In The Absence Of Slavery There Would Have Still Been Secession Over Other Fiscal Issues

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,334
Does it not bring into question the whole history of why, exactly, it was mainly the South, instead of the North, willing to secede over Tariffs.

Perhaps the more compelling question would be, what,, exactly, made tariffs so much more onerous to the South, than the north, in the first place ?
 

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

John S. Carter

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
1,340
In relation to the four border states, what made Texas more of a sister state to Va. than Pennsylvania?

Would any of those 'economic' issues cited, have anything to do with slavery?(i.e., without slavery would those economic issues be considered worth secession and civil war?)

Any claim that secession did not revolve around the issue of slavery, has to claim that without slavery there would still have been secession and civil war in 1860-1861?
Nice theory but in the real world ,the expansion of slavery not slavery itself was the issue in 1860.Slavery itself did not become the issue till Antietam,then that was just to secure the European countries from entering .The battle was a draw. All of the South's major economic was tied in one way or the other to the slave/plantation system.Due to the success of the Radical Politicans
Without slavery, the South would have developed an industrial base that needed tariffs.

States do not seceded, people controlling State governments secede. SC tried secession by itself and failed. So a conspiracy of like minded State governments must all secede at the same time over a single unifying issue. Since money is the driver of politics, then lots and lots of wealth have to be at risk.
In 1850- 1860 was it slavery or the fear of the expansion of slavery into Free soil which motivated the Northern people?If the South remained in the Union ,the plantation system would have been maintained for the courts and the laws were still active.The motivation for most of the secession following Sumter was the fear of political and military suppression of the Southern system due to their political leaders .Then the North feared slavery may in time invade their economic system by allowing slaves into their industrial systems.Union was the battle cry then Slavery.{what better way to maintain Europe's neutrality than to make the war into freedom for the black man} " Union in Peril,the crisis over British Intervention in the Civil War" Howard Jones
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,528
Location
Right here.
Nice theory but in the real world ,the expansion of slavery not slavery itself was the issue in 1860.Slavery itself did not become the issue till Antietam,
That would come as a surprise to the confederates.

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery." [Mississippi Declaration of Causes]


then that was just to secure the European countries from entering .
Wrong again. In actuality, nobody knew what Europe would do if the war became one of emancipation. They could have decided that another Haiti was brewing and intervened to stop it right then and there.


The battle was a draw. All of the South's major economic was tied in one way or the other to the slave/plantation system.Due to the success of the Radical Politicans
The Radicals at this time had little actual power.

In 1850- 1860 was it slavery or the fear of the expansion of slavery into Free soil which motivated the Northern people?If the South remained in the Union ,the plantation system would have been maintained for the courts and the laws were still active.The motivation for most of the secession following Sumter was the fear of political and military suppression of the Southern system due to their political leaders .Then the North feared slavery may in time invade their economic system by allowing slaves into their industrial systems.Union was the battle cry then Slavery.{what better way to maintain Europe's neutrality than to make the war into freedom for the black man} " Union in Peril,the crisis over British Intervention in the Civil War" Howard Jones
Apparently you've never read what the secessionists actually had to say. They were pretty clear.
 

John S. Carter

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
1,340
That would come as a surprise to the confederates.

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery." [Mississippi Declaration of Causes]




Wrong again. In actuality, nobody knew what Europe would do if the war became one of emancipation. They could have decided that another Haiti was brewing and intervened to stop it right then and there.




The Radicals at this time had little actual power.



Apparently you've never read what the secessionists actually had to say. They were pretty clear.
Could we agree that the political leaders of the South wanted to establish a country/nation to protect their own interest?The South saw no future in remaining in the Union and seccession [Constitutional or not }would be their method out.Lincoln in his ingratiation speech spoke about Union and the reason he called up troops was to maintain the Union.Lincoln was against any political move towards expansion as the South had so successfully had achieved in the last sixty years,apro. Quarantine the South and slavery would die out,allow it to expand has it had been allowed and the system would continue.Lincoln failed for once in his great political life under estimated the seriousness in what the leaders of the South had been lecturing to the people.Prehabs for once also he thought that he South was bluffing or threatening has they had so many times,but this time there would be no agreement or surrender to their threat and then prehabs the Southern leaders under estimated Lincoln and his determination to maintain the Union. As to England read "UNION IN PERIL,the crisis over BRITISH Intervention in the Civil War" Howard Jones.It was hard for the English government to support a slave nation when they had just emancipated their own .Suppose that the English government had est. relations with the Confederacy ,would Steward have had his war,and how could the North fight on two fronts?.First thing ,English navy would open up the ports which would allow material in and cotton out.There would be no troops .France could send its navy. Negotiations for peace and Southern independence would began with in two years.JUST A THEORY/DREAM
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,528
Location
Right here.
Could we agree that the political leaders of the South wanted to establish a country/nation to protect their own interest?
No. We can, however, agree that the political leaders of the states that would become the confederacy wanted to establish a country to protect their own interest, provided that interest was the continuation of slavery.


