Southern unionism

[atlantis]

Would southern unionism have faded away if there had been no conscription? Is it not fair to view southern unionism as merely a reaction to conscription after the enactment of the first conscript law in contrast to the southern unionism that existed during the debates over secession.
Southern unionists also felt the harsh hand of union troops as they the ravaged the land, plundering/burning.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Moral Equivalence is an argument that immoral people rely on to defend things that are indefensible.

 

[archieclement]

Moral Equivalence is an argument that immoral people rely on to defend things that are indefensible.

Indeed as it would be denying moral relativism which is simply actually reality.

History or even religion and cultures within one time, do not share some "standard" morality, why it indeed varies, and always has, always will.

Looking at history, one could also certainly say Morality is something immoral people use to excuse their immorality............probally more people have been butchered in name of one sides "morality" as anything in history........

 

[leftyhunter]

I see in your world events that haven't happened did, indeed a pity and bizarre as certainly isnt reality. The timeline when southern states were seceding isn't that hard to follow, it's not in 1862 however.

Lefty was referring clearly to the time of secession when he states withdrawing to form a slaveholding republic....which was in 1861......not 1862......

So what Lincoln was saying at the actual time would be the rather relevant statements to 1861, he was clearly stating the US was also slaveholding in state of union, and had no intention of interfering with slavery in the US.......then in 1863 the EP even also exempted where it existed in US states or occupied territory.

So whether you prefer 1861 that lefty referred to or even 1863. Both the Union and Confederacy were in fact still holding slaves...

If condemning slavery, perhaps should recognize the US was still practicing it during ACW as well all our history prior.....

So if slavery was assured by Lincoln then why did Southern politicians clamor for secession after Lincoln won the presidential election ?
Leftyhunter

 

[atlantis]

The secessionists missed an opportunity to win over southern unionists when they interfered with vote both in selecting delegates to secession conventions and later with popular election to ratify secession ordinance.
The secessionists would likely have prevailed but with a narrower margin. An honest process would have helped reconciliation between unionists and secessionists. Later pressuring men to enlist and finally enacting conscription only deepened the rift. Given both secessionists and unionists had shared view on the Negro in general and slavery there was ground to bring southern unionists into the fold.

 

[archieclement]

So if slavery was assured by Lincoln then why did Southern politicians clamor for secession after Lincoln won the presidential election ?
Leftyhunter

Because of rhetoric and desire for independence. Lincoln clearly stated it wasn't going anywhere, nor would it if they remained.

Again not aware of any historian suggesting otherwise. Certainly not without alot of future speculation based on no real substance, why its end would have remained unforeseeable.

If slavery was prohibited in territory, assuming courts enforce it instead of going with Dred Scott signal......would it not been likely there's would been increading opposition to admitting future states from democrats?

 

[atlantis]

Secessionist/confederate state level leaders should have promised and delivered more public investment in unionist leading counties, turnpikes, railroads, schools etc. would have helped assuage feelings of being the unwanted child of state funding.

 

[JerryD]

No you are the only one fooling yourself if somehow refuse to accept people of other cultures and eras whose views may not align with ours.......believe themselves just as right and would acted accordingly

As well your propensity to tilt windmills, as never remotely compared Davis to Lincoln. Simply noted if lefty wished to opine they were leaving to form a slaveholding republic, they were leaving a slaveholding republic to do so. As they were, which Lincoln made clear in state of union.

I do certainly recognize terms like "moral" are undefined certainly in history. Why what passes as moral certainly varies by religion and culture, and most certainly through time.

I assume you have a personal sense of morality, hopefully majority in your community share it. But most likely not everyone does nationally as many political issues involve morality to some as religion might be attached....now fly to Saudi Arabia or China and again you'll find not everyone will share yours, certainly not if one time machined 150 years ago as well.......or 500, or 1000.......its actually rather evolving to time and place certainly collectively to cultures and society's.

Nice dodge and try to change the topic. We are talking about the American Civil War and whether slavery was immoral when viewed at the time. Most of the civilized world had outlawed it and it had not yet been outlawed in the US due to the problem with amending the US Constitution, and the vehement opposition of those in the south who adored slavery and thought it was the best thing since sliced bread. Many in the North and the rest of the civilized world disagreed.

You can dress it up all you want, but you have made it clear which side you are. Cool attempt at deflection, though. I guess when you try to defend the indefensible its best to try to change the topic. I get it. But no one is fooled.

 

[leftyhunter]

Because of rhetoric and desire for independence. Lincoln clearly stated it wasn't going anywhere, nor would it if they remained.

Again not aware of any historian suggesting otherwise. Certainly not without alot of future speculation based on no real substance, why its end would have remained unforeseeable.

If slavery was prohibited in territory, assuming courts enforce it instead of going with Dred Scott signal......would it not been likely there's would been increading opposition to admitting future states from democrats?

But why the desire for rethoric and independence of Lincoln was not a threat to slavery?
Leftyhunter

 

[archieclement]

Nice dodge and try to change the topic. We are talking about the American Civil War and whether slavery was immoral when viewed at the time. Most of the civilized world had outlawed it and it had not yet been outlawed in the US due to the problem with amending the US Constitution, and the vehement opposition of those in the south who adored slavery and thought it was the best thing since sliced bread. Many in the North and the rest of the civilized world disagreed.

You can dress it up all you want, but you have made it clear which side you are. Cool attempt at deflection, though. I guess when you try to defend the indefensible its best to try to change the topic. I get it. But no one is fooled.

