Restricted Debate Agree to define "Lost Cause"

Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
428
Again, why would Blacks in, say Indiana, want to emigrate in great numbers to say, Louisiana?
There were Blacks in great numbers in Indiana?

Indiana Constitution of 1851
Article 13 - Negroes and Mulattoes
Section 1. No negro or mulatto shall come into or settle in the State, after the adoption of this Constitution.
Section 2. All contracts made with any Negro or Mulatto coming into the State, contrary to the provisions of the foregoing section, shall be void; and any person who shall employ such Negro or Mulatto, or otherwise encourage him to remain in the State, shall be fined in any sum not less than ten dollars, nor more than five hundred dollars.
Section 3. All fines which may be collected for a violation of the provisions of this article, or of any law which ay hereafter be passed for the purpose of carrying the same into execution, shall be set apart and appropriated for the colonization of such Negroes and Mulattoes, and their descendants, as may be in the State at the adoption of this Constitution, and may be willing to emigrate.
Section 4. The General Assembly shall pass laws to carry out the provisions of this article.

No one is denying the pervasive racism of the 19th Century.
Good. That means you understand northern intentions to keep the Blacks in the south after the war; and that means I won't have to post all those foully worded statements from politicians and editorials how they didn't want the Blacks in their (non seceding) states.

Now, back to the original comment that it was "only" after the South "resisted" change that Congress had to act. That's funny. The remaining (non-seceding) Congress wasn't going to act to force themselves to accept the Blacks. You are right, the racism was pervasive, but that wordy by itself doesn't clarify how it operated in "reconstruction."
 
Last edited:

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,612
Location
Laurinburg NC
It was not illegal.
I've seen a lot of asininity on this forum but among the most glaring is the insistence by several here is that the CS went to war to protect slavery. Lincoln promised to support a constitutional amendment protecting slavery in the South and it certainly wasn't threatened in the South.
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
11,860
That means you understand northern intentions to keep the Blacks in the south after the war; and that means I won't have to post all those foully worded statements from politicians and editorials how they didn't want the Blacks in their (non seceding) states.
Thanks for your response.
Although I have some familiarity with racist laws in Northern states, I look forward to your posts (perhaps in a new thread) of those you mention. I am sure others would be interested in them.
Thus far, though the posts appear to be antebellum. For example, reference to Indiana's 1851 Constitution.
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
11,860
I've seen a lot of asininity on this forum but among the most glaring is the insistence by several here is that the CS went to war to protect slavery.
That certainly is the Lost Cause view, one that ignores everything secessionists said. But myths are seldom tethered to reality.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,368
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
I've seen a lot of asininity on this forum but among the most glaring is the insistence by several here is that the CS went to war to protect slavery.

That's what they said. Are they liars?

Lincoln promised to support a constitutional amendment protecting slavery in the South and it certainly wasn't threatened in the South.
But this is where your theory fails. The South thought/believed/feared slavery was threatened in the South by none other than Lincoln and the Republican administration.
 

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
10,061
That certainly is the Lost Cause view, one that ignores everything secessionists said. But myths are seldom tethered to reality.
The only myth is the one that has been fabricated in the schools in the last 20 years the CW was all about slavery which has been on the forums proven again and again and again there were multiple things besides slavery. And that is more than some here can swallow.
The TOV will never change their minds and neither will I.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,612
Location
Laurinburg NC
Please define Treasury of Virtue; i.e. TOV, so the newbies may fully understand what you...seemingly mean.
"The Treasury of Virtue, which is the psychological heritage left to the North by the Civil War, may not be as comic or vicious as the Great Alibi, but it is equally unlovely. It may even be, in the end, equally corrosive of national, and personal, integrity. If the Southerner, with his Great Alibi, feels trapped by history, the Northerner, with his Treasury of Virtue, feels redeemed by history, automatically redeemed. He has in his pocket, not a Papal indulgence peddled by some wandering pardoner of the Middle Ages, but an indulgence, a plenary indulgence, for all sins past, present, and future, freely given by the hand of history." (59)

Robert Penn Warren
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
428
"The Treasury of Virtue, which is the psychological heritage left to the North by the Civil War, may not be as comic or vicious as the Great Alibi, but it is equally unlovely. It may even be, in the end, equally corrosive of national, and personal, integrity. If the Southerner, with his Great Alibi, feels trapped by history, the Northerner, with his Treasury of Virtue, feels redeemed by history, automatically redeemed. He has in his pocket, not a Papal indulgence peddled by some wandering pardoner of the Middle Ages, but an indulgence, a plenary indulgence, for all sins past, present, and future, freely given by the hand of history." (59)
Robert Penn Warren
That's a good write-up about human nature. I might just have to read or watch All The Kings Men. :biggrin:
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
11,860
The only myth is the one that has been fabricated in the schools in the last 20 years the CW was all about slavery which has been on the forums proven again and again and again there were multiple things besides slavery. And that is more than some here can swallow.
The TOV will never change their minds and neither will I.
Thanks for your response.
Again, choosing to address the extremes does nothing to advance the discussion. Few here deny that there were other factors involved in the decision to secede. However, clearly the most important factor- the Root Cause of secession- was slavery. Though some- for whatever reason- choose to ignore it, that is supported by overwhelming, first-hand evidence.
Nobody ever said that facts have to conform to anyone's preconceived notions.
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
428
To this:
"is the insistence by several here is that the CS went to war to protect slavery. "
The Response:
But this is where your theory fails. The South thought/believed/feared slavery was threatened in the South by none other than Lincoln and the Republican administration.
"Went to war" and seceded were not the same thing. They seceded to protect slavery.

After that, IMO, the Southern States engaged in wrongful acts, unilaterally seizing - well, let's call it - common property, in which both the resident state and the union have sound claims.

But "went" to war? Where did they go?
 
Last edited:



Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top