The South saw no future in remaining in the Union and seccession [Constitutional or not }would be their method out.
A total of 11 of the 15 states in the South saw the future of slavery in the Union was limited and decided to secede.


Lincoln in his ingratiation speech spoke about Union and the reason he called up troops was to maintain the Union.
Inauguration.


Lincoln was against any political move towards expansion as the South had so successfully had achieved in the last sixty years,apro. Quarantine the South and slavery would die out,allow it to expand has it had been allowed and the system would continue.
So to you, then slavery = the South, because Lincoln sought only to limit the expansion of slavery. Any number of southerners could move into the territories and make those territories into states. Lincoln would simply choose to keep slaves out of those territories.

So is it your position that a person who didn't own human beings wasn't a southerner?

Lincoln failed for once in his great political life under estimated the seriousness in what the leaders of the South had been lecturing to the people.
Lincoln failed several times in his political life. I don't know what you mean by the rest of that sentence.


Prehabs for once also he thought that he South was bluffing or threatening has they had so many times,but this time there would be no agreement or surrender to their threat and then prehabs the Southern leaders under estimated Lincoln and his determination to maintain the Union.
He did think the secessionists were bluffing. There were four states in the South that didn't secede.
The secessionist leaders did underestimate Lincoln. Sam Houston didn't.

As to England read "UNION IN PERIL,the crisis over BRITISH Intervention in the Civil War" Howard Jones.It was hard for the English government to support a slave nation when they had just emancipated their own .
I've read it. Read Allen Guelzo's Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation: The End of Slavery in America.

"[T]he idea that the Proclamation would work as a kind of talisman to ward off the unwelcome attentions of the British and the French had far less importance for Lincoln than is often assumed. 'It would help somewhat,' he admitted to the Chicago clergymen, 'though not so much, I fear, as you and those you represent imagine.' If anything, Lincoln had to fear more that the British would intervene because of an emancipation proclamation than that they would without one. So long as emancipation was seen as a 'direct encouragement to servile Insurrections,' the British government was eager to head off anything that might awaken memories of the racial carnage of the Indian Mutiny. It was, in fact, two weeks after Lincoln issued the preliminary Proclamation that William Ewart Gladstone predicted Southern victory to an enthusiastic crowd in Newcastle, while the foreign secretary, Lord John Russell, was so appalled at the appearance of the Proclamation that he pressed for a diplomatic intervention to head off the 'acts of plunder, of incendiarism, and of revenge' he was sure would follow emancipation. But the costs of such an intervention, and the possibility that it might give an opening to French adventurism in Mexico, pulled the British back from the brink; it was only over the following year that emancipation gradually became the government's principal rationale for not intervening." [Allen C. Guelzo, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation: The End of Slavery in America, p. 225]
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,334
Nice theory but in the real world ,the expansion of slavery not slavery itself was the issue in 1860.Slavery itself did not become the issue till Antietam,then that was just to secure the European countries from entering .The battle was a draw. All of the South's major economic was tied in one way or the other to the slave/plantation system.Due to the success of the Radical Politicans
In 1850- 1860 was it slavery or the fear of the expansion of slavery into Free soil which motivated the Northern people?If the South remained in the Union ,the plantation system would have been maintained for the courts and the laws were still active.The motivation for most of the secession following Sumter was the fear of political and military suppression of the Southern system due to their political leaders .Then the North feared slavery may in time invade their economic system by allowing slaves into their industrial systems.Union was the battle cry then Slavery.{what better way to maintain Europe's neutrality than to make the war into freedom for the black man} " Union in Peril,the crisis over British Intervention in the Civil War" Howard Jones


How is the fear of the expansion of slavery into territories where it had never existed, Not an expression of fear of slavery itself, whatever their reasons?

Lincoln and secessionist were in complete agreement concerning Slavery in America ..... to accent its confinement, within set borders, was to accept that Slavery, at some time in the future, would wither on the vine and eventually. become extinct.

