1776 & 1861.

[Alabaman]

Admiral__Porter,

ALL of the South's agriculturalists were not slaveholders. This is another misconception that you perpetually state.


Quote: Admiral__Porter
No the south left because they couldn't imagine life without slavery.

Wrong again. Obviously the South left the Union due to a direct threat to their agrarian rights and desired way of life. Life without slavery was ALREADY a given with the GREAT MAJORITY of Southerners; most of whom physically constituted the rank & file of Confederate armies. Your forementioned premise therefore nullifies itself forthright.

Respectully,
Alabaman

[Admiral_Porter]

ALL of the South's agriculturalists were not slaveholders. This is another misconception that you perpetually state.

Yes you are correct that not all southerners owned slaves.

But who were the ones who pushed secession at the state conventions? The slaveholding aristocratic planter class. Those are the people I'm referring to.

They took it upon themselves to represent everyone of their state when the Mississippi declaration said "our position is thoroughly identified with slavery."

Obviously the South left the Union due to a direct threat to their agrarian rights and desired way of life.

The south left because a special interest group's way of farming was perceived to be threatened by the Black Republicans.

Life without slavery was ALREADY a given with the GREAT MAJORITY of Southerners;

The average joe didn't have the kind of political and lobbying power that the elite planter class had.

Is it just mere coincidence that the states with the most slaves seceded first?

Is it just coincidence that those areas where there was little or no slave labor like west Virginia, western Carolina, east Tennessee, and northeast Alabama and Georgia were Unionist areas?

Is it just coincidence that I can think of many prominent Unionists that were anti-slavery such as John Fremont, David Hunter, David Bell Birney of Alabama, and Andrew Foote but I can't think of one confederate who was for immediate abolition?

[Alabaman]

Admiral__Porter,

The "average joe" Southerner, who constituted the vast majority of fighting men in Confederate armies had a FREE CHOICE to join, and they did by the thousands, on their OWN volition. And they re-enlisted in 1864, again of their own FREE WILL. Had they not perceived a realistic threat to their way of life by a minority of extremist northerners stirred up by moralistic abolitionists, I'm convinced they would not have chosen not to fight.

Why wasn't all this moderated and worked out by the Founding Fathers during our country's conception. Remember, everything bad can't be directly placed upon the South's mantel. Many Northern men held slaves during this time (Rev. War & after) so the North isn't exactly pure in morality. This country appears to have been conceived in an argumentative & vengeful state of 'Union?'

Respctfully,
Alabaman

[unionblue]

Hal,

I notice in your post#48 of this thread, you again make the contention that the Southern states had no idea when they joined the Union, they were doing so with the understanding they could not leave unless all the states agreed with the idea.

Quite frankly, fighting "to hold them to the agreement they had signed up to," when the agreement they entered into had no reference or hint whatsoever that they were entering into such bondage--that is worst than shameful. If they had the slightest notion that repealing their ratification to join said union at some point in the distant future, when changed circumstances moved them to so act, that they would then be slaughtered for the sake of "union"--that is about one of the worst acts imaginable for a government of a free people to commit, and the states ould have never created the monstrous entity of "union."

I'm afraid Hal, there is much historical evidence that your states knowingly comitted suicide, because they did know they were entering into such 'bondage' as you call it. Please check out my following posts on 'The Second, Ninth & Tenth Amendments' thread and tell me what you think.

http://civilwartalk.com/forums/showp...&postcount=259

http://civilwartalk.com/forums/showp...&postcount=260

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[Admiral_Porter]

The "average joe" Southerner, who constituted the vast majority of fighting men in Confederate armies had a FREE CHOICE to join, and they did by the thousands, on their OWN volition. And they re-enlisted in 1864, again of their own FREE WILL. Had they not perceived a realistic threat to their way of life by a minority of extremist northerners stirred up by moralistic abolitionists, I'm convinced they would not have chosen not to fight.

Why someone fights and what causes a war are two different things.

I do not think that war would have ever happened had the aristocratic planters been willing to change with the times.

Why wasn't all this moderated and worked out by the Founding Fathers during our country's conception.

They tried to do exactly that.

Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence included a statement abolishing slavery but the southern delegates balked at the idea so it was deleted in order to create a nation.

Slavery was such a hot button topic at the Constitutional convention that the founders were forced to create a compromise where the slave trade was abolished after 20 years but slavery remained legal.

Article I section 9:

"The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person."

Remember, everything bad can't be directly placed upon the South's mantel. Many Northern men held slaves during this time (Rev. War & after) so the North isn't exactly pure in morality.

No they weren't pure but the states of the northeast steadily abolished the practice. The midwestern states never had an opportunity to utilize slaves because it was made illegal in the Northwest Land Ordinance.

Georgia was actually the first colony to outlaw slavery but Oglethorpe eventually legalized it after he was pressured to do so.

This country appears to have been conceived in an argumentative & vengeful state of 'Union?

Argumentative yes but I don't see vengeance.

[hawglips]

Originally Posted by unionblue

I'm afraid Hal, there is much historical evidence that your states knowingly comitted suicide, because they did know they were entering into such 'bondage' as you call it.

There is more historical evidence showing the contrary.

