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.
By reading all of the man's speech, it is the agitation over slavery that seems to be his main concern. The fear that slavery may be restricted from new territories is another.
As for the old cry of the tariff, that's exactly what it was, an old cry that meant nothing, as the South was NOT being burdened with an unfair share of the tariff and the records are there for anyone to see, then and now.
And by reading all of his speech, his main way of fixing the problem is to restrict liberty. All the North has to do is restrict the freedom of the press, the freedom of speech and the right of petition. Oh, yes, the South had already done that before, restricted the right of petition, hadn't it? And, oh, somehow convince folks not to settle in the North, but to head South and raise the population there so the South could get more Congressmen in the House to balance power in its favor.
Not too much to ask, right?
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
All the North has to do is restrict the freedom of the press, the freedom of speech and the right of petition.
Not too much to ask, right?
Neil,
No. Not RESTRICT (as in total supression) the freedom of speech or that of the press, but a tad less vileness and hatred implied upon ALL the South by suspicious and liberal Northern newspapers; a moderate and accurate style of rhetoric if you will. And don't forget to include those ridiculously radical abolitionionst circulars in your moderation efforts as well. However, if your heart is TRULY dedicated upon preipitating a bloody 'civil war,' proceede at once, post-haste. Hmmm...come to think about it, that's exactly what a few extreme radicals of the North did.
All the North has to do is restrict the freedom of the press, the freedom of speech and the right of petition.
Not too much to ask, right?
Neil,
No. Not RESTRICT (as in total supression) the freedom of speech or that of the press, but a tad less vileness and hatred implied upon ALL the South by suspicious and liberal Northern newspapers; a moderate and accurate style of rhetoric if you will. And don't forget to include those ridiculously radical abolitionionst circulars in your moderation efforts as well. However, if your heart is TRULY dedicated upon preipitating a bloody 'civil war,' proceede at once, post-haste. Hmmm...come to think about it, that's exactly what a few extreme radicals of the North did.
Respectfully,
Alabaman
I get it! Just a little restriction doesn't qualify as real censorship. Shipments of those ridiculously radical abolitionist circulars were effectively diverted by southern postmasters. That about it?
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
I get it! Just a little restriction doesn't qualify as real censorship. Shipments of those ridiculously radical abolitionist circulars were effectively diverted by southern postmasters. That about it?
Ole
Ole,
Let me state my reply in another way.
While 'hot tempers' and 'hot heads' abounded, the extremist radical abolitionist should have been told to ease up a bit on the rhetoric of hatred directed toward the South. A bit of rhetorical moderation and not suppression, was my idea. Radical abolitionist stirred the flames of war in the relative comfort of their posh offices. Most never shouldered a musket and actually charged Marye's Heights or defended Cemetery Hill. The attitude was 'I demand what I want RIGHT now, at ANY cost in blood or misery.' Their written words had a DIRECT affect on the vast majority of Americans but their gross impatience just couldn't be curtailed. However, many Southern Aristocrats and their sons, hot headed also, willingly and bravely gave their lives in defense of their ideals. Where was W.L. Garrison and company; or the rest of the weasly abolitionist radicals who got the war of their choice? Hiding and reaping the harvests of some poor Northern or Southern soldiers misery won or lost on some obscure battlefield, of course!
Moderation, simple moderation of 'tone' in rhetorical style is my thought, not total supression of speech. It sometime saves lives.
I think the rhetoric was not only aimed South. When it came to harsh language, the South made its own contributions. "Gasconade" was the term I believe. Not like the folks on this forum, remarkable for their moderate tone.
I'm sure that many folks told the abolitionists to "tone it down" debate being a hallmark of a free society. If you think outlawing the criticism of slavery or the fugitive slave law, or forbidding the criticism the actions of the so-called "border ruffians" is compatible with the Constitution, well....
If the society one lives in is so unstable that stating the plain truth: that slavery was cruel, and unjust, or remarking that the Fugitive Slave Law, was cruel, unjust and bone numbingly stupid all at the same time, is deadly dangerous, then there is something wrong with that society.
By reading all of the man's speech, it is the agitation over slavery that seems to be his main concern.
Of course it is -- to you.
I sincerely believe that you could read the Beatitudes or Genesis' account of the creation, and if signed by Rhett, Stephens or another southerner of the time, you'd see "slavery."
I must admit to never encountering one with such thick slave-colored glasses and such humongously obstructive chattel-blinders, as you.
Of course, I say that with a great degree of endearment.
It is amazing that you can read a speech given by a dying old man, pleading for his northern brethren to understand that if the northern domination of the federal government is not corrected, the union, loved by him above all else other than liberty, is in peril.
You can read all the many references and numbers used to illustrate his point, and then completely miss that point, but latch onto any reference to the "s" word, pretending that changes the entire nature of the document.
It really is quite a gift!
But, alas, I fear that your gift will forever relegate and restrict you to the very back upper left hand corner of the top level of the 12 floor library. It's really a shame. There is so much out there.
Of course it is a gift, and not just to me, but many others.
Thank you for your concern about my eyewear, but perhaps you should see to your own vision problems. I fear that you might be incurring a selective blindness that may be beyond any correction.
And I know that you are endearing to me and I to you. We just can't seem to help ourselves, can we?
That dying old man said he was so afraid of representative government he was quite willing to alter it at the expense of free choice to keep a people in bondage.
Now, if he had read or written something on another topic or subject, I'm pretty sure I would have given him a fair hearing, just like I did on this last speech of his.
This unique gift is not mine, to detect the real reson for the war and Calhoun's ultimate objective to preserve the institution of 's', is not mine alone, but again I must point out, shared by many others.
As to my corner of the library, feel free to come on up and visit one time. It's labeled 'History' and avoiding it will not make it go away, nor will the section disappear by ignoring it and telling others it didn't happen.
And Hal?
If liberty was what the South was really revolting about, we would not be in different sections of the library right now.
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