The agitation over slavery revolved around the question of whether the institution of slavery in the South, was a 'Positive Good' or not? Was it one of the founding principle's of the United States, a positive good, that deserved Constitutional (legal) protection; or, was a peculiar institution of peculiar states, that ran counter to the guiding principles of the Union itself. That could be tolerated, Only, in the expectation of its eventual extinction?
 

John S. Carter

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
1,340
How is the fear of the expansion of slavery into territories where it had never existed, Not an expression of fear of slavery itself, whatever their reasons?

Lincoln and secessionist were in complete agreement concerning Slavery in America ..... to accent its confinement, within set borders, was to accept that Slavery, at some time in the future, would wither on the vine and eventually. become extinct.

The agitation over slavery revolved around the question of whether the institution of slavery in the South, was a 'Positive Good' or not? Was it one of the founding principle's of the United States, a positive good, that deserved Constitutional (legal) protection; or, was a peculiar institution of peculiar states, that ran counter to the guiding principles of the Union itself. That could be tolerated, Only, in the expectation of its eventual extinction?
Have you heard the old saying "Kick the Can ''? That is what slavery was ,a can,that was kicked to the next generation to find a solution to. or like the Elephant in the corner which you see but you do not want to deal with it , never knew what the elephant may do.For the sake of Union slavery was either compromised or just hoped that the elephant would leave on its own.But once infected by a disease and not treated it spreads to other parts of the body system.Then surgery is required to remove it before it completely destroys the body. The surgery could result in the patient's death but with a skilled surgon( AL) the patient(democracy) has a better chance than if the surgery would not take place
 
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
40
Interesting thread. How can so many keep referencing the same sources that have consistently lied to the US public about why we entered every single war since at least 1800? Just about all wars have actually boiled down to money/currency, territory, resources. The rest is all fabricated garbage like the tail that comes off the lizard to let the mindless bicker about or become cannon fodder defending while the instigators abscond with their profiteering loot. Many here must actually believe the reason we entered Iraq was because they had Weapons of Mass Destruction and to save children from an evil dictator. I mean it is written up that way in tons of government documents. That was/are the statements or our CIA/FBI/President and endless politicians or military personnel. Does that make the WMD reason any more real? Funny they completely ignored the Petrodollar, defense contractor profits, banker profits on borrowed money, oil reserves, insider trading bonanza etc. Not one document or rousing political speech about any of those but they were in the forefront of the war.

First thing is you forget anything a politician says. Second of all follow the money. Slavery was a catalyst for all the financial reasons. It was the lone gunman excuse. There were massive financial interests behind everything involving the Civil War. There were dynamic competing corporate and wealthy individuals in the US and Europe salivating and pouring money into politicians looking to pull off one of the largest wealth reallocation scams in global history... for the umpteenth time.

The "financial interests" running the US government didn't burn half the country to the ground, kill 700K soldiers and God knows how many civilians for a single moralistic cause. Wars are instigated and orchestrated from the beginning in smokey backrooms. There is always the ugly muddy truth and the crystal clear lie the public is told. Remove the financial gain and there would never have been a Civil War in the US. The profiteers would have found a better ROI elsewhere.
 

John S. Carter

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
1,340
No. We can, however, agree that the political leaders of the states that would become the confederacy wanted to establish a country to protect their own interest, provided that interest was the continuation of slavery.




A total of 11 of the 15 states in the South saw the future of slavery in the Union was limited and decided to secede.




Inauguration.




So to you, then slavery = the South, because Lincoln sought only to limit the expansion of slavery. Any number of southerners could move into the territories and make those territories into states. Lincoln would simply choose to keep slaves out of those territories.

So is it your position that a person who didn't own human beings wasn't a southerner?



Lincoln failed several times in his political life. I don't know what you mean by the rest of that sentence.




He did think the secessionists were bluffing. There were four states in the South that didn't secede.
The secessionist leaders did underestimate Lincoln. Sam Houston didn't.



I've read it. Read Allen Guelzo's Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation: The End of Slavery in America.

