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.
"The famous Frederick Douglas said that if they were freed most of the slaves would fight for the South.That statement needs no elaboration.[/color][/i]
------------
How would he know?
"Also the Confederate constitution expressly forbid the slave trade." Now why is it that this simple statement gets overlooked time and again?
------------
It's meaningless. It was put in as an enticement for Virginia to join the confederacy. Note it expressly kept the interstate slave trade open for business and profit for the Virginia slaveholders with their excess of slaves.
Hmm, I guess it ranks right up there with Lincoln, in an appeal late in the war, indicating to Southerners that his Emancipation Proclamation was merely a "war maneuver" and in essence, wasn't worth the paper it was written on. I guess Yanks don't want to be reminded of that one. Of course , in my opinion, the Lincoln statement doesn't matter anyway because the South was not fighting for slavery, but for liberty from the Union, therefore they rejected this.[/color][/i]
-------------------
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery." [Mississippi Declaration of Causes]
And Rob (Alabaman), I absolutely agree with your conclusion : "If the Southern population followed the voices of their leaders and three-fourths of the same owned no chattel slaves, great odds are against the continuation of slavery." Jefferson Davis himself said, at some point during the war, that slavery was done for. So why did they continue to fight? I've already answered that, they wanted out of the Union. They were being forced to pay for Northern goods they could easily have bought cheaper from Britain, yadda yadda. I could go on endlessly but I have stated all of these things ad infinitum.
--------
Completely wrong. The tariff had little effect on the price of goods they bought from Britain because by and large they didn't buy many things from Britain. The tariff was not the reason for secession. The leadership were slaveowners. They didn't start speaking out for limited emancipation until after they were in dire straits regarding manpower. Even then, there was a great protest raised in the confederate congress and among the elite because they were in fact fighting to continue slavery.
You’re presuming you know how post-war Confederate citizens would have thought.
Human nature hasn't changed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_torrens
Your hypothesis, moreover, lacks verisimilitude. Do you really believe that people would say to themselves: “Well, slavery is clearly an anachronism, and no longer serves our interests; but out of reverence for the Founding Fathers we’ll keep it anyway” ? Nobody thinks like that.
You assume they would have said that. Slavery exists today, so there's no evidence whatsoever beyond your wishful thinking that it would no longer serve their interests.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_torrens
You’re not comparing like with like. The torpor and apathy of much of the 21st century’s western population is an issue which should shame us all; but in the mid-19th century the hostility to slavery in much of Europe was very real and could certainly have brought down any government which ignored it.
Human nature is the same today as it was then. The cotton was more important than any real protest against slavery. You're engaging in wishful thinking again. The cold, hard, economic fact is that they wanted the cotton and would have accepted slavery just like they always did, and just like slavery in China is accepted today.
Cash,
For you to claim to know the true intent of Confederate Congress needs no explaining.But pardon me for having a little fun with you.Maybe you can also use your psychic powers and tell us who really killed Kennedy.Better yet can you tell me the day the world ends.Seriously man tell me the numbers to the Florida lottery.Do you give a group rate for palm reading?Where is the lost civilization of Atlantis?I know you probably don't find me amusing.My wife would probably agree with you that I'm not funny but I try.
You say Thea was completely wrong about the tarrif.First of all who are you to tell Thea that she is wrong.I didn't realize that Thea was your student and asked you to check her answer.In the South we do not talk to women that way because that is considered rude and socially unacceptable.Didn't your mother teach you to show women respect?Now men do talk frankly to each other, but not to strangers.I have been a bad example of a Southern man , and for that I am sorry.You say the tarrif had little effect on the price of goods they bought from Britain because by and large they didn't buy that many goods from Britain.Cash you don't have to be an economics professor to comprehend that the tarrif raised the price of British goods.That is what a tarrif does it raises the price of imports.Come on man I know you know that.True the South didn't buy that many British goods.I agree with you on that.But Cash is it completely unreasonable that the tarrif jacking up the price of goods had something to do with that.
Whats up with the Frederick Douglas comments.Who was he?How would he know?Cash I usually disagree with you, but you're too smart to ask that question.Well Cash let me tell you.He was a former black slave from the South.Now how can anyone reasonable think a former slave from the South wouldn't have more insight into their thinking than a white Northerner 145 years after the fact.That is totally irrational thinking and needs nothing else said on the matter.