And none at all that hints of a federal government that would use bayonets and blood as the primary bonding agent of the proposed union.

Hal

[hawglips]

Originally Posted by matthew mckeon

Dear Hal,

What can we agree on?

Slavery is the opposite of liberty.

The CSA, whatever else it hoped to achieve, meant to preserve slavery.

Perpetual bondage for 4 out of 10 Southerners. No hope, no progress, no education, no rights, not for you, and not for your children. Or their children. Or ever.

The slaves of the USA fared none the better.

Hal

[MobileBoy]

Hal,
You are certainly correct in your position that the Constitution wouldn't have been signed if they knew they would be invaded,killed, and have their homes burned unless they submitted to Northern rule.Many of the Northern states would never have ratified it either.Anyone that thinks so has made an immense error in judgement.

I noticed New Jersey being mentioned as speaking out against secession.This would be another example of politicians not speaking for the will of the poeple.Correct me if I'm wrong anyone but didn't New Jersey supply far less troops than any state for the Union armies.They would be a poor example of supporting coercion.
Porter,
The aristocratic planters were extremely rich and wealthy.Why in the world would they want to change with the times as you put it?They were doing quite well in the times wouldn't you say.I see your point about there not possibly being war without the planter class.Were the North not determined to violently force its ideas on the South there would've been no war either.To back up to an earlier point you made about the South having to import manufactures,they didn't see that as a negative.Most Southerners who toured Northern factories and cities wanted no part of that life.White Southerners were for the most part healthy and happy.If it aint broke why fix it seemed to be the prevailing attitude.I understand your objection to slavery.But surely you've read enough to realize that the vast majority of Northerners in 1860 could care less about the instituion of slavery or the black man.Our modern views about slavery weren't common at all in either the North or the South.So forgive me if that moral superiority you imply the North had makes me laugh.
Rob,
You've made many excellent points on this thread buddy.Keep up the good work.

[hawglips]

Admiral, what did the CSA do to retard human liberty?

Please tell me that is not a serious question.

Yes it is. And an old one at that. Folks seem to have much difficulty explaining how the CSA retarded human liberty more than the USA. Perhaps you can do a better job.

It is a joke for such knowledgeable folks to pretend that Lincoln's war had anything to do with slavery.

The joke is that if we could go back in time to 1860/61 to listen to people like Rhett and Stephens and the delegates at the various secession conventions tell us why they left the Union some would still refuse to believe that slavery was a factor.

Yes indeed. That would be a funny joke. I'd like to know someone like that.

But a funnier one is the one where knowledgeable people who know better pretend that slavery was the reason for Lincoln's war to force union.

It gets even more humorous trying to predict what reason a force-union apologist will use next. Will it be bombing Sumter? Or putting down a rebellion? Slavery? Or holding the states to their decision to join up? Firing on the flag?

But for the life of me I cannot understand why some people are such strong proponents of coersion and the destruction of liberty and self-government.

The north did nothing against the south until Sumter was attacked. The south started a war and paid the price.

Ah yes! The old tit for tat. You insist on control of your own harbor necessary for commerce and defense, and I'll kill all of you.

Are you sure the union's tat wasn't to hold them to their agreement to join the union? Or to fight slavery? Maybe Major Anderson was secretly planning to storm Charleston and free all the slaves there, so the wicked and aggressive slavers launched a preemptive strike.

But since Lincoln and his cabinet made it clear that the question was not whether they would precipitate war, but rather a question of where they would precipitate it, we don't really need to jump around so much from one reason to the other. If that is not enough light shed on the question, one can always refer to Lincoln's declaration of invasion justification in his inaugural, as well as he well-known and clearly stated position on using the military to thwart secession.

And why not address my concern? Why are so many Americans such strong proponents of forcing union against the principles of self-government and liberty that we were founded on?

I thought they were fighting to pin the South to the union with their bayonets.

They were fighting to destroy an aggressive rebellion in their own country.

A bloodless bombardment after a months' long back and forth to negotiate the removal of US troops from there harbor is now an "aggressive rebellion." And the flag. Don't forget firing on the flag.

(Hey, all you Bush-hating force union apologists. Can you imagine how many countries we'd be in right now or would have invaded if we used a bloodless bombing or contempt for our flag as an excuse? Lincoln makes Bush look like a flower-child peace-nik.)

For the life of me I have a hard time understanding how a war to stamp out a peoples' inalienable rights of government by consent of the governed advanced human progress.

The consent of the governed only applied to a special few in the Confederacy.

Of course, this is silly. But humoring your point and taking it from here -- how was it different from what applied in the USA?

I have come to the sad conclusion that most Americans do not believe in government by consent of the governed, and /or the inalienable right of self-determination.

When it comes right down to it, when it is our control that is being threatened, we are no different than any other empire. We proved that in 1861, and prove it every day on this board by the heated defense of our actions of that time.

Hal

[matthew mckeon]

My original point stands. The CSA meant more slavery, the USA meant less. As the war progressed, the USA meant none.

Hal, I'm not understanding your point "how was a slave different in the USA?" Do you mean in the Northern part that was left after secession, or the entire USA both North and South before secession?