"[T]he idea that the Proclamation would work as a kind of talisman to ward off the unwelcome attentions of the British and the French had far less importance for Lincoln than is often assumed. 'It would help somewhat,' he admitted to the Chicago clergymen, 'though not so much, I fear, as you and those you represent imagine.' If anything, Lincoln had to fear more that the British would intervene because of an emancipation proclamation than that they would without one. So long as emancipation was seen as a 'direct encouragement to servile Insurrections,' the British government was eager to head off anything that might awaken memories of the racial carnage of the Indian Mutiny. It was, in fact, two weeks after Lincoln issued the preliminary Proclamation that William Ewart Gladstone predicted Southern victory to an enthusiastic crowd in Newcastle, while the foreign secretary, Lord John Russell, was so appalled at the appearance of the Proclamation that he pressed for a diplomatic intervention to head off the 'acts of plunder, of incendiarism, and of revenge' he was sure would follow emancipation. But the costs of such an intervention, and the possibility that it might give an opening to French adventurism in Mexico, pulled the British back from the brink; it was only over the following year that emancipation gradually became the government's principal rationale for not intervening." [Allen C. Guelzo, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation: The End of Slavery in America, p. 225]
On the quarantine I was thinking along the lines of Truman Doctrine as to Communist Europe.Those who lived in Eastern Europe were not all communist some even sought to challenge the system.The idea was to prevent the spread of the politics of the system.,This what Lincoln had in his thoughts.Did not work for Truman and it possible would not have worked with AL,esp. since both courts and the legal system permitted slaves to travel beyond the line of separation of free and slave and allow for searches of slaves in the North As the proclamation besides the moral side of it ,could Lincoln had the motive of depriving the South of a captured work force and also with slaves loss that would force more men from the battle field to return home to protect the women . Then with loss slaves who would not say that they may form in to a group seeking revenge on former masters.England did not want to risk the good relations which they had with the Union ,they ,in the long term,would gain more from doing this .France would not do anything unless with the British backing,
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,528
Location
Right here.
On the quarantine I was thinking along the lines of Truman Doctrine as to Communist Europe.Those who lived in Eastern Europe were not all communist some even sought to challenge the system.The idea was to prevent the spread of the politics of the system.,This what Lincoln had in his thoughts.Did not work for Truman and it possible would not have worked with AL,esp. since both courts and the legal system permitted slaves to travel beyond the line of separation of free and slave and allow for searches of slaves in the North As the proclamation besides the moral side of it ,could Lincoln had the motive of depriving the South of a captured work force and also with slaves loss that would force more men from the battle field to return home to protect the women . Then with loss slaves who would not say that they may form in to a group seeking revenge on former masters.England did not want to risk the good relations which they had with the Union ,they ,in the long term,would gain more from doing this .France would not do anything unless with the British backing,
Lincoln wasn't Truman. Slavery wasn't Communism. The United States wasn't Europe.

The political system of the United States was what it was. It didn't differ, so Lincoln didn't have in mind what you claimed he had in mind.

The EP was a war measure designed to deprive the confederacy of a valuable labor source and also to allow the United States to use black troops in combat, which Lincoln described as letting them do double duty in depriving the confederacy of the fruits of their labor while they were actively fighting against the confederacy.

You are looking back at what actually happened and projecting that hindsight onto Lincoln. That's not the way to do it. Lincoln didn't know how things would play out.

"In the same skeptical spirit, a fourth question is frequently aimed at the intentions behind the Proclamation: Did Lincoln issue the Proclamation only to ward off European intervention or inflate Union morale? To this, I can only say that if intervention and morale were Lincoln's primary concerns, then an Emancipation Proclamation was probably the worst method, and at the worst time, with which to have met them. Abroad, there was as much danger that an Emancipation Proclamation would trigger foreign intervention as there was that the Proclamation would discourage it. At home, Pennsylvania politician Alexander McClure warned Lincoln that 'political defeat would be inevitable in the great States of the Union in the elections soon to follow if he issued the Emancipation Proclamation.' Significantly, Lincoln agreed 'as to the political effect of the proclamation. He knew that the Proclamation, for all that he hoped it would forestall the generals and put the Union cause unreservedly on the side of the angels, might just as easily convince them to accelerate plans for an intervention or put Lincoln's administration on the side of the losers." [Allen C. Guelzo, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation: The End of Slavery in America, pp. 10-11]
 
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
40
Lincoln wasn't Truman. Slavery wasn't Communism. The United States wasn't Europe.

You are looking back at what actually happened and projecting that hindsight onto Lincoln. That's not the way to do it. Lincoln didn't know how things would play out.

