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.
Most southrons (then and surprisingly, now) viewed a slave society as necessary to 'real' freedom and as a bulwark of civilization.
"Most southrons (then and surprisingly, now)"
Really? Please name some.
__________________ 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."
Jefferson Davis-THE RISE & FALL OF THE CONFEDERATE GOVERNMENT
A southern victory, military or political, ensured slavery. Anyone, who believes in the cause of the south ipso facto supports slavery; Because, slavery was what it was all about. There was nothing that galvanized the south to resist the authority of the Constitution by open Rebellion, except slavery, i.e., there would have been no rebellion for revisionists to support.
A careful study of Davis' political speeches should clarify, exactly which state 'right' that was being violated, he considered most important.
A southern victory, military or political, ensured slavery. Anyone, who believes in the cause of the south ipso facto supports slavery; Because, slavery was what it was all about. There was nothing that galvanized the south to resist the authority of the Constitution by open Rebellion, except slavery, i.e., there would have been no rebellion for revisionists to support.
A careful study of Davis' political speeches should clarify, exactly which state 'right' that was being violated, he considered most important.
Just for the sake of 'argument', here.
The Constitution supported slavery, and property in slaves.
The Constitution does not in any way deny the South the right to secede from any perceived 'Union'.
Having debated with you guys for some time now, if it had not been slavery, it would have been SOMETHING because North and South get along like rubbing two flint rocks together!
So pick something. Consolidation. Tariffs. The demonic rise of the Second Party. Anglo-Saxon and Celtic differences.
We could fight over the weather! I believe that English arrogance cost Old England, and
the same thing cost New England, (and thus the rest of the North). If the South wanted a fight, at all, that's not too hard to understand why!
A southern victory, military or political, ensured slavery. Anyone, who believes in the cause of the south ipso facto supports slavery;
And using the same reasoning- anyone who believes in the cause of 'union' supports slavery.
"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." -Lincoln
800,000 kept in slavery.
What did that British observer say about the EP?-
"slavery is bad...but only if you are disloyal to the United States"
*
The believers in 'union' would also be supporters of genocide- the displacement and decimation of native tribes that came with westward expansion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpnD
Because, slavery was what it was all about.
Except for the North's cash flow problem which they tend to hide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpnD
There was nothing that galvanized the south to resist the authority of the Constitution[-stomping Lincoln regime] by open Rebellion, except...
...invasion.
__________________ 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."
Jefferson Davis-THE RISE & FALL OF THE CONFEDERATE GOVERNMENT
Wrong ... again. Without slavery, the agrarian south would be in common cause with the other agrarian sections of the country and there would have been the normal give and take compromises in Congress and state legislatures between the cities and farms, that had been the rule for more than Four Score and Ten years of the Republic's history.
Wrong, again. The Constitution not only does not support slavery, it does not even mention the peculiar institution.
Wrong, again. The Constitution provides no mechanism for secession, except for those provided by the Constitution itself.
Wrong again, it is the main contention of many Unionists on this board, that without slavery, there would never been a war. Without slavery what else was there to fight over?
Wrong again, it is the main contention of many Unionists on this board, that without slavery, there would never been a war. Without slavery what else was there to fight over?
$$$$$$$$$$
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
Jefferson Davis-THE RISE & FALL OF THE CONFEDERATE GOVERNMENT
The largest amount of money at risk was the fortunes of the slave owning oligarchy, governing the slave states. So IF it was $$$$$$, That trail also leads South.
We forget the many, many northern merchants, industrialists who personally protested and signed petitions to avoid trouble that would be bad for business as usual. How on earth could they gain control of the south's wealth, which was in slaves and land, after a war. If oil had been in demand at the time, and the south had it, I can see lusting after it.
But the south had no portable wealth except in slaves that had no legal and little practical use in the north. The land was not worth having. What they were looking at was the cash money the south would have to spend after each harvest. And the only way they could get their hands on that money was if the planters remained prosperous and spent money freely.
Quote:
Wrong again, it is the main contention of many Unionists on this board, that without slavery, there would never been a war. Without slavery what else was there to fight over?
Clarification, Opn. The US was not fighting over slavery. Slavery led to secession. Secession led to a quarrel over who owned what fort. True enough, though: Without slavery, there would have been no secession.
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
We forget the many, many northern merchants, industrialists who personally protested and signed petitions to avoid trouble that would be bad for business as usual. How on earth could they gain control of the south's wealth, which was in slaves and land, after a war. If oil had been in demand at the time, and the south had it, I can see lusting after it.
But the south had no portable wealth except in slaves that had no legal and little practical use in the north. The land was not worth having. What they were looking at was the cash money the south would have to spend after each harvest. And the only way they could get their hands on that money was if the planters remained prosperous and spent money freely. Clarification, Opn. The US was not fighting over slavery. Slavery led to secession. Secession led to a quarrel over who owned what fort. True enough, though: Without slavery, there would have been no secession.
ole
I can guaran-tam-tee you this!
Without Liberal Left Wingers of the period, there would have been no Secession! No Lincoln! No war! Even the abolitionists were a joke without the Blue states!
And this is what the U.S. 'got' after destroying all the wealth of the South. They got their second party established and their Conservative enemies beaten down to a pulp...
And even then, they were afraid of the war 'having been for naught' if they came back into the Union as states!
My client is ready for first appearance, and to be formally arraigned on charges.
Have you yet counsel for the plaintiff?
Can we set a trial date? We waive discovery, and
formal jury proceedings.
We are ready to proceed with opening statements, whenever it should please the court.
G. Beowulf, Esq.
Counsel for the Defense"
It is true that I suggested this exercise, and there seems to be some discussion about it, but I myself would hope to play no larger role than that of a member of the jury. I have no legal experience (other than being sued), so would not be good as the judge or attorney.
I've got enough on my plate with the trivia game.
I think Mr. Cash would be an excellent prosecutor.
(By the way, I am samgrant. Mr. Grant must be my father.)
-
__________________ -
"It was a very peculiar time." - Franklin D. Cossitt
Ancestors in USA Army: 6th IA Inf, 11th IL Cav, 1st AL Cav; 122nd NY Inf; 6th MI Cav; 35th MA Inf; 100th IL Inf; 1st CO Inf/Cav; 22nd IN Inf
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
