The North, in All of This...

[Beowulf]

Ami had a great idea...

Let's continue a discussion of the North's involvement in this crisis, and who the North were, exactly, and why Battalion thinks 'Money and Power' were catalysts, and why Beowulf sees the 'Second Party' as the primary lever, and why everyone else has some input on 'Slavery' as being paramount... All of these 'reasons' have their place.

But what of the North? Who were they?

I'll deal this hand.

These problems had been with us since the beginning...
Jefferson and Franklin thought the country would last about eighty years; it lasted, like, eighty-four years. before this great rift took place.

The North were several groups, not just one.

They were foremost Consolidationalists, who formed the Second Party, from Adams and Hamilton to Henry Clay and his 'biggest fan', the DeWitt Clinton of Illinois, himself, Abraham Lincoln.

They were, a number of them, also Abolitionists, who sought a violent overthrow to not only the Institution of Slavery, but also the Institution of a prosperous Agrarian South, as well.

This fit in perfectly with the 'Second Party's' plans...


They were also, a number of them, Colonizationalists, who sought to be free of the negro, period.

They knew they had friends in the South, like Alexander Stephens, who were racist, Unionist, and Collectivist in political thought...

It was regrouping these Cotton Whigs with the Northern 'Conscience' Whigs that Lincoln wished to use, to control patronage after the war...

And this very thing that Sumner, Tad Stevens, and the bullet of Wilkes Booth - caused to be in the control of the Radical Republicans in Congress, and not the Union Party of the executive branch, any longer... Wilkes Booth's bullet always gets credit for denying the (Left Wing) South an easy 'letting up', but never the two men who refused to do that very thing...

There never was an 'easy let up' planned for the rest of the (either the Conservatives or the neutral) South, civilians included... with or without Lincoln.. This also is never discussed.

And so the captured provinces were 'Reconstructed' through force... The Southern Left was not 'let up easy', after all, although many of their more racist elements did control race relations well after the death of the Confederacy...


Okay... There's the shuffle, and the settng of the stage, before, during, and after Lincoln...




WHO WERE THE NORTH, WHAT DID THEY WANT, AND DID THEY ACTUALLY GET IT, AFTER ALL THAT BLOODSHED???

Enjoy;

Beowulf

[Baggage Handler #2]

Oy. This can't end well.

The north was so eager to start a conflict that it removed all military stores from the south, had identified officers likely to be recruited by seceding states and moved them to positions of no responsibility, had detailed plans for mustering into federal service hundreds of thousands of state troops as soon as the secessionist convention met, had taken steps to secure all ports, and drawn up extensive plans for the invasion of southern states.

Either there was a competent conspiracy as alleged in the OP or there was not. If there was, most of the steps identified would have been in place no later than 1851. If there was not, none of those steps would have been implemented by December 1860.

[Beowulf]

Originally Posted by Baggage Handler #2

Oy. This can't end well.

The north was so eager to start a conflict that it removed all military stores from the south, had identified officers likely to be recruited by seceding states and moved them to positions of no responsibility, had detailed plans for mustering into federal service hundreds of thousands of state troops as soon as the secessionist convention met, had taken steps to secure all ports, and drawn up extensive plans for the invasion of southern states.

Either there was a competent conspiracy as alleged in the OP or there was not. If there was, most of the steps identified would have been in place no later than 1851. If there was not, none of those steps would have been implemented by December 1860.

I don't think the North was a problem. I think the Left was the problem, and there was no Real Left until Lincoln...

A Second Party - only interested in itself, and its constituents. They'll take on any wild-eyed bunch who would vote for them. Doesn't matter what their weird thing is, or isn't... The North got suckered into this, and
the Left played on their patriotism, knowing full well that Oscar Wilde was right; Patriotism is, truly, the virtue of the Vicious...

This Second Party had to survive. DiLorenzo gives a nice account of this. Lincoln NEEDED a war, according to him!

And what better way to survive than to stir up strife with the Landed Gentry and the Conservatives they so hated...
NOT because they owned slaves, nor anything as crass, as idiotic, nor as unprofitable as that... but because they The Conservatives wouldn't allow the North to get the general government to support them, The Northern Left, with unlimited corporate welfare and improvements.

These are collectivists and communists; what's yours is everyone's, and to each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs... or some blather like that.

The Left have always been very generous with other people's money... be it in tariffs or slave property, or
whatever... They can take an accidental majority and wreck an entire country in the space of one election!