"In the same skeptical spirit, a fourth question is frequently aimed at the intentions behind the Proclamation: Did Lincoln issue the Proclamation only to ward off European intervention or inflate Union morale? To this, I can only say that if intervention and morale were Lincoln's primary concerns, then an Emancipation Proclamation was probably the worst method, and at the worst time, with which to have met them. Abroad, there was as much danger that an Emancipation Proclamation would trigger foreign intervention as there was that the Proclamation would discourage it. At home, Pennsylvania politician Alexander McClure warned Lincoln that 'political defeat would be inevitable in the great States of the Union in the elections soon to follow if he issued the Emancipation Proclamation.' Significantly, Lincoln agreed 'as to the political effect of the proclamation. He knew that the Proclamation, for all that he hoped it would forestall the generals and put the Union cause unreservedly on the side of the angels, might just as easily convince them to accelerate plans for an intervention or put Lincoln's administration on the side of the losers." [Allen C. Guelzo, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation: The End of Slavery in America, pp. 10-11]
Actually at the time of the proclamation Lincoln was struggling and in great despair of losing the war. He was desperate and if he lost the war the Republican party and all his dreams were dead anyways so who cared about future politics? Rewrite history with a bunch of lies, a lot of money and some attacks on the opposing party could fix those things. I mean we are talking about an election probably done under martial law for crying out loud which could be dragged out a long time. The incumbents had complete control of everything like never before or since. The press was scared to death to write the slightest negative thing against Lincoln. He controlled literally every word said and every form of press with an iron fist. He threw anyone who spoke out against him in jail with no due process or a sentence. How could you lose?

If Lincoln didn't bring slavery to the forefront over the massive financial issues he was simply the thug leader of a small gang of industrialist opportunists. Nobody wanted to die for that. The Emancipation Proclamation was the "evil dictator" of its time to churn up feelings and rally the ignorant public around. Once you have the public with "feelings" logic, negotiation, peace or even the need for more information disappear. The public becomes irrational and easily manipulated.

It went from a war about facts/gain to a war about "feelings". It also refreshed the need to not settle and continue the war until the South was burned to the ground, crops poisoned, animals all dead and most of all financially destroyed for almost a century. Quite the hypocrisy with ethical gentle souls saving the poor blacks then destroying half the country.
 
Last edited:

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,334
Have you heard the old saying "Kick the Can ''? That is what slavery was ,a can,that was kicked to the next generation to find a solution to. or like the Elephant in the corner which you see but you do not want to deal with it , never knew what the elephant may do.For the sake of Union slavery was either compromised or just hoped that the elephant would leave on its own.But once infected by a disease and not treated it spreads to other parts of the body system.Then surgery is required to remove it before it completely destroys the body. The surgery could result in the patient's death but with a skilled surgon( AL) the patient(democracy) has a better chance than if the surgery would not take place



True, enough. But, this does not explain why the Can needed to be kicked down the road, or, why the elephant had to be ignored. does it?

To the southern oligarchs, as Slaves became more valuable, the more they became a positive good.

If, Slavery was a 'Positive Good', needing and deserving Constitutional protection, how could it be denied to any state in the Union?



PS. In this respect , a careful reading of the Dred Scott Ruling by Taney's Court can be instructive., I believe.
 

thomas aagaard

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,626
Location
Denmark
Actually at the time of the proclamation Lincoln was struggling and in great despair of losing the war. (...)
Lots and lots of claims and accusations... but no evidence for anything... Now is the time to back of your claims with primary sources.


You are right that the war was caused by talk in a "smokey backrooms." and the backrooms was in South Carolina.
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,528
Location
Right here.
Actually at the time of the proclamation Lincoln was struggling and in great despair of losing the war. He was desperate and if he lost the war the Republican party and all his dreams were dead anyways so who cared about future politics? Rewrite history with a bunch of lies, a lot of money and some attacks on the opposing party could fix those things. I mean we are talking about an election probably done under martial law for crying out loud which could be dragged out a long time. The incumbents had complete control of everything like never before or since. The press was scared to death to write the slightest negative thing against Lincoln. He controlled literally every word said and every form of press with an iron fist. He threw anyone who spoke out against him in jail with no due process or a sentence. How could you lose?

If Lincoln didn't bring slavery to the forefront over the massive financial issues he was simply the thug leader of a small gang of industrialist opportunists. Nobody wanted to die for that. The Emancipation Proclamation was the "evil dictator" of its time to churn up feelings and rally the ignorant public around. Once you have the public with "feelings" logic, negotiation, peace or even the need for more information disappear. The public becomes irrational and easily manipulated.

