CivilWarTalk.com - A free and friendly Civil War community.
CivilWarTalk.com
The Dispatch Depot at Civil War Talk  

Go Back   The Dispatch Depot at Civil War Talk > The Backpack - Essential Discussions > Civil War History - Secession and Politics

Civil War History - Secession and Politics Was 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.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #551  
Old 02-05-2008, 01:01 PM
ole's Avatar
ole ole is online now
Brig. General, Mod
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,669
Default

Quote:
Dosen't say much about Celtic brains, does it.
Now THAT is funny!

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
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #552  
Old 02-05-2008, 01:33 PM
Beowulf's Avatar
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,173
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper View Post
When did this alleged domination of southern population by Celts occur?

Cedarstripper
Gee, I don't have a date on that, Cedarstripper! I'd have to say prior to the CIVIL WAR, and even the Revolution!

That's like asking, "at what point, exactly, did New England decide it could get better terms OUT OF THE 'UNION' with OLD ENGLAND'! (ahem).

You 'done asked me something, now!'

I have the understanding that we were fighting North and South, in places, during the REVOLUTION!

(The Celts fight anybody, apparently!)

What I wanted to posit was that this thing is cultural, as I explained elsewhere. We Celtic-derived peoples in the South champion Celtic ways. (Rebel Banshee yells, Non Centralized government, Hospitality, Christianity, distrust of the Saxon secular humanism, and et cetera).

The North has culturally chosen Anglo-Saxon conquest, domination, xenophobia of nearby foreigners (forced
unions), organization, thrift, enterprise, and empire.

Ne' cest pas?

Yeah, we got French, and et cetera, and so forth.... but the Blood that once was pure left its mark on our culture, which we adopted. Jefferson was tempted in French egalitarianism, and we know about that, but we didn't follow him into Deism! (We don't go to him for our religion, but our politics!).

So, at what point did the South become Celtic? Or the North Anglo-Saxon? Culturally?

Well, I never hear of any other dominating belief on either side... except maybe the Puritans, who were quickly swallowed by Cotton Mather and then the Congregationalists Conner speaks of, who later became secular humanist in thought, and valuing Evolution and Science,and making religions out of these beliefs...

I do enjoy comparing this modern-day Northern zeal with that of the Salem, Massachusetts Witchfinder Generals!

(I really can't blame all that hysteria on stale bread!)

I'm not so regimented in thought, here. I see a connection, and I follow the wire...

Apparently none of this originally blood-based sectionalism / cultural behavior has ever occurred to you guys?

It is interesting!

Beowulf

Last edited by Beowulf; 02-05-2008 at 01:37 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #553  
Old 02-05-2008, 01:43 PM
Beowulf's Avatar
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,173
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OpnDownfall View Post
Well, even IF Beowulf is correct (or Not) All I can say is ...... Anglo-Saxon's still kicks Celtic b..t
It would appear that the British Mid-land rulers in the south had the slaves and convinced their Celtic yeomen that what was good for slavery was good for them.... Dosen't say much about Celtic brains, does it.
There were not enough Anglo-Saxon's in the south to win their indpendence; plenty of Celts, though.
Yeah, and they are still here, and still culturally-intact, and
still have their flags (the Scottish one, as well! Battalion uses a variant on the original color scheme which I always liked)
and guess what?

Anglo-Saxon imperialism has not conquered the South, to this day!

I don't think it ever will!

You don't have the numbers!

Beowulf
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #554  
Old 02-05-2008, 02:25 PM
Sergeant Major (1750+ posts)
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,881
Default Tariff

Anyone can wallow in whatever 'culture' they want, as long as the object of their infatuation does not lead them to disobey the law under the Constitution.
I will point out 'another' (of many others) historical fact. The culture of the south was based on chattel slavery and the North was not.
Even before the CW the disparity of every sign of a civilized society between the two sections were very evident. Schools, theatres, universities, publishing (books and newspapers) patterns of imigrtation, mass transportation, entrepreneurs etc., etc., etc.
Some, may argue that the disparity was due to the Celts of the south attempting to protect their 'particular' blood lines, but there is much more evidence that it was their 'peculiar' institution that was the cause.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #555  
Old 02-05-2008, 02:36 PM
Beowulf's Avatar
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,173
Default Did you post yet?