I won't argue that the tarrif caused secession.You have I believe told me that it wasn't really a issue but it was made an issue by later historians.If I misquoted you I apologize I'm going from memory here.If it wasn't an issue why did newspapers and Southerners at the time say it was.Oh I forgot you have psychic gifts and you can tell me what they were thinking.Check out the Confederate tarrif you will find no Northern protectionist tarrif in there.You will also find it was illegal for the Confederate government to help financeinternal improvements,highways,railroads,etch...I wonder why they wasted the time making their own tarrif laws when they could have just copied the one from the Union down that they were so happy about all of these years.
Just curious Cash do you speak for say the ancient Egyptians,or Israelites, or just 1860s Confederates?Where is the ark of the covenant?Cash if we found that we would be loaded.I'd even be happy to be on your payroll and portray theses ridiculous Southern stereotypes.One of my best friends is black.Make the price right and he'll even pick cotton all day in the sun and let the master beat him.Did that make you smile?Comeon man lighten up discussing history is supposed to be enjoyable.We're not in Iraq so we're not fighting a war.Lighten up a little bit.I'll give you credit for having some historical knowledge, but dude you didn't die on the cross.You're not the final judge as to who is right and who is wrong.Yea I know that was a strawman I made there but please listen.
Mobileboy,
I've been away for a while now, but I've watched some of your posts, and especially this last one. This individual that you have been 'debating' with recently, most certainly suffers from what is known as the 'I know much better than you' syndrome. This malady seems to affect those of the Northern persuasion, most. These individuals seem to have an unabated reservoir of knowledge, that is supposedly, far superior to those of Southern origin. However, I have found that this one particular individual, seems to let his powerful mind run, somewhat, amuck.
I'm sure that your ancesters, just as mine, did not fight that great War, and lay down their lives, so that our great Southland could lay claim to Africans as slaves. He may have the audacity to even suggest that he KNOWS, that they (our ancestors), fought for the 'right' of the Southerners to own slaves. Well, I mean, what's up with that? He may have the knowledge that HIS great granddaddy fought to subjugate the South, but, as for mine, and yours, ........well, his wealth of intelligence seems to dwindle into that of, somewhat lower intellect, and of course, he fails miserably in trying to determine why OUR ancestors fought, for he has no clue. We know of our great grandparents, and of course, he does not. It is us, that can tell him, of just what they were made of, he of course, can not.
It seems as though this individual tries to humiliate you with his vast abundance of the 'facts', however, this is nothing more than a mere, ....smoke screen, to cover up for his own inadaquate education of those Southern patriots. I have pity on him, for he knows not, really, what he espouses, other than the North was right, and the South was wrong. Well, most of us who are well versed in this conflict, know that this certainly was not the case, and it wasn't just about being right or wrong.
I certainly applaud your fine posts, young man. You are a credit to, not only the South, but to all who want to know just why, and the reasoning behind it, that, that great war was fought. You bring a very good picture of the Southern point of view, of the war, and you are to be commended for that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_torrens
You’re presuming you know how post-war Confederate citizens would have thought.
Human nature hasn't changed.
That’s true, but the environment in which humans live does change, and the changes have an effect on how people think and behave. Otherwise, human nature being a constant, we would all still think and behave like cavemen, wouldn’t we?
Quote:
Slavery exists today, so there's no evidence whatsoever beyond your wishful thinking that it would no longer serve their interests.
I have no wishful thinking on this subject. I do not pretend to know when, if ever, slavery would have disappeared from an independent Confederacy. What I would say with some confidence, however, is that slavery was likelier to undergo amendment, perhaps leading to emancipation, in the Confederacy rather than in a United States in which secession never happened. And I base this on the entirely toxic effect of Northern abolitionism on Southern thinking. Remove the toxin and clearer thinking might perhaps be a possibility.
Quote:
Human nature is the same today as it was then. The cotton was more important than any real protest against slavery. You're engaging in wishful thinking again. The cold, hard, economic fact is that they wanted the cotton and would have accepted slavery just like they always did, and just like slavery in China is accepted today.