It went from a war about facts/gain to a war about "feelings". It also refreshed the need to not settle and continue the war until the South was burned to the ground, crops poisoned, animals all dead and most of all financially destroyed for almost a century. Quite the hypocrisy with ethical gentle souls saving the poor blacks then destroying half the country.
Nice rant. But rants rightfully get ignored here because they have no value. Evidence is what counts.

Your claim about Lincoln, that "He threw anyone who spoke out against him in jail with no due process or a sentence," is utter BS.

More BS here: "The press was scared to death to write the slightest negative thing against Lincoln. He controlled literally every word said and every form of press with an iron fist."

Absolute baloney. Since you didn't provide any evidence, I don't need to provide evidence to oppose you, but here's a lesson in providing evidence.

"A striking fact concerning the subject of journalistic activity during the Civil War was the lack of any real censorship." [James G. Randall, Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln, p. 481]

The fact is that military secrets were published by newspapers: "The location of Grant's guns secretly placed against Vicksburg in 1863 was published; his proposed concentration upon City Point in July, 1864 was revealed; Sherman's objectives in his Georgia march and the disposition of his various corps were proclaimed; full details concerning the land and sea expedition against Wilmington, NC, in December, 1864, were supplied. Northern newspapers practically functioned as Confederate spies in Union camps, for copies of these journals were easily obtained by Southern generals." [pp. 486-487]

In the case of shutting down newspapers, Randall tells us, "Where the activities of a newspaper produced too grave a menace, it sometimes happened that the newspaper itself was 'suppressed,' which usually meat that by military action its publication was temporarily suspended. Cases in which this drastic method of press control was applied were fairly numerous, although it is also true that throughout the war the most flagrant disloyalty was suffered to continue in many prominent papers." [p. 492]

Randall goes into detail on the suppression of the Chicago Times and the New York World.

The suppression of the Chicago Times was related with the Vallandigham case, with the Times supporting Vallandigham and being suppressed by General Burnside.

"According to Secretary Welles, the President and every member of the Cabinet regretted Burnside's act. On the day the order was issued Stanton directed a letter to Burnside expressing the President's disapproval of the action of General Hascall who had interfered in various ways with certain newspapers in Indiana. He advised Burnside that the dissatisfaction within his department would only be increased 'by the presence of an indiscreet military officer who will ... produce irritation by assuming military powers not essential to the preservation of the public peace.' Having written thus, Stanton added the following significant postscript after word of the order concerning the Times had been received:

" 'Since writing the above letter the President has been informed that you have suppressed the publication or circulation of the Chicago Times in your department. He directs me to say that in his judgment it would be better for you to take an early occasion to revoke that order.' " [pp. 494-495]

The New York World was suppressed because it published a bogus proclamation it claimed was made by President Lincoln which talked about recent reverses, asked for a national day of public humiliation and prayer, and called for 400,000 new troops. This was an act deliberately designed to hurt the Union war effort, and thus was a part of levying war against the United States. The editor in question was lucky he was not brought up on treason charges, but instead the administration took the more measured approach of suppressing the paper for three days.

As Randall tells us, "In seeking a just interpretation of the question of press control during the Civil War, one must balance the immediate and practical considerations, of which the executive branch must be ever watchful, with the constitutional and legal phases of the subject. When powerful papers were upsetting strategy by the revelation of military secrets, discrediting the Government, defaming the generals, weakening the morale of soldier and citizen, uttering disloyal sentiments, fomenting jealous antagonism among officers, and clamoring for a peace which would have meant the consummation of disunion, even the most patient administration charged with the preservation of the Union by war, would have been tempted to the use of vigorous measures of suppression." [p. 505]

In an article he wrote on newspapers, Randall said, He also says, "When one contemplates the full result of a loose policy toward newspapers during war, the case for some form of news control becomes a convincing one. The American Civil War presents a significant field for study in this connection, for the double reason that a period of remarkably keen journalistic enterprise coincided with a time of laxity in the matter of press control. Acting under no effective governmental restraint, the newspapers of the North, though in many ways deserving of admiration, undoubtedly did the national cause serious injury by continually revealing military information, undermining confidence in the management of public affairs, and giving undue publicity to the virtues of ambitious generals and the sensational features of the war." [James G. Randall, "The Newspaper Problem in its Bearing Upon Military Secrecy During the Civil War," American Historical Review, Vol XXIII, No. 2, January, 1918, p. 303]

Randall details several instances where Northern newspapers revealed highly sensitive military information regarding movements of troops, objectives, locations of guns, types of defenses, size of troop formations, etc. Indeed, Robert E. Lee found the Northern newspapers to be lucrative sources of valuable information he could use militarily.

