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.
I'm aware of Clifford Dowdey's biography of Lee, of course, but I haven't read it. Let me know what you think.
I fully agree that each generation should revisit this (or any other) period of history and put its own imprint on it. What I don't accept is the notion that the more modern writing is necessarily superior to the older.
I think that Lee & Lincoln in particular merit constant reevaluation. This is because both men suffer from the same problem: they are subject either to blind idolatory or vicious hatchet-jobs. (In the case of Lee I am thinking, in particular, of Alan Nolan's risible "Lee Considered" - easily the most intellectually bankrupt book ever published on the subject of the Civil War era.)
I cannot concede that any group/community/region/ state/nation has the right to veto the liberty of another.
Their liberty was not at stake. It was the possibility of liberty for their slaves that was at stake, and they were exercising a veto over that liberty.
The bride's family (the South) started to get fed up with the groom's family.The groom's family(the North)started to say bad things about the bride and to condemn their lifestyle.Even worse they started trying to tell the bride's family what to do and how to live their lives.
Pure, unadulterated fiction. Abolitionists were a tiny minority of the Northern population. The vast majority of Northerners had no problem with slavery where it existed. They simply didn't want it to pollute their own lives. But unfortunately that wasn't good enough for the arrogant slaveholders. Controlling the Federal government as they did, they had a draconian Fugitive Slave Law passed in 1850 that made every American a slave catcher, whether they thought slavery was moral or not. When Northern states passed laws to protect their free black citizens from being kidnapped off the streets and sent south into slavery, the arrogant slaveowners demanded those laws be repealed. So much for their so-called love for state rights. State rights was a smokescreen used to protect oppression of blacks. They used it in the 19th Century to protect slavery and they used it thereafter to protect the continued institutionalized oppression of blacks.
What the slaveowners wanted was to control everyone else's lives. It wasn't enough for them that they already controlled the lives of the blacks who lived in their states. They wanted to control the lives of blacks everywhere, and they wanted to control what whites in the free states could enact into law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
The bride's family resented this and started to second guess the match.Even worse the bride had to spend most of the holidays with the groom's family(equates with tarrifs and Southern revenues from then spent North of the Mason-Dixon).
-----------------------
More fiction. The vast majority of tariffs were paid by Northerners, not southerners. Over 90% of the tariff revenues were collected in Northern ports, not southern ports, and southerners made up less than 30% of the population. There is no way they paid anywhere near even half of the tariff. And they also got their fair share of federal government expenditures. Fort Sumter itself was just being completed in 1861, built with federal government funds, as were all the other forts in the harbor as well as all the improvements made to Charleston Harbor and the other harbors in the south.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
The groom's finally also came over uninvited often (central government interfering in state affairs.).
------------------------------
Also pure fiction. The southerners WANTED the central government to interfere in state affairs when it came to protecting slavery. They DEMANDED it. They demanded that the central government force Northern states to repeal personal liberty laws. They demanded the central government force the citizens of the free states to be slave catchers. The Federal government invaded Boston with 2,000 troops to force the rendition of one fugitive slave, Anthony Burns, and the southerners applauded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
Finally the groom had a mid-life crisis and started hanging out with a bad crowd.He started acting like them and mistreated her more than he ever had before.(Abraham Lincoln starring as the bad husband).
------------------------
What utter baloney.
The entire post is filled with nonsense, fiction, and nothing even remotely resembling the actual historical record.
The biggest sore spot with me on this forum is the lumping of all Confederate men as fighting to perpetuate slavery.I view this as the worst kind of slander.
No matter what their personal motivations, they all fought for an entity whose cornerstone, according to its own vice president, was that blacks were not equal to whites and that slavery was the natural condition for blacks. One of their states said, very succinctly, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery." Their leading general said in 1865 that he believed the relationship of master and slave was the best relationship that could exist between whites and blacks while intermixed in the same country.
No matter what their personal motivations, their victory would mean the continuation of slavery for as long as possible. Their defeat meant the end of slavery.
Therefore, no matter what their motivation, every single one of them, because they were fighting for the confederacy, fought for the political goals of the confederacy. And the primary political goal of the confederacy was to gain its independence in order to perpetuate and protect the institution of slavery.
So the claim that they were all fighting for slavery is not slander. It's the truth. Their personal motivations may have been quite different, but they were all fighting for the confederacy, and therefore they were all fighting for slavery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
To me that would be equivalent to saying the Union men sacrificed their life to fight for the tarrif.
To anyone familiar with the actual history it is not. It is equivalent to saying the Union men sacrificed their lives in the first half of the war to preserve the Union and in the second half of the war to preserve the Union and to end slavery. Those were the war goals of the Union side, and every Union soldier, no matter what his personal motivations fought to achieve victory for the Union and therefore fought for the Union's war goals.
I may be naïve, but the way I see it any kind of union should be spontaneous and equally desired by both sides. That kind of union is natural and wholesome. But a union which one side desires and the other dreads is repulsive.
Then the confederacy should really repulse you, since it was a society which one side, with white skin, mostly desired, and the other, with black skin, mostly dreaded.
A timeshare? If this is true, I own the building the share's are sold! :-)
I too, have a lack of resources. But your theory finds no fault in my eyes! It's a fine theory.
The part re: the North not needing slaves and the core issue being the "interstate" issue of the fugitive slave law holds great merit. My understanding of those past issues are sometime muddied by my present view of how our age is manipulated by the modern 'press.'This is probably the reason I was over-rating the abolishionist movement and it's perceived weight during pre-war times. You have the Southern view of the situation very well contained in my opinion. I think both North & South held the racial superiority matter, however. Just a thought..?
Thank you for the reply, Matthew. It's a pleasure to share thoughts with you!
Ole,
Lincoln mentioned the loss of Southern revenue and is quoted as having done such on more than one occasion.
He's quoted by Baldwin, but Baldwin's testimony is uncorroborated and has a few rather gaping holes in it, not the least of which is the fact that over 90% of the tariff revenue was collected in Northern, not southern, ports. Additionally, Baldwin's testimony is contradicted by Lincoln's statements to John Hay which recounted their conversation.
------------------
One who fires at soldiers. Such a civilian loses any protection afforded by their civilian status and are unlawful combatants. They may be fired upon and killed with impunity, and if captured by the rules of war that existed in the 1860s could be summarily executed.
Which 'guilty' Southern civilian fired upon Union troops at Charleston, S.C. after cessation of hostilities, to cause the burnings? Why were poor, non-slaveholder civilian homes inhabited by women & children robbed, looted and burned when resistance was not offered by the occupants?
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
