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.
That mought be me, sam. Whar's that angel guy, here we are- !! That's more like it! regards, ed
__________________ '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'
My apology. In my reply, I was indeed referring to 'ewc' or Ed. I forget that everyone doesn't know everyone else by their real name. It's correct to reply to each member by their username and this will clear up confusion. Thanks for bringing this point to light.
I find it diffucult to promote valid debate for the overall Southern ideal of Liberty due to a minority of aristocratic slaveholders residing in the midst of my ancestors. The non-slaveholding Southern population encompassed nemerous valid points, however, but they can't be presented for validity due to a small minority of slaveholders denying the rights of slaves. The majority of 'average' Southerners held no slaves but any valid contention to break free of the union based upon substantial and well founded ideals that continued union no longer represented them or their Liberties to their best interest is nullified by the actions of a minority of slaveholders residing in their midst. The slaveholding aristocracy, thus, pre-empted my non-slaveholding ancestors' validity on encompassing Liberty, as in the C.S.A., per this wealthy minority denying the Liberty of slaves. I hold great disdainment for this minority of slaveholders for effectively destroying the South.
The majority of 'average' Southerners held no slaves but any valid contention to break free of the union based upon substantial and well founded ideals that continued union no longer represented them or their Liberties to their best interest is nullified by the actions of a minority of slaveholders residing in their midst. The slaveholding aristocracy, thus, pre-empted my non-slaveholding ancestors' validity on encompassing Liberty, as in the C.S.A., per this wealthy minority denying the Liberty of slaves. I hold great disdainment for this minority of slaveholders for effectively destroying the South.
Alabaman
I'd like to ask you what those liberties were that were no longer represented or protected by the Union? If not for the dispute over the right to take slaves, as "property," into the territories, what other restrictions on liberties and rights could possibly have led to attempted secession and war?
By the way, ancestors of mine, in Alabama and elsewhere, were among those slaveholders for whom the war was fought.
best,
marc
__________________ "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." - Abraham Lincoln
Read my post with care. You'll see that any explanation of a better form of government through seperation (by me) would be promptly followed by you in nullification. So, to reply to your desire for my explanation of the nuerous and valid ideals for Southern Independence, I respecfully decline due to the obvious.
Re: your ante-bellum "Alabama" relatives who were slaveholders: I hold strictly to my statement with no regret. However, I do so in respect as a gentleman, both to you and this board's best interest.
If not for the dispute over the right to take slaves, as "property," into the territories, what other restrictions on liberties and rights could possibly have led to attempted secession and war?
Read my post with care. You'll see that any explanation of a better form of government through seperation (by me) would be promptly followed by you in nullification. So, to reply to your desire for my explanation of the nuerous and valid ideals for Southern Independence, I respecfully decline due to the obvious.
Re: your ante-bellum "Alabama" relatives who were slaveholders: I hold strictly to my statement with no regret. However, I do so in respect as a gentleman, both to you and this board's best interest.
Alabaman
Alabaman,
By me in nullification? I guess I don't see "the obvious." I fail to see any numerous or valid ideals that could be fulfilled by "Southern Independence" that didn't already exist within the Union. I just wanted to understand your thinking on this.
As to my statement about relatives who were slaveholders, I take no offense as my statement was in no way meant to be an endorsement.
best,
marc
__________________ "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." - Abraham Lincoln
Last edited by marcferguson; 12-16-2005 at 10:23 AM.
Reason: fix grammar
Hal,
They possessed that right, guaranteed under the Constitution. Self-government is not anarchy, it is a political process within the Social Contract.
best,
marc
__________________ "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." - Abraham Lincoln
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Whar's that angel guy, here we are- 
!! That's more like it! regards, ed
Linear Mode