Indeed your the one constantly resorting to smoke and mirrors and false deflection.

Indeed we are talking about the American Civil War.......news flash there was one.

So trying to pretend everyone was on same page to slavery or secession is patently false.
Recognizing the simple reality they weren't isn't defending anything, it's accepting reality.

I agree i doubt few are fooled by your suggesting everyone agreed to morality or politics......after all why there actually was a war. As well despite your constant south suggestion, there certainly were actually northern democrats in Congress.

 

[archieclement]

But why the desire for rethoric and independence of Lincoln was not a threat to slavery?
Leftyhunter

Again perhaps you can show how he was a threat to slavery at all absent secession, if somehow think he was.

Without 85 southern members leaving Congress?

 

[damYankee]

Then get out of the river.

As I haven't denied anything, I just note everything which certainly includes both sides in a war. Nor should history be about trying to blame anyone, it's simply recognizing events.

Certainly historical events are guided by historical views.....that we don't like or share them doesn't change it was the views at the time that would decide historical events. I don't understand the wishing to ignore simple historical realities.

Then why are you constantly blaming people?

 

[limestone1863]

I suppose you can speak to yourself or your friends, I haven't ever encountered anyone who resents that fact today. So I certainly don't think there would be many, if any at all. So certainly seems bit bizarre claim.

I agree at times it seems odd how many seem bitter over the south seceding, which simply hastened slavery's end, it was rather the end result. As I pointed out not aware of any historian who claims if the South had not seceded, slavery would not likely continued for decades under US.

So as far as slavery itself, the south seceding was rather a good thing, as it brought its end.

Slavery was indeed a tragic part of our history, but perhaps some should realize the majority of it was certainly under and condoned by the US and colonial powers, as it certainly was.

Unfortunately, I have heard for approximately 65 years and in many US geographical regions, that black slavery should have never been abolished from many people, many times because of their personal opinion. Racist? I call it opinionated.

 

[damYankee]

Something like this?View attachment 575555

If the shoe fit's, buy a dozen,
The question is, which is worse moral superiority or moral ambivalence ?
The only people on this forum who are constantly waving the "we were better than you" are the pro South deniers who blame Lincoln and the ever evil "North" for everything then when cornered sheepishly claim innocence

 

[damYankee]

No you are the only one fooling yourself if somehow refuse to accept people of other cultures and eras whose views may not align with ours.......believe themselves just as right and would acted accordingly

As well your propensity to tilt windmills, as never remotely compared Davis to Lincoln. Simply noted if lefty wished to opine they were leaving to form a slaveholding republic, they were leaving a slaveholding republic to do so. As they were, which Lincoln made clear in state of union.

I do certainly recognize terms like "moral" are undefined certainly in history. Why what passes as moral certainly varies by religion and culture, and most certainly through time.

I assume you have a personal sense of morality, hopefully majority in your community share it. But most likely not everyone does nationally as many political issues involve morality to some as religion might be attached....now fly to Saudi Arabia or China and again you'll find not everyone will share yours, certainly not if one time machined 150 years ago as well.......or 500, or 1000.......its actually rather evolving to time and place certainly collectively to cultures and society's.

The irony of the issue is both sides wrapped themselves up in the flag and hid behind scripture,
The one Christian value that seemed to evade the pro slavery faction was,
"do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
If that had been followed at the founding the Civil War would not have happened.

 

[limestone1863]

Indeed as it would be denying moral relativism which is simply actually reality.

History or even religion and cultures within one time, do not share some "standard" morality, why it indeed varies, and always has, always will.

Looking at history, one could also certainly say Morality is something immoral people use to excuse their immorality............probally more people have been butchered in name of one sides "morality" as anything in history........

This one of the few times you sense to me

Indeed as it would be denying moral relativism which is simply actually reality.

History or even religion and cultures within one time, do not share some "standard" morality, why it indeed varies, and always has, always will.

Looking at history, one could also certainly say Morality is something immoral people use to excuse their immorality............probally more people have been butchered in name of one sides "morality" as anything in history........

This in one of the few times you have made sense to me.

 

[archieclement]

This one of the few times you sense to me

This in one of the few times you have made sense to me.

Its always struck me bizarre here that some make these elaborate "moral" arguments then use them to defend civil disobedience ect.....

Yet never seem to consider those with differing views would been just as sincere in their "moral" views and would thought they were doing "right".....why cultures differ.......

 

[archieclement]

The irony of the issue is both sides wrapped themselves up in the flag and hid behind scripture,
The one Christian value that seemed to evade the pro slavery faction was,
"do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
If that had been followed at the founding the Civil War would not have happened.

Certainly more people have died in views of morality or interpretation of religions through history then probally anything else........its rather common occurance.

 

[leftyhunter]

Certainly more people have died in views of morality or interpretation of religions through history then probally anything else........its rather common occurance.

True violence is a feature nor a bug of religion. Yes the ACW had some religious violence thrown in the mix .
Leftyhunter

 

[limestone1863]

Certainly more people have died in views of morality or interpretation of religions through history then probally anything else........its rather common occurance.

Agree to a point. Believe more killed for power & greed to be "King of the Earth" Deep, if a person get the scales off their eyes.

 

[archieclement]

True violence is a feature nor a bug of religion. Yes the ACW had some religious violence thrown in the mix .
Leftyhunter

And when it comes to morality, it is often just an excuse for violence.

Why God and Country rather common theme in history........just your God and Country tho, not the other guys