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.
Neil,
Thanks for the post! Sorry I haven't responded, but it isn't from non-interest just simply the 'health issue' rearing its ugly head at me, as of late. My apology, Neil.
I will proptly read the links provided by you and will reply asap. Please be patient. ;-)
__________________ 'It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag'
Neil,
They certainly exerted a powerful influence , but to say they controlled the government is a blatant exagerration friend.If they quote controlled the government then please explain to me why California was admitted as a free state.That fact alone despite rhetoric as intelligent as it may be proves they weren't in absolute control as do several other facts.Neil if they were in control then why didn't the United States purchase Cuba?Neil why was Kansas admitted as a free state. If the slave power was in control of the government.Unfortunately friend these facts which occurred in the real world put aside the notion that they controlled the government.My smart friend I feel your zeal for slavery issues have led you astray again.If you will, please explain to me how the examples I listed above which we all know went against this slave power's wishes show there control of the government.I expect you will not comment on those examples which shut the door on that biased notion that they ran the government.Neil they were very powerful no doubt and influenced policy.But to say that they totally controlled the government is a farse and you know better.I'm really interested in hearing how you rationalize the examples I listed above with your theory.If you read my post I said that there was a concentrated effort to expand slavery in the territories.Since Kansas became a free state thus the effort failed it can't possibly be any clearer that they didn't rule the government.Having ambition to do something has little to do with the power to do it.I think Brooke Burke(former host of Wild On at E) is the most beautiful woman I've ever seen.I could have ambitions to be with were,but if she won't have me then to say I rule her would be woefully inaccurate.
Have a good one friend,
Ashley
Rob,My prayers are with you buddy.Let me know if there's anything I can do.
The generation that fought the Revolution: Adams, Washington etc. were quite different in outlook about the USA and slavery then the sectional politicians of the 1840s and 50s. Slavery was not the issue for the men of the Revolutionary Era as it would be decades later.
In short, Southern slaveowners of the 1850s saw the choice of knuckling under to a restriction of slavery, leading to eventual Northern domination, or secession. The Revolutionary generation, given the choice between restricting slavery or leaving the Union, would have unhestitatingly chosen restricting slavery. In fact in several instances, they did just that. But they didn't see it in such stark terms, which is why compromise was possible.
The Dred Scot decision, Bleeding Kansas, the riots around enforcing the harsher fugitive slave law, all were events not conceivable in the 1790s.
If they quote controlled the government then please explain to me why California was admitted as a free state.
Part of the Compromise of 1850, which generally benefited the slave states more than the free states. This, of course, came after the slave states led the US into a war with Mexico to steal more territory for slavery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
if they were in control then why didn't the United States purchase Cuba?
They tried. The price was too high.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
why was Kansas admitted as a free state.
Almost admitted as a slave state under the fraudulent Lecompton Constitution. Of course, a peek at history shows that Kansas was not admitted as a free state until after the secession of 6 slave states and just before the secession of a seventh. So the slave power by then had diluted its own power through secession.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
Unfortunately friend these facts which occurred in the real world put aside the notion that they controlled the government.
They occurred in the real world, but as we've seen they don't do what you think they do if we know the actual history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
Since Kansas became a free state thus the effort failed it can't possibly be any clearer that they didn't rule the government.
It can't be clearer that you are completely ignoring WHEN Kansas was admitted and comparing that to the secession of the slave states, which makes your point completely disingenuous.
Take your time and be well, that's the first order of business to you and your family.
We'll be here when you get back, no worry there.
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
I continue to be amazed at how my 'zeal for slavery' can be construed as being unable to read historical fact. What amazes me is the ability to ignore it as the driving force that led to the war.
Cash has pretty much answered your questions concerning the admission of California, Kansas and Cuba and I concur with him. The book, Road to Disunion, by Freehling is a good one to read for all the behind the scenes manuvering that took place over each of the instances you name.
I have quoted Hammond, one of the most powerful Southern fireeaters of his day, and he agreed that the South had controlled ALL three branches of the federal government for decades, right up until the election of 1860.