But revealing sensitive information was not the only problem with newspapers. Randall tells us, "In the North, however, during the Civil War, there were many powerful papers whose malignant attitude toward the administration amounted to disloyalty and active sympathy with the enemy. The utterances of such papers as the New York World and Daily News, the Baltimore Exchange, the South, the Maryland Daily News, the Columbus (Ohio) Crisis, and the Chicago Times were so vicious that suppression or the arrest of their editors seemed but mild forms of punishment. The publicity which these papers gave to military information was as pernicious as in the case of the 'loyal' or 'administration' press, and there was the added vice of deliberate purpose to undermine the government's plans. In such sheets the whole conflict was denounced as a 'Black Republican' war, governmental measures were characterized as tyrannous attempts to overthrow civil liberty in the North, the President was referred to as an imbecile or despot, and the secessionists were applauded. While continually denouncing the attacks on the 'freedom of the press,' their unrestrained abuse was itself the best evidence that such freedom had been allowed to proceed to the point of shameless license." ["The Newspaper Problem," AHR, p. 316]

Randall extracts some writings from the Chicago Times, the Baltimore Exchange, and the Indianapolis Sentinel, and then comments, "One can easily imagine the effect of such language upon that public morale which is so essential for the support of armies in the field; and yet the above extracts are not examples of the worst utterances that may be found in the newspapers of the time, but rather of the daily tone of many powerful journals. They are representative of the sort of injurious journalism which the administration regularly tolerated, while instances of governmental repression directed against newspapers were but the exception." [Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln, p. 489]

Newspapers were suppressed for brief times and a few editors were briefly jailed. For example, Randall tells us of the case of Edmund J. Ellis, editor of the Boone County Standard, Columbia, Missouri, who was charged with "the publication of information for the benefit of the enemy and encouraging resistance to the Government and laws of the United States." He was found guilty and banished from Missouri. [Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln, p. 491]

Regarding the overall situation, Randall tells us, "A study of the various instances of governmental repression in the case of newspapers will reveal not so much that the penalties were excessive in view of the offense committed as that the means were ill adapted to the end desired. Popular pressure, rather than governmental repression was, after all, the most effective method by which the journals could be kept within bounds. ... Viewing the whole period of the war, and taking account of all parts of the country, it appears that the actual governmental interference with the freedom of the press was comparatively slight, and that voluntary restraint or popular pressure had far greater effect in keeping improper material out of newspapers than official repression. ... There was during the war no real suppression of opinion." ["Newspaper Problems," AHR, pp. 322-323]

"It would be a mistake, however, to dwell upon the various instances of suppression without balancing them against the far greater number of instances in which the temptation to drastic action was resisted. Despite particular occasions of harsh treatment, the prevailing policy was one of tolerance and leniency. As we have already observed, no true newspaper censorship existed during the war." [Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln, pp. 507-508]

Lincoln's policy on suppression was very clear:

"Under your recent order, which I have approved, you will only arrest individuals, and suppress assemblies, or newspapers, when they may be working palpable injury to the Military in your charge; and, in no other case will you interfere with the expression of opinion in any form, or allow it to be interfered with violently by others. In this, you have a discretion to exercise with great caution, calmness, and forbearance." [Lincoln to John M. Schofield, 1 Oct 1863, Collected Works, Vol 6, p. 492]
 

John S. Carter

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
1,340
True, enough. But, this does not explain why the Can needed to be kicked down the road, or, why the elephant had to be ignored. does it?

To the southern oligarchs, as Slaves became more valuable, the more they became a positive good.

If, Slavery was a 'Positive Good', needing and deserving Constitutional protection, how could it be denied to any state in the Union?



PS. In this respect , a careful reading of the Dred Scott Ruling by Taney's Court can be instructive., I believe.
The can was kicked because no one wanted to deal with the issue at that time,either they dared not displease their supporters or politically they refused to see the long term effects on their own inability to deal with the matter of slavery .Remember that even after the War of 1812 the nation was in a uformic mood ,we had defeated the British again the future was bright next came the Mexican war more land to for the country.Great prosperity ,and Manifest Destiny was all the nation saw.Meanwhile the elephant{slavery}was sitting in the corner .But by the mid 1800's the elephant began to make noise and certain politicians/abolitionist saw the need to rid the room of this beast while others preferred it stayed in the corner so that would watch to see that it would not go any where else .But then there would be those who wanted to take the elephant any where they choose.But they feared that the others would not allow this so they choose to take the elephant and leave .Then the remaining groups said that they would not allow this to happen.Then the only way to bring those who had left back would be to kill the elephant .The can was smash by a cannon ball fired into Ft. Sumter.Simple story about a complicated event.
True, enough. But, this does not explain why the Can needed to be kicked down the road, or, why the elephant had to be ignored. does it?

