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.
If I recall, the New England states requested the SLAVE TRADE be allowed to continue, so their economy would not collapse, for another 20 or so years? Early 1800's?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cash
As usual, you're wrong.
"The result is seen in the Constitution. S. Carolina & Georgia were inflexible on the point of the slaves." [James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, 24 Oct 1787]
"The southern states would not have entered into the union of America, without the temporary permission of that trade [the slave trade]." [James Madison, "Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention on the Slave Trade Clause," 17 Jun 1788]
"The Petitions on the subject of Slavery have employed more than a week, and are still before a Committee of the whole. The Gentlemen from S. Carolina & Georgia are intemperate beyond all example and even all decorum. They are not content with palliating slavery as a deep-rooted abuse, but plead for the lawfulness of the African trade itself--nor with protesting agst. the object of the Memorials, but lavish the most virulent language on the authors of them." [James Madison to Benjamin Rush, 20 Mar 1790]
Regards,
Cash
Beowulf is basically correct. The Slave Trade was very important to the New England economy.
Cash leaves out the vote-
All New England states present voted to continue the Slave Trade to 1808:
Yes New Hampshire Massachusetts Connecticut
Maryland
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
No
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
Delaware
Virginia
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
I think it is well known that some northern states participated in slavery in the early years before and after the establishment of the Union, and the adoption of the Constitution. I don't think that is what is in dispute here, though it seems to be brought up frequently by some folks with a bent towards asserting that it was the right of the South to secede from the Union.
The fact remains that the Constitution was adopted by, and voluntarily entered into by every state. Once joining the Union those states with a large slave-based economy, along with every other state, were bound by that agreement, to remain in the Union.
The US and it's rebellion against England to gain its independence, was not much different than the rebellion of the Confederate states against the United States, also to gain its independence. Both instances of rebellion were through force of arms. The US won it's independence. The Confederacy did not. I'm sure Britain viewed the rebellion of the US against it as illegal, and not a right. The US viewed secession of the southern states as rebellion and also not an inherent right.
To cloak the south's rebellion as one against tariffs, or to assert their own "states rights", were secondary reasons to the main cause for the rebellion - the protection and preservation of slavery, the backbone of the south's economy, the mainstay of it's culture and its lifestyle. The south considered slavery important enough to preserve at all costs, and secession from the Union into which they voluntarily entered was the next logical step for them, after reaching the conclusion that there was no other way to preserve slavery. The attack on Sumter was unprovoked and used to start the war, to which they knew Lincoln would have to respond, thereby bringing on the war they knew they had to have - and win, to once and for all save their slave-based economy, and continue their way of life.
Unlike the US rebellion against Britain, the south lost theirs. No, secession was never a right. That "right" of secession never existed except in the minds of the slave-owners and those who spoke passionately for them.
Terry
__________________ "In this great struggle, this form of Government and every form of human right is endangered if our enemies succeed. There is more involved in this contest than is realized by every one." Abraham Lincoln - August 18, 1864 Speech to the 164th Ohio Regiment
Charged under the Federal law, there would have to be some additional circumstance for this, no? Was the charged party attempting to TRAFFICK the substance, take it across state lines, and was caught in RI? Was something other than simple possession charged? What amounts are actually allowed in RI? TEN PLANTS is a nebulous term...
Why is the FBI interested in this? Is your defendant a kingpin of narcotic activity, elsewhere?
Why are the Feds wasting their time here?
We don't get enough of the story to decide, I fear...
But I don't see the Federal government superseding the state laws here, and making a case based on simple possession, based upon the desire to show their national supremacy. There are 49 other states to worry about.
Beowulf
Wow... you guys went through another 4 pages of this stuff since last time I was on!! Obviously my limited schedule will not permit me to keep up with this thread, but I had to respond to this at least.
Beowulf I was not pointing out any specific case. the fact of the matter is that IF the FBI wanted to, YES they could make a case to show their national supremacy. Why Haven't they? Bigger fish to fry as you say, I suppose. But that doesn't mean that they can't. Don't forget that if it went to court it was be federal not district, and therefore under the federal laws, in which the state laws don't apply 100% if they don't agree. On that I know from personal experience... unfortunately.
__________________ "In mortal combat, a man may and will become so infuriated by the din and dangers of a bloody fight that his heart will turn to stone and his every de sire [be] for blood."
John Hadley, 7th Indiana after the battle at Port Republic
Last edited by Dred; 01-30-2008 at 02:50 AM.
Reason: typos.. always typos for me!
According to the British, it was outright Treason. According to the Yankees, so was what the South did...
Treason. Both are right. So?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
I really am at a loss, here, with you. You don't think that anything that casts any aspersion at all upon your Mr. Lincoln or his noble army is true, or right, or grounded in any form of reality...
Wrong again, as usual. Casting aspersions is fine as long as they are truthful. So far you haven't hit on any truthful ones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
You see my problem here. You are in the minority on a number of these points. Yet, you know for a fact that all these people are wrong.
