California: The Prize of Secession and the following War of Southern Aggression

Status
Not open for further replies.

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
10,290
I doubt that northern representatives would have voted to allow those incentives to go to a southern state -- even though it was an easier and more economical route to build.
Thanks for your response.
It was most certainly a divisive sectional issue. The most favorable time for approving the southern route was 1853, at the time of the Gadsden Purchase.
I find it very interesting that, so far as I know, none of the last-ditch compromises proposed during the secession crisis included an agreement to build along the southern route.
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,140
I would like to remind everyone what is in dispute here.
James claims....
The primary cause of secession was the first footprint of the TRRe not slavery
California was the prize of that secession not independence
China trade was the overall goal of the TRR and secession not cotton
Mighty well restated, MG, mighty well. You got it right.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,140
Thanks for your response.
It was most certainly a divisive sectional issue. The most favorable time for approving the southern route was 1853, at the time of the Gadsden Purchase.
I find it very interesting that, so far as I know, none of the last-ditch compromises proposed during the secession crisis included an agreement to build along the southern route.
I find that interesting also. And i think in part --notice, I said "in part," not "in whole"-- that one reason is because the South did NOT want to compromise. They saw the Southwest and said, "Who needs the North? We want it all." You will disagree with that, of course, but I have seen that kind of thinking in real life, and the parallel fits perfectly and explains a lot. The south wanted indpendence so they could have it all! Commercial hegemony. And not just in America but the entire world.

In short, the South was after a $100+ million subsidy as a chaser for the $10 million Gadsden subsidy. When they saw they would not get it (see Jeff Davis speech, January 5, 1861), they jumped en masse.

Aw, darn it, now I have given away the whole store!!!

One thing, WJC and others: There is more about this important subject on civilwartalk than in all of the Civil War history books written in the last 100 years --excepting Russel's and my own, of course. You have a ring side seat here to some incredibly overlooked sources/data/whatever. I suspect this thread will be cited in footnotes in days to come. I know I will in my second edition that keeps growing past 439 pages and counting --66 in full color illustrations.

Modestly,

James
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 30, 2016
Messages
774
Location
Dixie



Sectionalism was caused by slavery.
Each section of the country considered their region to be more important than the rest of the country. By 1820, three issues were dividing the nation. The first issue was the use of tariffs. The north wanted high tariffs. Tariffs made products from Europe (especially Great Britain) cost more and gave revenue to the federal government. Similar products made in the north would be sold easier when the competition was expensive. On the other hand, the south did not like tariffs at all. The south traded much of their cotton to Great Britain. In return, the south would receive British goods. But British goods would cost more with high tariffs added to them. This made the value of their cotton as a trading item worth less than before.
A second issue was the issue of transportation. The people in the west wanted to have better transportation systems so that they could be better connected to the rest of the country. This would provide a better means to sell and receive products. People in the north wanted better transportation systems too because they had the majority of the factories and it would get their products to market quicker. The people of the south didn't want to spend money on new roads or canals. They already had rivers that were suitable for their transportation needs.
A third issue was slavery. The slave trade with Africa ended in 1808. But slaves continued to be bought and sold in America. As the country grew westward, the people in the south wanted slavery to grow westward. The people in the north did not want slavery to grow in new territories.
http://www.mpsaz.org/skyline/staff/ptdunn/overview/assignments_1/files/sectionalism_tdq.docx
 
Last edited:

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
10,290
***Posted as Moderator***
This thread asks for views on the claim that the acquisition of California was a goal of secession.
Please remain focused on that topic.

Off-topic posts will be edited or deleted. Persistent violators may be banned from participating in this discussion.
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2016
Messages
774
Location
Dixie
In response to the OP only.
Southern California was the object of pro-slavery settlers in Southern California in the 50s before secession. There was some armed resistance in Southern California after secession but was quickly put down.
However this resistance was only for Southern California with the majority of the state being anti-slavery.
That was the division or sectional differences. Since nothing was done to capture Southern California it is hard to say that it was the prize of secession.
So yes there was some interest in Southern California by the confederacy but if it was the “prize” then the confederacy did almost nothing to claim it.
Rather southern California was a goal of the new southern theme of expansion and protection for slavery.
That’s it for me as it is a revolving argument. Thanks to James for prompting me to research as I have found new subjects to study such as the transportation revolution. Watch for a thread.
Under its new master Calforma became the bone of contention between the North and the South. It was not the old territorial contest of Uppers and Lowers for supremacy, but a faction fight in Congress to determine which should gain the new state—the slaveholders of the South or the freemen of the North.
https://books.google.com/books?id=WCMLAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA228&focus=viewport&output=text#c_top


