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,
My friend you just proved my point on the Kansas issue.Thank you for adding those additional details.I'm in agreement that they did try use their influence to make Kansas a slave state.Since they failed that would seem to prove the point without question that they didn't rule the government.I really don't see how its possible to interpret the fact that since their ambitions in Kansas were thwarted(not sure if I spelled that right)and they failed they surely rule the government.My left wing rubbish comment wasn't directed at you, but of course you are right about the comment anyway.It was childish of me and I apologize.Thank you for bringing it to my attention friend.You've always been very courteous and honorable in our debates which is a credit to you.Again that comment wasn't directed at you ,but it was wrong just the same.I can't promise you won't have to slap my hand again, but I swear I'm trying.You are correct on the President issue so valid points there.My point was that just because Southerners were President didn't necessarily prove the slave power.So thats why I pointed out that without slavery the last five Presidential elections have been one by Southerners.I do sord've see where your coming from on the tarrif issue.But I think you fail to consider that the slave power didn't propose or author that legislation alone.That would seem to be important information.I would think one should also consider that the quote slave power didn't vote to pass the tarrif.You can come up with reasons or excuses to hypothesize why they didn't vote for it.But since as a matter of record the slave power didn't vote for the bill I would conclude that they didn't support it.When we know what actions poeple actually took that would seem more credible to me than an opinion as to why they didn't do something.Neil you know that I respest your mind.We're not as far off on this as you're thinking.I just feel that your zeal for this issue had led you to exagerrate things a little bit.If you weigh the evudence I think you'll see why I feel that way.If you claim that that the slave power was a very powerful special interest group working for slavery related interest, then I agree.If you told me the slave power wanted to control government policy, then we agree.If you tell me the slave power influenced government policy,again I agree.But if you maintain they quote ruled the government I'd have to say respectfully I think you're wrong my friend.I don't think that is a sound conclusion at all based on the evidence.
Totally unrelated Neil I just walked in the door from our football game.We beat our rival Williamson to clinch the region championship.On the last play(I'm a defensive assistant) the opposing team had the ball from our 40.We were in prevent defense and I told our players don't let anyone get behind you.Somehow two of Williamson;s players get behind the coverage.Luckily they collided going up for the ball and the clock expired.I'm sure the head coach would have killed me had they scored on a hail-mary to end the game.This was also our biggest rival so the kids wer stoked.Somehow in the crazy celebration that ensued I managed to hurt my back(nothing serious it just hurts).I also gave a pathetic attempt to rap for my players(pre-game bet) to celebrate the win as they all chante go whiteboy-go whiteboy.I was horrible naturally ,but my players said they still loved Forrest Gump.I'm hoping this new nickname will be forgotten by Monday.
Have a great one,
Ashley
Congrats on your win, sounds like you and your players worked hard for it. Rapping? Be careful, nicknames can follow one for life, or at least until they graduate!
Take care of yourself and stop hurting your back. It will interfere with your debating time here on the board!
And Ashley, I knew you weren't directing any derogatory remarks at me, so don't worry about that. I just know you have the ability to prove your points without it. It just disturbs me when ANYONE drops down to a lower level, myself included, and it really detracts from a good debate where people are trying to learn.
Enough of that, enjoy your victory and buy some rap records so you can practice!
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
Everyone,
Thanks for the prayers & good wishes. They worked & I feel a little better! :-)
Ashley,
Congrats on the Regional Title!! Southerner are always good on the "defensive" jobs! ;-)
Hi Neil,
Thanks for the patience. I don't make a good patient due to falling into that group of folk who are known to be bad 'sick' patients. ;-)
Neil,
I could never understand why the North allowed radical folk like Garrison to stir-up such a dang fuss, and to get away with it. Anyway, power of the slave in metering our country's crossroad or not...
My point:
President Andrew Jackson, a slave-holder and vivid oponent to secession apparenly sent word to Norhern Congressional leaders to "suppress" the vile propoganda re: slavery and of hatred toward the South, via Lloyd Garrison & his kind in their "papers." When this was done, the timing seemed right and some slave & non-slaveholders seemed ready to address the "peculiar institution" in some capacity, as morally wrong. BOOM! Enter the Abolishionist movement with it's antagonistic approach of pure hate disguised with an 'angelic' facade. The south is immediately & intentionally placed, on guard/on the defence. Here is where war could and should have been avoided. A chance at peace never had a chance per all the rhetoric. Southern radicals then entered their vile rhetoric of the North. Ah, missed opportunites!
By the way, President Jackson's letter was never responded to as far as I can research. The line was drawn in the sand.
My good friend Bill Torrens has tried to make the same argument that you make concerning the power of radical abolishionists like Garrison and the like. I'll ask you what I asked him. What power?