What you seem to be asserting is that Southerners today would be bound to view slavery in the same way that Southerners did in 1861. And you seem to think that Chinese acceptance of de facto slavery in 2005 is evidence that it would be equally acceptable to people like Thea, Rob & Tommy. I cannot begin to follow this logic.
Times change. Although human nature is fundamentally the same, in the western world we no longer burn witches; we no longer hang people for stealing a sheep; we no longer send 6 year-olds to work in factories; we no longer imprison women for demanding the vote. And yet you argue that slavery would have been immune from this general pattern of change. And you cite a Third World country as supporting evidence. Sorry, it won’t wash.
Mobilebot & SgtCSA, if I may ask do you know your ancestors through their letters or through what a history book tells you? In my own family no letters exist and only a few sparse photos from the 1870's. I cannot pretend to know that I have a better grasp of my own family ancestors. I can pull up facts such as when they purchased a tract or land or died and not a whole lot more. I can't say I know who their friends or enemies were. It is sad to me that I know far more about the lives of diferent CW soldiers, both Union & CS, than I do about my own family. I envy you both your knowledge of your ancestors... many people can't even say they know their names.
Now can I ask that you both step back a second and reread your last couple posts and ask yourself what someone on the other side of the aisle might think of them and then ask yourself what you would think if there was interplay between Ole & Cash worded in such a way. There shouldn't be points awarded for zingers and such.
As to the style of posts made by Cash, I can assure you that the way people have responded to him has changed his way of posting & replying as they have my own. Sarcasm & snide comments serve only to heat up the subject.
Please gents, lets not get this thread derailed as others have been.
As a note to Mr or Ms "Anonymous" troublemaker; yes I have read this thread I have posted on the subject. Neither SgtCSA, Mobileboy, Cash or Ole are trying to shut it down. It's heated discourse at worst. Grow up.
__________________ Shane Christen
American Legion Post 352
SUVCW Camp Abernethy# 48
Lifetime NRA member
3rd MN VI
For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. Eccl 1:18
The only real written communication that I have from my ancestors from this time is in the family Bible.Apparently they preferred much bigger Bibles than the type we prefer today.There are marriages,deaths,addresses of family who moved,prayer request etch... written down in the blank pages in it.There is one prayer request at the start of the conflict that emplors God to defend his poeple as he did the Israelites from Assyria etch...There is no mention of slavery whatsoever.There is a mention of praying for wicked men on both sides who have brought this conflict together.The rest of the letter was just praying for God's will,safety,the souls of those who would be lost etch...That's all the written communication my family has.As you can imagine by word of mouth the views of those involved past down from one generation to the next.My Great Grandfather was the recipient of most of this knowledge.From what I've heard he talked about the war often.My Grandfather fought in World War 2 and that is most of the history he talks about.If I ever brought up the Civil War and asked if it was mainly about slavery his blood would boil and I went to go help my Nanna as soon as possible.If you want to believe slavery played a big role in this conflict then that's in my opinion historically accurate.But the fact 70 percent owned no slaves should make it pretty clear that most of the Confederate military was fighting for what they perceived as freedom from the North.Our country wasn't even 100 years at the time of the Civil War.I think poeple overlook this fact too often.The break away of colonies from what they considered the oppressive rule(which I don't think was all that oppressive) of Britain was not a long forgotten past.After all ,Robert E. Lee's Dad fought alongside Washington.I think poeple get too bogged down with whether secession was legal or illegal.America was founded by secession from Britain which certainly wasn't legal under British law.Wouldn't America have been a minority in the British empire.So to use some of the arguments I've read on here that would be saying America(the minority)wanted to impose her will on the majority(Britain).America just wanted freedom to make its own laws.We didn't want to rule the entire British Empire.So if you hold that the American Revolution was wrong then it would make sense to claim that the Confederacy was in the wrong.But if you support the American Revolution then it isn't consisitent at all to denounce the founding of the Confederacy.
The 10 percent figure you mentioned was I think a reference to the fact that 10 percent of free blacks in the South owned slaves.I have read that figure several times.
SGt CSA,
Thanks for your post.I really do appreciate it.Don't be a stranger in here friend.