Your complete ignorance of history makes you think I'm "in the minority." If you were to start reading actual historians instead of liars you would see that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
(Did your guys do anything wrong?)
They're not "my guys." If you mean the Federals, yes, they did. But you haven't been right yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
Where is the book, THE REALLY REAL LINCOLN, by CASH?
Unneeded, since plenty of actual scholars have published good works about Lincoln. Does it bother you that no credible historian has made any endorsement of any of the books you hold as gospel?
Stop reading garbage and start reading what actual historians have written.
Can you tell me how many freed blacks were living in the North?
Yes, I can.
343,988 free blacks lived in the North. 100% of the blacks living in the North wre free.
Now, there were 4 southern slave states that stayed loyal to the United States. There were 118,027 free blacks in those states. So 21.5% of the blacks in loyal southern states were free. In the confederate states, 132,760 free blacks represented 3.6% of the black population in those states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
Can you tell me how many the colonization societies shipped to Liberia and how many died as a result?
Beowulf is basically correct. The Slave Trade was very important to the NE economy.
Cash leaves out the vote-
All New England states present voted to continue the Slave Trade to 1808:
Yes New Hampshire Massachusetts Connecticut
Maryland
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
No
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
Delaware
Virginia
Yet another example of incompetent posting.
He didn't make any claims on the vote. He claimed that the slave trade was kept because of the demands of certain states. James Madison shows that the demands came from southern states, not Northern states. Some Northern states acceded to the demands in order to get the rest of the south to join with the Constitution.
343,988 free blacks lived in the North. 100% of the blacks living in the North wre free.
Now, there were 4 southern slave states that stayed loyal to the United States. There were 118,027 free blacks in those states. So 21.5% of the blacks in loyal southern states were free. In the confederate states, 132,760 free blacks represented 3.6% of the black population in those states.
Not offhand, but why does it matter?
Regards,
Cash
There is this real ugly rumour going around that freed blacks were not allowed to live in many of the Northern
states, which is why the Underground Railroad went to Canada, eh?
I understand that Liberia was where a good number were sent and where a good number died...
One of the major difficulties I have with all this supposed Northern goodwill towards the 1860's black man was the fact that I know their (Northern) attitudes now, and I don't think a lot has changed since one yankee wrote in his diary:
"It is a shame to see blacks and whites, walking down the street together, hand in hand, arm upon shoulder".
And, since both sides (by your account) had so many freed negroes living among them, the racial thing could not have been a problem... to any real degree.
Unless, of course, the Civil War, forced and unplanned and criminally-inept emancipation, and puppet governments in the South, as well as the continued Republican Liberal nonsense about how much that party "did" for blacks, as an art form...
No, race relations "went South", it seems, after the South
was destroyed.
Cash, buddy, you sound believable with a number of your sources, but come on...
The North could not possibly be THAT pretty! Not even in their own eyes!
Where's the balance to all of that?
You are showing me what the rest of the world finds so annoying about all of us!
Surely there is more to what you posit than meets the eye?
He didn't make any claims on the vote. He claimed that the slave trade was kept because of the demands of certain states. James Madison shows that the demands came from southern states, not Northern states. Some Northern states acceded to the demands in order to get the rest of the south to join with the Constitution.
He didn't make any claims on the vote. He claimed that the slave trade was kept because of the demands of certain states. James Madison shows that the demands came from southern states, not Northern states. Some Northern states acceded to the demands in order to get the rest of the south to join with the Constitution.
Regards,
Cash
"Some Northern states acceded to the demands in order to get the rest of the south to join with the Constitution."
This is the "explanation" for the New England vote...which is a historical white-wash.
Anyone who claims it is either naive or dishonest.
~
It just so happens that the Northern states that voted to continue the Slave Trade were also the ones that profited from it:
Yes New Hampshire Massachusetts Connecticut
No
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
Why wasn't New Jersey and Pennsylvania voting Yes "to get the rest of the south to join with the Constitution?"
Or for that matter Virginia and Delaware?
~
"On the eve of the Revolution, the slave trade 'formed the very basis of the economic life of New England.' It wove itself into the entire regional economy of New England. The Massachusetts slave trade gave work to coopers, tanners, sailmakers, and ropemakers. Countless agents, insurers, lawyers, clerks, and scriveners handled the paperwork for slave merchants. Upper New England loggers, Grand Banks fishermen, and livestock farmers provided the raw materials shipped to the West Indies on that leg of the slave trade. Colonial newspapers drew much of their income from advertisements of slaves for sale or hire. New England-made rum, trinkets, and bar iron were exchanged for slaves. When the British in 1763 proposed a tax on sugar and molasses, Massachusetts merchants pointed out that these were staples of the slave trade, and the loss of that would throw 5,000 seamen out of work in the colony and idle almost 700 ships...." Northern Profits from Slavery
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Thanks 
Linear Mode
