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.
you have a technical point in the majority of abolitionist not 'physically' doing bodily harm to anybody; other than maybe John Brown & company. Given the wording of some of their rhetoric utilized and the morality issue brought forth, the abolitionist's pen was mightier than the sword, perhaps.
Besides John Brown, what law was broken, and what violence did they incite? If we're to accept the proposition that the abolitionists turned to terrorism and lawlessness, then we're going to have to have more than an isolated incident.
I'm not demonstrating against you on the terrorism point and no laws were broken by most abolitionist that I'm aware of. Perhaps the Southern slaveholders made the exact same statement; we're not breaking a US or State Law by owning slaves. And technically, they weren't. It would have served black slaves as well as white nonslaveholders (for folks) to have worked on their moderation skills. A. Lincoln seemed ready to moderate but the pot kept getting stirred by very hot tempered people including the abolitionist's through their rhetoric in circulars, etc..
Dear Alabaman:
In your last post, "It would have served black slaves as well as white nonslaveholders to work on their moderation skills." Not sure I get this.
Nonslaveholders in the South? Or nonslaveholders, i. e. northern abolitionists? I suppose your point is valid in either case.
Of course, peace and harmony among whites of course didn't "serve" the slaves well. Unless that p and h was leading to some sort of abolition.
One thing bugs me, as almost all abolisionist circulars were banned or supressed in the South... how did the average Southern Farmer learn about abolitionists? Was it stricly through reports and info put forth in Southern Newspapers about the "evil Abolitionists?" if so might the blame for the animosity towards the North be placed squarely on the shoulders of the southern media? Just a thought.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
You were keen on catching that one. lol! I jotted down my reply and omitted the (some folks) part in my typing; it stood out if you catch my meaning. I edited it as soon as my PC would allow. :-) You see how I enclosed the (some folks) part. I saw it & said aloud "yikes." lol!
Dear Ole Reb:
In your post 900, you project an interesting view of a geriatric plantation:
elderly bondsmen hobble out to the fields, while the cruel overseer cuts down the rations of jello, and brutally interrupt naptime.
Actually, since slavery had been humming along for over 200 years, without this problem appearing, I don't think it would have been a pressing concern.
I might could add to your good comment; How did most southern people get the word of all this when many didn't have the luxury of education to their benefit; ie., didnt read or write..
In a suggestion, I suppose that the "Town leaders" or educated folk would have subscribed to and read the newspapers and spread the word in the form of mettings, gathering the latest scoop on things when coming to town, etc. We have to step-back and realize the rural southern people visited town, and each other, to gather the latest news. Thus was their 'way.' Also, the big Plantations were regular little towns on their owm, Shane. They often time had a store, mill, tannery and even a Post Office. Strange, I know but it was a fact. Much info was gathered here.
Added per edit: Hey Matthew, good to know I capture your attention...or someones! Thank You! lol! ;-)
Speech of Representative John B. Alley of Massachusetts, Jan. 26, 1861, from the Congressional Globe, 36th Congress, 2 Session, I, P.584.
"Had the South used her power prudently and acted wisely, she would have controlled the destinies of this Government for generations to come...But, flushed with victories so constant and through and maddened by every expression of opposition to their peculiar institution, they commenced a work of proscription and aggression upon the rights of the people of the North, which has finally forced them to rise in their might and drive them from power. They commenced their aggressions upon the North in some of the Southern States by enactment of unconstitutional laws, imprisoning colored seamen, and refusing to allow those laws to be tested before the proper tribunals. They trampled upon the sacred right of petition; they rifled and burnt our mails, if they suspected they contained anything in condemnation of slavery. They proscribed every Northern man from office who would not smother and deny his honest convicitions upon slavery, and barter his manhood for place. They annexed foreign territory avowedly to extend and strengthen their peculiar insitition, and made war in defense and support of that policy. They refused admission into the Union of States with free constitutions, unless they could have, as an equivalent, new guarantees for slavery. They passed a fugitive slave bill, some of the provisions of which were so merciless, and unnecessary as they were inhuman, that they would have disgraced the worst despotism of Europe. They repealed that 'Missouri compromise act,' which they had themselves forced upon the North, against their wishes and their votes; and after having attained all their share of the benefit, they struck it down, against the indignant and almost unanimous protest of the whole North, for the purpose of forcing slavery upon an unwilling people. They undertook to prevent, by violent means, the settlement of Kansas by free-State men. They invaded that Territory, and plundered and murdered its citizens by armed force...Not satisfied with all this, they tried to force upon them, against their consent, a constitution permitting and protecting slavery; and for 'spurning the bribe,' they have been kept out of the Union, and made to suffer all manner of indignities. Every new triumph of the South and every concession by the North has only whetted their appetite for still more, and encouraged them in making greater claims and more unreasonable demands, until to-day they are threatening the overthrow of the Government if we do not give them additional guarantees for protection to their slave property in territory which we do not now own."
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 to RebProf's idea that abolitionists were all 'terrorists',
"You charge that we stir up insurrections among your slaves. We deny it; and what is your proof? Harper's Ferry! John Brown!! John Brown was no Republican; and you have failed to implicate a single Republican in his Harper's Ferry enterprise...
Slave insurrections are no more common now than they were before the Republican party was organized. What induced the Southhampton insurrection, twenty-eight years ago, in which, at least three times as many lives were lost as at Harper's Ferry? You can scarcely stretch your very elastic fancy to the conclusion that Southampton was "got up by Black Republicanism." In the present state of things in the United States, I do not think a general, or even a very extensive slave insurrection is possible. The indispensable concert of action cannot be attained. The slaves have no rapid communication; nor can incendiary freemen, black or white, supply it....
John Brown's effort was peculiar. It was not a slave insurrection. It was an attempt by white men to get up a revolt among slaves, in which the slaves refused to participate. In fact, it was so absurd that the slaves, with all their ignorance, saw plainly enough it could not succeed...
Will they (the South) be satisfied if the Territories be unconditionally surrendered to them? We know they will not. In all their present complaints against us, the Territories are scarcely mentioned. Invasions and insurrections are the rage now. Will it satisfy them, if, in future, we have nothing to do with invasions and insurrections? We know it will not. We so know, because we know we never had anything to do with invasions and insurrections; and yet this total abstaining does not exempt us from the charge and the denunciation....
...what will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroghly - done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated - we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas' new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves, with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our Free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery,before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us..."
The above is taken from Abraham Lincoln's Cooper Union Address, February 27, 1860.
Lincoln knew, just as anyone else should know, it wasn't the abolitionists nor the Republican party, nor anyone in the North that was committing 'acts of terrorism' against the South. This is why no one else in the abolitionist movement nor in the Republican party can be named or proven to have committed armed acts against the South.
Which is why I am still waiting to hear any other names besides John Brown connected to the abolishonists movement who conducted 'acts of terrorism' or who should be considered 'terrorists.'
Sincerely,
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