Ashley
Again, I refer all to my post number 21. Upon this thread, I make my presumptive stand.
The Generals, Public figures &etc.. I referenced were indeed trying to win the war by promising freedom to slaves & their families upon honorable service in the CS Army. The fact that these Military leaders did, only adds a forte to my prospects. If the CS Army had prevailed, through slaves-turned-soldiers, no amount of Top-Class Southern caste would have prevented these Generals from doing what they had promised. Would you state with any degree of certainty, the people of the South, would have gone against the sacred word of 'the' Robert E. Lee. I highly doubt it, myself. Gen. Lee would most likely have been elected President, if this has any bearing to the matter at hand. Other personages such as Gen. Johnston would have stuck to his word. They would have to fulfill their Military duties and that included freedom to honorably discharged colored soldiers & their families. The people, 70% non-slaveholders, would have followed their beloved leaders such as Lee, Johnston, Benjamin (the Jewish member of the CS cabinet etc. Anyone Southern, wishing to hold-on to slavery, by 1865 and that terrible carnage, would have been 'eyed' like a cat watching a tiny mouse in a well bucket! Slavery, THROUGH the military call for arming slaves, lends credence to the demise of slavery upon a successful war with the North. For the "thought" was already there. "Necessity" or not.
Cash,
For you to claim to know the true intent of Confederate Congress needs no explaining.But pardon me for having a little fun with you.Maybe you can also use your psychic powers and tell us who really killed Kennedy.
Lee Harvey Oswald. He acted alone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
Better yet can you tell me the day the world ends.Seriously man tell me the numbers to the Florida lottery.
Sorry, I'm keeping those numbers to myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
Do you give a group rate for palm reading?
Sorry, I don't read palms, I read history books. But if you prefer to get your history from reading palms, more power to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
Where is the lost civilization of Atlantis?
Myth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
You say Thea was completely wrong about the tarrif.First of all who are you to tell Thea that she is wrong.
Someone who's studied the tariff issue pretty thoroughly. And if you think the tariff had anything to do with secession and the war, then you're wrong too. You might want to refresh your memory of the tariff thread where we've been covering it in-depth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
In the South we do not talk to women that way because that is considered rude and socially unacceptable.
Sorry, but I've seen ample evidence to the contrary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
You say the tarrif had little effect on the price of goods they bought from Britain because by and large they didn't buy that many goods from Britain.Cash you don't have to be an economics professor to comprehend that the tarrif raised the price of British goods.That is what a tarrif does it raises the price of imports.
Like I said, by and large they didn't buy that many goods from Britain. They bought mainly from the North and from the West what they didn't produce for themselves. Very few southerners had need for imported goods. Imported goods were bought primarily by Northerners, followed by Westerners. They were the ones who paid the most in tariffs. If anyone had a beef about paying more for imported goods it would be them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
Come on man I know you know that.True the South didn't buy that many British goods.I agree with you on that.But Cash is it completely unreasonable that the tarrif jacking up the price of goods had something to do with that.
Not completely, but they were only 29% of the population, and the rest of the country bought the imported goods. Most southerners had no need for imported goods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
Whats up with the Frederick Douglas comments.Who was he?
You don't know who Frederick Douglass was? He was an abolitionist who was a runaway slave from Maryland living in the North.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
How would he know?Cash I usually disagree with you, but you're too smart to ask that question.Well Cash let me tell you.He was a former black slave from the South.Now how can anyone reasonable think a former slave from the South wouldn't have more insight into their thinking than a white Northerner 145 years after the fact.That is totally irrational thinking and needs nothing else said on the matter.
Your response is totally irrational. You chided me earlier about "mind reading," yet you impute Mr. Douglass with mind reading capabilities without a second thought, and actually expect everyone to accept that nonsense. Douglass was living in the North. He was not talking to slaves in the south. He was not in communication with them. He was not wandering around the south taking polls. What he was doing was pushing a political agenda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
I won't argue that the tarrif caused secession.You have I believe told me that it wasn't really a issue but it was made an issue by later historians.
