other side with some objectivity. I am the one in the majority who is turning down the minority's sexual advances. I don't care if you practice them in your house, no matter how distasteful I personally find them. But when you try and force me into such acts in my own home, can't I object and have my way? Especially if I am in the majority?

Sincerely,
Unionblue

bill_torrens · #**612** 10-07-2005, 05:54 AM

Neil,

I will try my very best to flip the coin and look at things as objectively as possible.

You seem to be saying that, because you believe the South behaved in a consistently unreasonable manner over the issue of slavery while it was still a consenting and participating region of the United States, it follows that the U.S. government had the right to compel it to rejoin the Union.

I can't follow the logic. I'm sorry. The more you emphasise the overbearing and undemocratic behaviour of the South, the more frequently I ask myself "Then why in the heck didn't they just let them go and say 'Good riddance' ?"

This is what I cannot begin to fathom. The disdain for the South is coupled with an iron determination to hang on to it. I've heard of possessive love, but this appears to be possessive hatred. What would Freud have made of it?

Bill

unionblue · #**613** 10-07-2005, 07:21 AM

Bill,

You keep sliding by my real view. You come close, but then you pull back or you just barely brush by.

The NORTH rebelled against the South. It met the requirements of a people's right to rise up and overthrow the existing government. It's rebellion finally suceeded in 1860.

Its just the timing of it all that has you confused.

And like I have said, "Sometimes," Freud said, "a cigar is just a cigar."

Sincerely,
Unionblue

Alabaman · #**614** 10-11-2005, 06:28 PM

Neil,
Is this horse shot down or can he be revived to ride again or
Hence, are you letting this field go fallow or is it up for further ploughing? :-)

I read your post #611 IIRC and read where you said something about Southerners not admitting slavery as a "cause" for the war and was thinking aloud.

Sincerely,
Rob Adams (Alabaman)

unionblue · #**615** 10-11-2005, 07:21 PM

Alabaman,

I only plow here in this field when someone tries to plant weeds.

My problem with those folks who support the so-called Southern view that secession was legal, O.K., a 'right', and more than likely non-fattening, will call down any reason, no matter how fantastic, how disproven, or shown to be impossible by simple dates listed in history, that all the other so-called causes are not relevant.

Then there is this fantastic effort to ignore the greatest political issue of the time, that of the protection and extension of slavery by those who would profit most from it, who gave a dam about the average Southern yeoman farmer, who had very little, if anything to say about the powerful elite who led him into war.

This push to ignore or to sweep slavery under a historical rug is a crime to history and a crime to our children. It is a determined, strong-willed effort, to bury one's head in the sand and declare that the central reason for the war never happened. Many do not even wish to discuss it, they simply want to dismiss it, and yet their ancestors did not do so. The papers and documents of the time discuss the issue again and again.

Many who have Southern ancestors and leanings tell me time and time again, the majority of those who lived and died in the army did not own slaves. I agree. Many tell me their ancestors did care about owning slaves. I say they should know their ancestors better than I would. But this does not mean that the war was not fought over the protection and extension of slavery.

I know many here have letters and diaries from their ancestors, but what did they discuss about the social climate of the times? What did they talk about when it came to what they thought was right about the institution of slavery and the slaves place in society. More than likely, they thought nothing about the institution being wrong. It was permitted by law, it was legal, and it kept blacks in their place. Most white Southerners growing up in such an environment would have been hard-pressed to have found it wrong. It was normal.

But in no way was the institution normal to all. And this is why I keep coming back to this issue as the only real source of contention between the North and the South, the one issue that kept the pot boilling all the years from the nation's founding to the time up before the war. Not tariffs, not big government, not states rights, but the issue of slavery.

And this is why it drives me so crazy, that so clearly an issue, the one factor that would drive a nation to war against itself, is constantly denied and constantly pushed aside in some sort of strange drive to justify our ancestors and our section's pride. That is not debate, that is not searching for the truth and it is simply not being honest with ourselves.

Sorry for the rant, Rob, but it is a subject near and dear.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

unionblue · #**616** 10-12-2005, 05:01 AM

Friends,

Thought I would add some web sites that I found on the subject of slavery.

The Slave Codes of the State of Georgia, 1848.

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/slavelaw.htm

The American Slave Code, 1853.

http://www.dinsdoc.com/goodell-1-0a.htm

The Fugitive Slave Act, 1850.

http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/fdw/vo...texts/law.html

Slavery Federal Cases, 1850-1865.

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/03j...fedcases03.htm

Makes for interesting reading.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

Admiral_Porter · #**617** 11-03-2005, 07:00 PM

Yes slavery was the primary cause of the south's secession.

The lyrics of the Bonnie Blue Flag, Alex Stephens' Cornerstone Speech, and the secession declarations of states like South Carolina and Texas are just some examples of how much slavery played a role in causing the war.

nbforrest · #**618** 11-03-2005, 08:46 PM

Slavery was only a symptom of the larger issue that can be traced back to Jeffersonian Democrats and Federalists.

Even assuming the planter elite fought the war for slavery (which I don't think they did) it makes no sense that the mostly non slave holding population of commoners would go into war.

Admiral_Porter · #**619** 11-03-2005, 08:51 PM

Why someone fights and what started the war are two different things. But yes I do believe the rich planter elite fought for slavery especially when you have people like Thomas RR Cobb explicitly stating his interest in preserving slavery.

Any debate over powers of the Federal and State governments derives from one side looking to protect it's slave/cotton interests while the other was trying to prevent a backwards system from entering free territory.

Slavery was the root cause of all the pre-war issues.

nbforrest · #**620** 11-03-2005, 08:55 PM

That makes no sense. The Jefferson/Federalist debate began in a time when slavery was on its way out. The reason the issue got ignored because everyone saw that slavery was dying out. Old Eli Whitney and the cotton gin changed that.

It is equally nonsensical to say that the planter elite fought just to preserve slavery. Slavery wasn't threatened. Abolitionists were a radical minority. The Northern public and most Northern politicians had no interest in destroying slavery, Lincoln included. Why would the South fight to preserve something that was not threatened? Wishful thinking, but makes no sense.