Not that long, in fact!

Karl Marx and Lincoln were pen pals!

They had a country to build, and an empire would even be nicer than a country!

But first, we have to get rid of these indolent Southerners who do nothing but enjoy life and smile like their negroes in the sunshine, with no other ambition than this year's crop...

And who believe in a God which limits Secular Humanism.
and the advantages of that...

Once the Left got established, Tradition went away rather quickly...

That's all I am saying...

Beowulf

[Baggage Handler #2]

I once knew a man who tried to walk only by advancing his right foot. He went nowhere. Another man used his right foot sometimes then his left foot sometimes. He made excellent progress.

I'm assuming you intended to have a point, and I've tried hard to give the benefit of a doubt, but every time I read a polysyllabic cacophony of that sort, the thought of Dennis crowds out all else.

[DHPatrick]

I'm game. I believe both sides were locked into their own concepts of what was right. Neither would sit down and work out the issues. The North had the upper hand in that they had the majority Republican party in power in Congress. The South had President Buchanan, but he was a lame duck, his term was over.

[ole]

I'm game. I believe both sides were locked into their own concepts of what was right. Neither would sit down and work out the issues

. That's fair. And I'll agree: neither side was overloaded with geniuses.

The times, they were a'changin.' Until the middle 1850s, the Northern and Southern Democrats generally agreed with each other. After that, the Northern Democrats got a bit squeemish about playing palsey. So. With the ascendency of the (sigh) left wing collectivists and the wavering Northern former Conservatives, the Southrons were losing the pull they had enjoyed since the Constituion was ratified. They were losing control and they had reason to be concerned.

Here is this new guy. And his party is dead set against the expansion of slavery into the territories (and he is, as well). It is another subject altogether, and we can get into it on another thread, but I've never understood how Kansas or the Arizona Territories could be made slave states. And this is a clear and present danger. The south had lost its majority. A (sigh) left-wing collectivist president with increasing power in congress was not a good sign.

From here it goes away. Lincoln said and most everyone knew that he couldn't do a doggone thing about slavery. The Constitution said he couldn't and said Congress couldn't. Only an amendment (3/4 of the states) could change that simple fact. A little math exercise: 11 states seceded, Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky and Delaware were slave states. How many states would it have taken to press an amendment outlawing slavery?

And there's were I lose the thread of logic. Am hoping you can come up with something to help me understand.

ole

[DHPatrick]

Originally Posted by ole

. That's fair. And I'll agree: neither side was overloaded with geniuses.

The times, they were a'changin.' Until the middle 1850s, the Northern and Southern Democrats generally agreed with each other. After that, the Northern Democrats got a bit squeemish about playing palsey. So. With the ascendency of the (sigh) left wing collectivists and the wavering Northern former Conservatives, the Southrons were losing the pull they had enjoyed since the Constituion was ratified. They were losing control and they had reason to be concerned.

Here is this new guy. And his party is dead set against the expansion of slavery into the territories (and he is, as well). It is another subject altogether, and we can get into it on another thread, but I've never understood how Kansas or the Arizona Territories could be made slave states. And this is a clear and present danger. The south had lost its majority. A (sigh) left-wing collectivist president with increasing power in congress was not a good sign.

From here it goes away. Lincoln said and most everyone knew that he couldn't do a doggone thing about slavery. The Constitution said he couldn't and said Congress couldn't. Only an amendment (3/4 of the states) could change that simple fact. A little math exercise: 11 states seceded, Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky and Delaware were slave states. How many states would it have taken to press an amendment outlawing slavery?

And there's were I lose the thread of logic. Am hoping you can come up with something to help me understand.

ole

ole

Your are right to a degree. There was nothing in the Constitution that granted the States a right to slavery - though it does provide for States rights. ...though the States are susposedly already represented in the Congress.

Slavery had been a way of life in the United States - the South did not invent it. I believe that it was Massachusetts or Maine that had a major hand excelerating that concept for the US.

Lincoln was certainly not planning to stop slavery. So why did the South have any legal worries about losing their slaves.

It boils down to the North being afraid of losing their way of life and the same thing for the South. This fear was due to skirmish going on in Congress. This goes along with one being protectionist and the other free trade.

[Beowulf]

Originally Posted by ole

.. With the ascendency of the (sigh) left wing collectivists and the wavering Northern former Conservatives, the Southrons were losing the pull they had enjoyed since the Constituion was ratified. They were losing control and they had reason to be concerned.