For a group who long advocated peaceful, non-violent ends to slavery, whose presses were destroyed, editors killed, meetings broken up, mailings of anti-slavery litrature banned, and this was just in NORTHERN states, what power are you speaking of?
Political Power? How many out and out abolishionists were elected to Congress? When were they first elected? What were the total number of them in Congress at any one time? I am aware of the Quaker's being the first section of society to oppose slavery and to help escaped slaves. I am also aware of Anti-slave societies, even in the South at one time, but I am not aware of them having the political power you ascribe to them.
It is my opinion that the Federal government did all in its power to assist in the capture and return of escaped slaves and when Lincoln ran for President, the abolitionists, to include Frederick Douglass, did not support him or the Republican party. Again, what power did these men and groups have? Only a social one, one that put the problem before the nation, which according to all here on this board, the people of the North cared very little about and were just as racist as the rest of the nation.
No, you are going to have to convince me with a lot more evidence than a few lines that abolishionists had any kind of political power to bring about a war.
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
From the book, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men, The Ideology of the Republican Party before the Civil War, by Eric Foner:
Chapter 3, Salmon P. Chase: The Constitution and the Slave Power, page 97:
"Republicans did not generally adopt the argument that there was a danger of slavery spreading into the North until after the Dred Scott decision of 1857. Republicans agreed that, as the Ohio State Journal charged, the decision was one of the final acts of the Slave Power conspiracy, for it declared that slavery must be protected by the national government in the territories. "It is now demonstrated," announced the moderate Cincinnati Commercial, "that there is such a thing as the Slave Power...," and Republicans who had not already seen the wisdom of Chase's constitutional arguments quickly adopted them. 'Freedom national' became the party's answer to Dred Scott. But many Republicans went even further, and claimed that according to the logic of the Dred Scott decision slavery could not be barred from a state any more than from a territory. If slavery were protected by the Constitution, they asked, how could a state, without violating the Constitution, exclude it? "Does the Constitution make slaves property?" asked one Republican speaker. "If so, slavery exists in Ohio today, for the Constitution extends over Ohio, doesn't it?" Lincoln, Trumbull, and countless other Republicans predicted--in what Simon Cameron called "the next step after the Dred Scott decision"--that the Court would deny the power of a state to exclude slavery.
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
unionblue: I've never read any Eric Foner; in your opinion, does his world-view (self-described Marxist and apologist for the former Soviet Union and Communist Party of the USA) influence his historical writings?
__________________ Member, Sons of Confederate Veterans
Whether Foner beat his wife or kicked other people's dogs has no logical bearing on his historical credentials. They are separate issues. The question should be on his credentials as a historian, not his politics.
No problem, ole, but I was not being facetious; I seriously would like the opinions of those who have read Foner's works if his political world-view has any influence on his historical works.
I believe it is a valid question, as many historians do have an agenda that they try to push through their books.
__________________ Member, Sons of Confederate Veterans
Ole,
Friend I'm cranky as heck today myself.My girl(the 4 month old)has gotten the croup and I didn't sleep well.I would have to say that what the author did in his life would certainly for me have a huge impact on whether I considered him a credible historian.As a supporter of communism his viewpoints deviate from that of the majority of Americans.If you support communism than yea stand by the guy.I wouldn't trust him by that fact.His Marxism would seem to indicate in my opinion that his thinking is faulty.If he just stated facts then his opinion wouldn't matter.Question when is the last time you read a book which contained no opinion?So yea friend this guy supporting communism which make his opinion highly suspect to me.
Secesh nice one my friend.
Neil that is funny.You're trying to use a Commie on us unsuspecting Southerners and pass him off as a credible historian.Sorry friend but this revelation has brought a big smile to my face.I hope you pardon my enjoyment at your expense.
Regards,
Ashley
Don't know diddley-squat about Foner. Don't know how McPherson votes or how Lee would vote if he were alive today. The statement made was simply an attempt to bring logic back into the discussion. In the rules of logic, a person's personal politics do not figure in the equation UNLESS it can be shown that the personal politics color the conclusions, in which case, he is no longer credible.
That is, a child-molesting self-confessed Nazi is no less credible on a certain subject than anyone else with credentials on the same subject. Now, if he wanted to teach Sunday School, I'd have a different opinion.
Secesh: I can see where you're coming from, but you are the one who has to decide whether Foner's bent colors his historical scholarhip. But you've raised an interesting outlook. I will certainly keep your comments in mind when I read his book on reconstruction -- about 8 down in the stack. OK. I'll pump it up to a 4 just because you've raised the question.
Ashley:
Been there. Done that. Just lean back and picture the day when the little grabber has to sit up with her kid with the croup, and think about how well you will sleep on that particular night. Grandchildren are your revenge on their parents.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