Some historians may have picked it up. The tariff was a factor in the sectional tensions, but did not cause secession. It was a factor when the southerners were "calculating the value of the Union," but was not a factor in the actual decision to secede. Postwar apologists, anxious to legitimize the confederacy, grabbed onto the tariff as an alternate explanation for secession in order to try to remove the stigma of slavery from the confederacy. Any serious study of the history of the secession movement will show it to be nothing but a false front.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
Check out the Confederate tarrif you will find no Northern protectionist tarrif in there.You will also find it was illegal for the Confederate government to help financeinternal improvements,highways,railroads,etch...I wonder why they wasted the time making their own tarrif laws when they could have just copied the one from the Union down that they were so happy about all of these years.
Not very good logic, Ashley. The confederate tariff was significantly lower than the United States tariff because southerners were traditionally more aligned with the free-trade movement. I happen to agree with that economic philosophy, but it wasn't a cause for secession. What happened was they seceded and set up the confederacy to protect slavery, as their own Vice President said openly twice, and since they were setting up a country more to their liking they installed their own tariff policy. They also gave the president a single six-year term and the line-item veto, yet I don't see anyone claiming they seceded and started the war in order to get a single six-year-term presidency or a line-item veto. And they did address their reason for secession in their constitution as well. Check out the confederate constitution and you will find an ironclad guarantee of slavery.
That’s true, but the environment in which humans live does change, and the changes have an effect on how people think and behave. Otherwise, human nature being a constant, we would all still think and behave like cavemen, wouldn’t we?
Who says we're not? We have the same drives and impulses. We gather in groups for protection, we get food for ourselves and our families, we find shelter from the elements, and we bring up the next generation and teach them what we've learned. We fashion tools to make our work easier for us and to be able to do more things. Our language has changed and our level of knowledge has changed, but we're still thinking and behaving quite a bit like cavemen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_torrens
I have no wishful thinking on this subject. I do not pretend to know when, if ever, slavery would have disappeared from an independent Confederacy. What I would say with some confidence, however, is that slavery was likelier to undergo amendment, perhaps leading to emancipation, in the Confederacy rather than in a United States in which secession never happened. And I base this on the entirely toxic effect of Northern abolitionism on Southern thinking. Remove the toxin and clearer thinking might perhaps be a possibility.
In other words, wishful thinking. All the evidence points to a continued existence of slavery for as long as they could maintain it, absent some cataclysmic event. They looked at slavery as the reason for their own liberty; in fact, they defined their liberty and their rights in terms of the existence of slavery. There is no way they would give that up on their own, especially if they had won a war, with battlegrounds sprinkled with the blood of their dead patriotic forebears, to preserve slavery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_torrens
What you seem to be asserting is that Southerners today would be bound to view slavery in the same way that Southerners did in 1861. And you seem to think that Chinese acceptance of de facto slavery in 2005 is evidence that it would be equally acceptable to people like Thea, Rob & Tommy. I cannot begin to follow this logic.
How many Americans today have no problem with the concept of being taxed without having your representatives having a say in imposing the tax?
And, assuming an independent confederate nation, people like Neil, Ole, you, and me would have very little problem accepting the existence of slavery in that independent confederacy as long as our country benefited from trade with them. Oh, we'd make the typical expressions of disapproval, but we wouldn't actually do anything about it because we would want to continue benefiting from that trade. I'm not claiming any type of moral degeneracy on southerners in particular, nor any type of moral superiority on anyone else. I'm just talking about the effect the institution of slavery itself has on human beings who live with that system and are not slaves themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_torrens
Times change. Although human nature is fundamentally the same, in the western world we no longer burn witches;
Not literally, but we still have inquisitions against some types of "others." Remember McCarthy and the Red Scare? There were lives that were destroyed in the 1950s because people were merely suspected of being communists. I don't have to go into the Holocaust to show that people who were different could be burned, not necessarily as witches but demonized nonetheless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_torrens
we no longer hang people for stealing a sheep; we no longer send 6 year-olds to work in factories; we no longer imprison women for demanding the vote. And yet you argue that slavery would have been immune from this general pattern of change. And you cite a Third World country as supporting evidence. Sorry, it won’t wash.
China is very much a superpower, and becoming more advanced every day. Sorry, but your simply waving your hand won't make it go away.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