To the southern oligarchs, as Slaves became more valuable, the more they became a positive good.

If, Slavery was a 'Positive Good', needing and deserving Constitutional protection, how could it be denied to any state in the Union?



PS. In this respect , a careful reading of the Dred Scott Ruling by Taney's Court can be instructive., I believe.
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Messages
7,639
Location
California
Just about all wars have actually boiled down to money/currency, territory, resources.
The Civil War boiled down to those things as well. For example:
  • "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world ... the loss of property worth four billions of money" [Mississippi declaration]
  • "the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic ... by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union" [Georgia declaration]
  • "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." [Texas declaration]
Its all there - money, with billions of dollars invested in slaves; territory, as the country split over whether US territories should be free or slave; and resources, in the control of human labor.
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Messages
7,639
Location
California
New England states had considered secession over fiscal issues in the past, so again, there was precedent.
Fiscal issues?
Fiscal policy was not what the New Englanders discussed seceding over.

It was concern for how the Louisiana Purchase would upset the sectional balance, how the electoral advantage of slavery (3/5th rule) had put Jefferson in the White house, how the authoritarian style of Jefferson would subvert the freedom and rights of New Englanders. These were not fiscal issues.

As some of the NE secessionists wrote
"The people of the East cannot reconcile their habits, views, and interests with those of the South and West. The latter are beginning to rule with a rod of iron."
"There will be (and our children, at farthest, will see it) a separation. The white and black population will mark the boundary."
"The Northern States have nothing to countervail the power and influence arising from negro representation, nor will they ever receive an equivalent. This alone is an adequate ground to demand a separation."
"I have no hesitation myself in saying that there can be no safety to the Northern States without a separation from the confederacy. The balance of power under the present government is decidedly in favor of the Southern States, nor can that balance be changed or destroyed."
 
Joined
Jul 27, 2017
Messages
33
The average confederate soldier lived on a small farm of 25 acres or less, usually married with children and seldom traveled outside his own county. Most had never seen a slave. What made them fight? But then was the issue of states rights enough to make them fight? I feel it is difficult for us to understand their true feelings as the form of government we live under today has no resemblance to what it was like then. Or did the southerners with the power and money sell the common soldier a bill of goods to get them to fight for the wealthy aristocracy of the south, which the abolition of slavery would have threatened. Wars always start by some form of politician, it seems. So would the wealthy aristocracy of the south have gone to war to protect their wealth. Heck yes. So then what was the average northern soldier fighting for?
 

thomas aagaard

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,626
Location
Denmark
The average confederate soldier lived on a small farm of 25 acres or less, usually married with children and seldom traveled outside his own county. Most had never seen a slave.
Hogwash.
In SC 46% of all households owned slaves and slaves made up 57% of the total population.
In Virginia the numbers was 26% of the households and 31% of the population.

Or to take NC, since they supplies so many soldiers.
28% of households owned slaves and 33% of the population where slaves.

With numbers like that is is next to impossible for any person to grow up without being exposes to slavery on a daily basis.
Sure there were areas in some states (Tennessee to mention one) where slavery was not common, but that still make your statement about the typical csa soldier very wrong.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,334
The can was kicked because no one wanted to deal with the issue at that time,either they dared not displease their supporters or politically they refused to see the long term effects on their own inability to deal with the matter of slavery .Remember that even after the War of 1812 the nation was in a uformic mood ,we had defeated the British again the future was bright next came the Mexican war more land to for the country.Great prosperity ,and Manifest Destiny was all the nation saw.Meanwhile the elephant{slavery}was sitting in the corner .But by the mid 1800's the elephant began to make noise and certain politicians/abolitionist saw the need to rid the room of this beast while others preferred it stayed in the corner so that would watch to see that it would not go any where else .But then there would be those who wanted to take the elephant any where they choose.But they feared that the others would not allow this so they choose to take the elephant and leave .Then the remaining groups said that they would not allow this to happen.Then the only way to bring those who had left back would be to kill the elephant .The can was smash by a cannon ball fired into Ft. Sumter.Simple story about a complicated event.



A pretty good description to the centrality of Slavery to Secession and War.
 



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