Dissing History

[jgoodguy]

Anyone got secondary causes unrelated to slavery?
Tariffs related to slavery.
Sectionalism related to slavery.
Abolitionism related to slavery.
Conflict of enforcing the fugitive slave law related to slavery.
Yankee financial dominance related to slavery.
Socialistic differences related to slavery.

 

[CSA Today]

​

Here is all of it.

"Confederate States of America - Mississippi Secession
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it."


http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

"Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity."

 

[Rebforever]

I'm not concerned about what "older historians" say, I'm concerned what they said it was in 1860-65...they said it was slavery!

Kevin Dally

Abe Lincoln says different.

 

[Rebforever]

So Lincoln WAS willing to leave slavery alone where it already existed. He really was not the threat the fire eaters said he was....
Thanks for making that point.

Always glad to help.

 

[Rebforever]

You make me laugh. Now, Lincoln's first inaugural was the cause of the war. You leave no yarn unspun and no obtuse theory unpropounded. My hat's off to you. I never thought I would hear even the most hardcore lost-causer claim Lincoln's first inaugural was the detonator that touched off the Civil War.

I never mentioned anything about Lincoln starting the war. You made a comment and I responded with the reference for you to see. Lincoln was not going to let the South go so get a grip on it. Don't take it so serious and get all snoot faced. The OP is Dissing History and I respond with proof of my statements. If you turn your back on what Lincoln said, I would say that is dissing History.

 

[Rebforever]

You make me laugh. Now, Lincoln's first inaugural was the cause of the war. You leave no yarn unspun and no obtuse theory unpropounded. My hat's off to you. I never thought I would hear even the most hardcore lost-causer claim Lincoln's first inaugural was the detonator that touched off the Civil War.

I never said that. But I did say and gave the proof in his speech, under no circumstances is he going to let the South go.

 

[Rebforever]

One last time. Had there not been slavery, there would never have been secession or war. Therefore, the solitary cause of the war was slavery. There may have been other complaints in the south but they would not, singly or tied together, have led to war. In fact, most of these so-called other issues were directly linked to the S-word. The state right being argued was the right of a state to practice slavery. The economic things were the economics of slavery. Slice it and dice it anyway you want, and that big old S-word keeps showing up.

I don't have to slice and dice. You yourself made the comment. No they were on the same piece of paper with slavery being firs and then the rest. And you posted that.

 

[Rebforever]

Sooner or later they would have found something else to fire on ...

Your opinion is noted without comment.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

Abe Lincoln says different.

"Without slavery the rebellion could never have existed; without slavery it could not continue."
Lincoln's Second Annual Message to Congress, December 1, 1862.

"One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war."
Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1865

 

[Rebforever]

"Without slavery the rebellion could never have existed; without slavery it could not continue."
Lincoln's Second Annual Message to Congress, December 1, 1862.

"One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war."
Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1865

Switching the subject. Topic and my response was Lincoln was not going to let the South go. Pre war topic.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

Switching the subject. Topic and my response was Lincoln was not going to let the South go. Pre war topic.

You were responding to Tin cup's comment:
"I'm not concerned about what 'older historians' say, I'm concerned what they said it was in 1860-65...they said it was slavery!"

 

[Rebforever]

You were responding to Tin cup's comment:
"I'm not concerned about what 'older historians' say, I'm concerned what they said it was in 1860-65...they said it was slavery!"

OK. Then I need to say Lincoln was from that time period before the war, tells us he wasn't going to let the south go in his first inaugural speech. There, that's better, sorry about the confusion,

 

[GELongstreet]

Your opinion is noted without comment.

It´s interesting how often some people post that phrase instead of really not commenting.

Profanity edited out by moderator JerseyBart

 

[Andrew]

Anyone got secondary causes unrelated to slavery?

From http://www.lsjunction.com/docs/secesson.htm

A declaration of the causes
which impel the State of Texas to secede
from the Federal Union

...The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refused reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.

...They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.

They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offences, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved.

Can anyone shed some light on what incidents are being referred to above related to murdering citizens?

 

[jgoodguy]

It´s interesting how often some people post that phrase instead of really not commenting.

It´s also interesting how, in some instances during more heated arguments than this one, it seems to be used as clear substitute ***edited*** This board creates its own euphemisms ...

You are the only one and the first one I have ever seen indicate that word in my years here on this forum. You know better.

So probably I´m the only one to understand. Or I´m just the only one with the urge to spell out the obvious.

On this board, the phase means simply I have finished my argument and do not wish to continue. An honorable and quite normal way to end a debate. All debates have to have an ending. This phase acknowledges the post it is in reply to and simply notifies all that this presentation is over for a participant.

I suggest that no other interpretation be construed.

 

[jgoodguy]

From http://www.lsjunction.com/docs/secesson.htm

A declaration of the causes
which impel the State of Texas to secede
from the Federal Union

...The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refused reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.

...They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.

They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offences, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved.

Can anyone shed some light on what incidents are being referred to above related to murdering citizens?

Appears to refer to abolitionists especially John Brown. Therefore directly related to slavery.

 

[Andrew]

Appears to refer to abolitionists especially John Brown. Therefore directly related to slavery.

Thanks. That makes sense.

The reference to federal protection from Indian and Mexican violence, then, appears to be a secondary cause for secession for the state of Texas. So, there's one.

 

[jgoodguy]

Thanks. That makes sense.

The reference to federal protection from Indian and Mexican violence, then, appears to be a secondary cause for secession for the state of Texas. So, there's one.

Agree with the observation that it is 1 State of 11 and that the rest of the seceding States were depriving the US of funds to operate including defending Texas prior to secession. If we assume States Rights, Texas would be worst off because it would be on its own. But details.

 

[WJC]

Abe Lincoln says different.

It is well established that Lincoln's primary objective was preservation of the Union. As to the rebels, they were unwilling to continue in the Union unless they were allowed to extend slavery without limits.
Again, one wonders why the rebels refused to give Lincoln a chance....

 

[Andrew]

This is from the Florida Declaration of Causes, which apparently was never published. More info can be found on the linked page: http://www.civilwarcauses.org/florida-dec.htm

"Additional territory is generally only acquired by conquest or purchase. In either case the slaveholding States contribute at least this equal proportion of men or money – we think much more than an equal proportion. The revenues of the General Government are almost entirely derived from duties on importations. It is time that the northern consumer pays his proportion of these duties, but the North as a section receiving back in the increased prices of the rival articles which it manufactures nearly or quite as much as the imposts which it pays thus in effect paying nothing or very little for the support of the government. As to the sacrifice of lives which recent acquisitions have caused how small is the proportion of Northern blood shed or laurels won in the Mexican war."

So, disproportionate payment in duties and bloodshed between the north and south was a secondary cause for the state of Florida. I suppose this cannot be taken as definitive as it doesn't appear to have ever been officially adopted, if I am understanding correctly. Still, it does provide some insight into causes for Florida's secession.