Talk at you soon,
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
Neil,
As to your point about Presidential terms being filled by the quote slave power.The last five Presidential terms have been filled by Southerners.If you do the math on the states the chances of that happening our far less now than they were when our country was smaller.These Presidents have nothing to do with slavery since it's been outlawed for more than 140 years now.Did the slave power play a role in our last five Presidential elections.My friend I thinketh not.
I have read The Road to Disunion.I think we differ on our definition of controlling.I'm not going to debate whether the first vote of the Kansans was legit or not(I don't trust those extremist on either side),but it was approved in some form by Kansans as a slave state.However it wasn't admitted as a slave state, despite Southern wishes to the contrary.The debate about Kansas and the effort to admit it as a slave state occurred before secession as Cash conveniently left out .Therefore since their efforts were denied they didn't rule the government.Cash conveniently left out the all of the facts on Kansas that didn't suit his fanatical left wing rubbish.He says Cuba was too expensive.Well the slave power coveted Cuba for years and there is plenty of evidence which noone disputes that they wanted to purchase Cuba.Yet again this omnipotent slave power had their aims denied.California was a free state.Noone possessing even average mental faculties suggest that the slave power wanted California admitted as a free state.Everyone knows that they didn't.So you can base your opinion on excuses as to why things didn't happen in reality.Or you can look at events as to what happened in reality.I personally would rather let facts dictate my opinions friend, and not let my opinions be formed on excuses to counter what didn't happen.I really can't see how anyone can justify things using that rationale no matter how hard they try.But it's your life friend live it as you choose.
Neil I forgot to add this.I have never said anywhere on here that slavery wasn't the driving force that led to war.We are in total agreement there.I was responding to the statement that they ruled the government.Also quote Hammond all that you like about the South controlling the three branches of government.The South has controlled the executive branch of government for the last five elections.This proves no slave power ruling class.Again reality check friend.How did the tarrif of abominations pass when Southerners voted against it if they controlled the legislative branch of government.Don't you hate it when reality contradicts your opinions ?
Ashley
Just one point. Kansas was not admitted to the Union until most of the Southern Congressmen had gone home to raise regiments in 1861. Kansas had tried for admission twice before. The first was the aformentioned Lecompton (slave) Constution, possibly the origion of the phrase "vote early and often." Second time a little later under the Topeka (free) Constution which was equally as fraudulant. This one was passed by a "territoral legislature" which was "elected" with about the same validity as the one which passed the Lecompton Constution. By some strange coindicence all the signatures on the Topeka Constution wer in Jim Lane's handwriting.
Ps.
Constution Hall in Lecompton still exists. We held a CW Round Table meeting there two weeks ago. Talk about living history.
Your example of the last five Presidents to hold office in our century has NOTHING to do with the Slave Power's influence during the 1800's. There was that little thing called 'the war' and the election of 1860 that reversed that trend, in my humble opinion.
So in once sense, but not the one you allude to, you are correct, the Slave Power had nothing to do with our last five Presidential elections.
You seem to have trouble with timing more than anything with the Kansas question, even though it has been shown to you that a Southern President, along with a good amount of Southern Congressional support, tried to ram a pro-slavery constitution down the residents of the state who didn't want it. Come on, Ashley, that's just history, not my 'definition.' And again, that little thing 'the war' changed things and again, your timing is a bit off. Check the above post by Riverrat if you think my 'definition' is wrong.
And I do wish you would leave off the name-calling. 'Fanatical left-wing rubbish' is not debate and not worthy of you. I wish you didn't feel you had to resort to it
As for reality contradicting my opinions, I would remind you of a biblical phrase, "There are none so blind as those who will not see."
If you have read Road To Disunion as you said you have, you would have found that the South are the ones who originally proposed 'The Tariff of Abominations' and why they did so. Check the facts Ashley, and then have the honesty and the courage to let them fall where they may.
Recheck your Reality check, friend.
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