Edit: the 2nd link didn’t work (it uses a robot blocker) but you can get it from the first link, the only link now, and click the PDF format button. It has a ton of early California info and stories.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,140
In response to the OP only.
Southern California was the object of pro-slavery settlers in Southern California in the 50s before secession. There was some armed resistance in Southern California after secession but was quickly put down.
However this resistance was only for Southern California with the majority of the state being anti-slavery.
That was the division or sectional differences. Since nothing was done to capture Southern California it is hard to say that it was the prize of secession.
So yes there was some interest in Southern California by the confederacy but if it was the “prize” then the confederacy did almost nothing to claim it.
Rather southern California was a goal of the new southern theme of expansion and protection for slavery.
That’s it for me as it is a revolving argument. Thanks to James for prompting me to research as I have found new subjects to study such as the transportation revolution. Watch for a thread.
Under its new master Calforma became the bone of contention between the North and the South. It was not the old territorial contest of Uppers and Lowers for supremacy, but a faction fight in Congress to determine which should gain the new state—the slaveholders of the South or the freemen of the North.
https://books.google.com/books?id=WCMLAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA228&focus=viewport&output=text#c_top


https://books.googleusercontent.com...PP3TfBE75s4PTKDMjwduQ_kiciZFfo3YpnNLP9aBinW_h
Is that really a bone for me, MG?

Thank you.
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
15,322
Location
los angeles ca
No Edited. However, when I post the ones that haven't been, some posters call it arrogance rather than precision.

Don't get me wrong, Lefty. I argue you with you to spare you the fate of Edmund Ruffin, when he realized how wrong he got it all.
Not understanding why you can't post from a peer reviewed journal or something similar. So far you have not provided any evidence to backup you various assertions.
Leftyhunter
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
15,322
Location
los angeles ca
In response to the OP only.
Southern California was the object of pro-slavery settlers in Southern California in the 50s before secession. There was some armed resistance in Southern California after secession but was quickly put down.
However this resistance was only for Southern California with the majority of the state being anti-slavery.
That was the division or sectional differences. Since nothing was done to capture Southern California it is hard to say that it was the prize of secession.
So yes there was some interest in Southern California by the confederacy but if it was the “prize” then the confederacy did almost nothing to claim it.
Rather southern California was a goal of the new southern theme of expansion and protection for slavery.
That’s it for me as it is a revolving argument. Thanks to James for prompting me to research as I have found new subjects to study such as the transportation revolution. Watch for a thread.
Under its new master Calforma became the bone of contention between the North and the South. It was not the old territorial contest of Uppers and Lowers for supremacy, but a faction fight in Congress to determine which should gain the new state—the slaveholders of the South or the freemen of the North.
https://books.google.com/books?id=WCMLAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA228&focus=viewport&output=text#c_top


https://books.googleusercontent.com...PP3TfBE75s4PTKDMjwduQ_kiciZFfo3YpnNLP9aBinW_h
I am not aware of any Confederate armed resistance in California. Any examples?
Leftyhunter
 

uaskme

First Sergeant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
1,663
Thanks for your response.
It was most certainly a divisive sectional issue. The most favorable time for approving the southern route was 1853, at the time of the Gadsden Purchase.
I find it very interesting that, so far as I know, none of the last-ditch compromises proposed during the secession crisis included an agreement to build along the southern route.
Compromise of 77 did
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
15,322
Location
los angeles ca
It was as a Slave State, why would there be?
That is irrelevant . If there are armed pro Confederate supporter's that's good enough for armed resistance to take place. After all almost all Confederate States had internal armed resistance to the Confederacy.
Kansas had occasional attacks from Confederate guerrillas.
Leftyhunter
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,140
Not understanding why you can't post from a peer reviewed journal or something similar. So far you have not provided any evidence to backup you various assertions.
Leftyhunter
Lefty,

The evidence I have provided is overwhelming. I am sorry you can't see it. And sorry your vague assertions are not tantamount to evidence.

Let me know when you have read the assignments I have given you.

James
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2016
Messages
774
Location
Dixie
Is that really a bone for me, MG?
If you mean a compliment, no. Edited. I simply wish to acknowledge that your tenacity led me to subjects or concepts unfamiliar to me. They are not in agreement with your premise and to the contrary show that slavery was indeed the underlying cause of tariffs, what is being produced and where, states rights, expansion, trade practices, transportation, and many more. However for your part in giving me some new subjects to explore, I thank you. I probably would not have stumbled on them on my own.
PS. Also I do like the moniker MG. I love and have had several British cars. I hope it sticks.:thumbsup:
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,140
If you mean a compliment, no. Edited. I simply wish to acknowledge that your tenacity led me to subjects or concepts unfamiliar to me. They are not in agreement with your premise and to the contrary show that slavery was indeed the underlying cause of tariffs, what is being produced and where, states rights, expansion, trade practices, transportation, and many more. However for your part in giving me some new subjects to explore, I thank you. I probably would not have stumbled on them on my own.
PS. Also I do like the moniker MG. I love and have had several British cars. I hope it sticks.:thumbsup:
I think we have heard enough about your argument about slavery as the cause of the ACW. This thread is about California as the prize of secession and war.

Edited.

James
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads




(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top