[quote=unionblue;78614]

UnionBlue;

Did you post concerning Davis' denial that the Civil War was fought over Slavery, as he so eloquently records in Section X of his RISE AND FALL? Did I miss that, perchance?

I didn't want to miss that, since Davis foresaw my need to
answer for him, a century or so later, and dictated to Varina, while in his declining years, the reasons for which he wanted known concerning Southern rectitude during the Invasion...

I was very hopeful of seeing your reply, and if you have posted none yet, am concerned as to why that might be...

I plan to use his tome in other examples and other causes, as well, when I have time to wade through it!

But if he is going to produce such silences by his work,
I am at a loss as to what to make of that!

Of course Cash had an answer, based upon how he saw it, but his answer did not change what Davis had written, nor
determine that Davis had 'flip-flopped' upon the issue, in retrospect.

I was waiting for your guidance in the matter.

Beowulf
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #556  
Old 02-05-2008, 02:44 PM
ole's Avatar
ole ole is online now
Brig. General, Mod
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,669
Default

Davis's Rise and Fall is no more than the fluff that annoys. It is not history incarnate and is thoroughly negligible. Quoting his appologia doesn't fly. Could we leave that dead dog lie?

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
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #557  
Old 02-05-2008, 02:56 PM
Sergeant Major (1750+ posts)
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,881
Default Tariffs

Does Davis explain why he favored enlisting slave volunteers to fight in southern armies, without offering freedom in exchange? If he favored emancipation, did the Confederate Congress, or state govenors, the people or Armies agree with him?
Davis was willing to sacrifice slavery for independence, but was the confederacy? I think the historical record shows that Davis and Lee formed a majority of two>
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #558  
Old 02-05-2008, 05:19 PM
Battalion's Avatar
Sergeant Major (1750+ posts)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,928
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OpnDownfall View Post
Does Davis explain why he favored enlisting slave volunteers to fight in southern armies, without offering freedom in exchange? If he favored emancipation
According to a message to the Confederate Congress (Nov '64?) he favored emancipation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Opd
did the Confederate Congress, or state govenors, the people or Armies agree with him?
Congress-divided

state govenors, the people or Armies- most
__________________
POWER & MONEY

"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."

New York Times, 27 September 1861
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #559  
Old 02-05-2008, 06:19 PM
Sergeant Major (1750+ posts)
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,881
Default Tariffs

With ultimate disaster looming, Davis could not get his own government to emancipate any slaves, even those who volunteered (After their master First volunteered them to volunteer) to fight for the confederacy.
All of Davis' strong arming in the halls of congress. armed with the prestige of Lee's approval could not get the confederate gov't to free any slaves; even at the cost of southern independence.
In the end, Davis and Lee, may have thought they were fighting for independence. But the gov't of the csa had a different vision of what the war was about and independence without its slaves was not it.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #560  
Old 02-05-2008, 06:42 PM
ole's Avatar
ole ole is online now
Brig. General, Mod
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,669
Default

Quote:
All of Davis' strong arming in the halls of congress. armed with the prestige of Lee's approval could not get the confederate gov't to free any slaves; even at the cost of southern independence. In the end, Davis and Lee, may have thought they were fighting for independence. But the gov't of the csa had a different vision of what the war was about and independence without its slaves was not it.
A most telling point, Opn. Who was it that said, in opposition to the proposal, that if the point was given, they had just demonstrated that they had been wrong from the beginning? (Or something like that.) Whoever it was, and whatever exact words were said, he admitted that the Confederacy went to war on the premise that the black man was incapable of taking care of himself, and that therefore his bound condition was doing him a favor. If he were capable of being armed and fighting, then the entire premise was wrong. A mouthful worthy of Churchill: Some chicken. Some neck.

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
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0
Back to top
Bringing the American Civil War to Life. Copyright © 1999 - 2008, CivilWarTalk.com. Site Version 4.3
The American Civil War | Forum | Resource Center | Image Gallery | Links | Site Map | XML | Donations