And this is a clear and present danger. The south had lost its majority. A (sigh) left-wing collectivist president with increasing power in congress was not a good sign.


ole

The South, which had existed as the United States, was losing power to a sectional interest majority mob... Their country was OVER, as far as they could tell.

The Radical Left would stop at nothing, once they got going...

Ahh! Look! FOX NEWS is on! The Defense rests...

Ole is quoting Beowulf...

My work here is done.

The Logic ends right here for a reason, It is because the Logic ended right here.

The (sigh) Collectivist Left Radical Republicans had no authority to restrict slavery in the common territories.

This was another one of their whole cloth 'war powers' styled inventions that Lincoln would sit around dreaming up at night...

This was a form of discrimination and an attempt to bring popular opinion down upon the Southern Slave owners.

As well as economically endanger them, and socially endanger them from fanatics like Brown.

Davis wanted this worthless majority of (sigh) Left Wingers to address the issue and smooth over the indignities of these threats to their way of life...

But these idiots were either in bed with the abolitionists, like Salmon Portland Chase and William Seward were, actually giving MONEY to the freak John Brown... or wanted to be...

THERE IS YOUR LOSS OF LOGIC. THE NORTH (sigh) brought this upon themselves!

(Sigh)! LOVE THAT, OLE!

Beowulf

[ole]

Your are right to a degree. There was nothing in the Constitution that granted the States a right to slavery - though it does provide for States rights. ...though the States are susposedly already represented in the Congress.

Although the Constitution never used the word "slavery," it did make provision for the giving up on demand persons held in servitude. It was this provision upon which Lincoln believed that he could not interfere with slavery where it existed.

Slavery had been a way of life in the United States - the South did not invent it. I believe that it was Massachusetts or Maine that had a major hand excelerating that concept for the US.

Right. The south did not invent it, but the first slaves offloaded on the continent were offloaded in Virginia. (About 1614?) It was tobacco that fed the need for slaves. Last I heard, tobacco doesn't grow that far north. As Maine was not a state until the middle of the 19th century, we can pass over that. Now Massachussetts is another matter, the whalers there discovered that they could make a lot more money travelling to Africa and back with a boatload of slaves than they could working their butts off for a whale or two. But they didn't deliver the slaves to Boston. Hmmm. And all the New England states voted to eliminate slavery right about the time the Constitution was ratified.

Lincoln was certainly not planning to stop slavery. So why did the South have any legal worries about losing their slaves.

Good question. The South had nothing (or very little) to worry about. Four years and he's outa there. And, meanwhile, the slave-states still had enough clout to block any legislation. Lincoln and a unified Congress can do nothing about slavery except keep it out of the territories. That's it. Many sensible southerners said as much: slavery was far safer within the Union than without it. Some didn't see it that way, but they were enough to override the voices of reason.

It boils down to the North being afraid of losing their way of life and the same thing for the South. This fear was due to skirmish going on in Congress. This goes along with one being protectionist and the other free trade.

The South was the side afraid of losing its way of life. The North didn't really have one in the same sense that the South did. The North was diversified: farmers, small merchants, large merchants, importers, financiers, bankers, manufacturers, importers, wholesalers, fishermen, mechanics, laborers -- it would lose nothing if the south remained slave or divested itself of slaves.

What skirmish was going on in Congress?

The north wasn't entirely protectionist. The northwest wanted protection for its wool. The northcentral wanted protection for its iron. The northeast wanted protection for its manufactures. But the southwest wanted protection for its sugar. And the southeast for its rice.

Now the fire-eaters promoted the idea that the south was getting raped on the selling price of cotton because the tariffs reduced the price it could get for its cotton. (Keep in mind that only a small percentage of the south grew cotton, and that the south produced about 80 percent of the world's cotton so it could name its own price.) The northern industrialist paid the exact same tariff as the southern planter for a case of brandy, bolt of silk, box of cigars, phial of perfume, ingot of pig iron, English boots, or that ready-made Paris dress. And, off the top of my head, there were 29mm northerners and some less than 9mm southerners. Who was getting bitten by the tariff?

ole

[ole]

The (sigh) Collectivist Left Radical Republicans had no authority to restrict slavery in the common territories.

Invention. It did have the precedent of the Northwest Ordinance. That might have been overturned, but I don't recollect that it was ever challenged.

Do you ever get tired of preaching to your mirror?

ole