Legislation passed during Civil War and other issues than slavery causing war


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

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
8,869
Location
District of Columbia
Why would you ask me that..? :sneaky: It seems that I'm being asked something that has nothing to do with what I posted.

JGG posted some info from the VA Secession Convention, & came to a conclusion based (in part) on such. I responded with some quotes, & info from the same source he provided.

I thought my post was pretty self explanatory. It helped show, in the context of this thread, some other issues, driving secession for the Commonwealth of Virginia.
lol... good response. Actually, this is a point I've made before, such as here.

I have always been fascinated by the fact that the election of Lincoln, and the attack on Ft Sumter/Lincoln's call for troops resulted in different responses from different states. Why is it that a single stimulus ~ such as Lincoln's election ~ would cause some states to do one thing, and other states to do another?

You mention that VA felt that the federal government was being coercive regarding its desire to preserve the Union. But NY, NJ, OH, PA, IN, etc, did not feel that the US was being coercive.

Why did VA have a different view? Was VA lying, while the other states were being truthful? Was VA being irrational, while the other states were rational? Was VA misinterpreting the facts, while the other states had a correct knowledge and understanding? Was VA wrong, while the other states were right?

That is the question I am asking. You are taking VA's comments at face value. But when compared with the actions of the majority of the states, their actions don't seem to make sense.

Or do they? I'll add to this later.

- Alan
 

jgoodguy

.
-*- Mime -*-
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,538
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
lol... good response. Actually, this is a point I've made before, such as here.

I have always been fascinated by the fact that the election of Lincoln, and the attack on Ft Sumter/Lincoln's call for troops resulted in different responses from different states. Why is it that a single stimulus ~ such as Lincoln's election ~ would cause some states to do one thing, and other states to do another?

You mention that VA felt that the federal government was being coercive regarding its desire to preserve the Union. But NY, NJ, OH, PA, IN, etc, did not feel that the US was being coercive.

Why did VA have a different view? Was VA lying, while the other states were being truthful? Was VA being irrational, while the other states were rational? Was VA misinterpreting the facts, while the other states had a correct knowledge and understanding? Was VA wrong, while the other states were right?

That is the question I am asking. You are taking VA's comments at face value. But when compared with the actions of the majority of the states, their actions don't seem to make sense.

Or do they?

- Alan
Of 240 references to coercion in the secession convention, only 25 were after Lincoln's call for militia on April 15. Some were before Lincoln took office
Saturday, Feb. 16, 1861
https://secession.richmond.edu/documents/index.html?keyword=coerc*&element=p&formType=Keyword&start=1&order=date&direction=ascending&id=pb.1.64

Resolved, That Virginia cherishes a devoted attachment to the Union of these States under the Constitution framed by the wise and patriotic men of the past—that she will use every honorable effort, and make any sacrifice consistent with her honor and interest, to restore and maintain it—but that it is proper to declare through the Convention now assembled, her opposition to the coercion, under existing circumstances, of any slave State, and an unalterable determination not to submit to any Administration of the Government in which her rights are assailed or not fully protected, and that if the Union cannot be restored and preserved upon terms honorable to its component parts, it should be divided.​
From this, we can conclude that VA would be a part of the Union only if her slavery was protected. Coercion is reduced to anything that is inconvenient to slave owners.

There are 239 more quotes open to analysis.
 

MattL

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 20, 2015
Messages
3,086
Location
SF Bay Area
lol... good response. Actually, this is a point I've made before, such as here.

I have always been fascinated by the fact that the election of Lincoln, and the attack on Ft Sumter/Lincoln's call for troops resulted in different responses from different states. Why is it that a single stimulus ~ such as Lincoln's election ~ would cause some states to do one thing, and other states to do another?

You mention that VA felt that the federal government was being coercive regarding its desire to preserve the Union. But NY, NJ, OH, PA, IN, etc, did not feel that the US was being coercive.

Why did VA have a different view? Was VA lying, while the other states were being truthful? Was VA being irrational, while the other states were rational? Was VA misinterpreting the facts, while the other states had a correct knowledge and understanding? Was VA wrong, while the other states were right?

That is the question I am asking. You are taking VA's comments at face value. But when compared with the actions of the majority of the states, their actions don't seem to make sense.

Or do they? I'll add to this later.

- Alan
I mean if its not that it was really about slavery and the war just forced them to finalize that decision already made... then the only logical conclusion is that supporting slavery gives you an conscience in regards to supporting States against Federal coercion. I mean the correlation with slavery and the States that allegedly seceded due to that is too much a coincidence so it must mean that instead.
 

Viper21

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Messages
2,449
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
lol... good response. Actually, this is a point I've made before, such as here.
I know. That WAS the point, & why I quoted yours

I have always been fascinated by the fact that the election of Lincoln, and the attack on Ft Sumter/Lincoln's call for troops resulted in different responses from different states. Why is it that a single stimulus ~ such as Lincoln's election ~ would cause some states to do one thing, and other states to do another?

You mention that VA felt that the federal government was being coercive regarding its desire to preserve the Union. But NY, NJ, OH, PA, IN, etc, did not feel that the US was being coercive.

Why did VA have a different view? Was VA lying, while the other states were being truthful? Was VA being irrational, while the other states were rational? Was VA misinterpreting the facts, while the other states had a correct knowledge and understanding? Was VA wrong, while the other states were right?

That is the question I am asking. You are taking VA's comments at face value. But when compared with the actions of the majority of the states, their actions don't seem to make sense.

Or do they? I'll add to this later.

- Alan
Interesting theory how, if Virginia says anything about slavery, it's 1000% accurate yet, anything else whatsoever, they must be lying :O o:

I tend to care more about what politician do, then what they say. ie: How they vote on legislation, etc vs. their notes, & musings inside chambers, or convention halls attempting to sway votes in their favor. Votes are what matters. Legislation is what changes courses, & or lives.

Did some folks want to leave the US solely on the basis of slavery..? Sure. However, it wasn't that simple for some states, & people. I put way more stock into Virginia's secession VOTES than I do rhetoric from delegates. What they DID do, was vote against secession when the major deciding factor was just slavery, & possibly war/invasion. As soon as it was now about slavery, AND a DEFINITE war/invasion, they set their fate with the lower South.

To guess what could've, or should've, or what they were gonna do, is simply hyperbole. I'm simply stating what they DID in fact do. What is actual history.


As a side, I can't speak for all those Yankee states in your query. I haven't studied them nearly as much as my beloved Virginia. :cool:
 

Viper21

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Messages
2,449
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
Looks like Virginia liked talking about war and coercion a lot.

At least better than the 8 for the Morrill Tariff.
Slavery is still mentioned nearly ten times(9.6) as frequently as coercion and cotton still beats it by 12.

Did you by chance check the dates of the matches? I did a more intensive search using all variants of coercion and found 240 matches. 215 of those matches were before Lincoln called out the militia on April 15, 1861. Leaving 25 matches after the event.
472 of the war matches were also before Lincoln called out the militia. 275 after.
Why, yes I did notice the dates. Many weren't just before Lincoln's call for troops but, well before. As in, before April 12th.

Looks like delegates in Virginia feared war/invasion coming long before it was a reality. Yet, until it was confirmed, they remained in the Union.
 

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
10,089
Cotton was an issue for one reason and one reason only: it was planted and harvested primarily by slaves. Cotton was what made slavery profitable.

In fact, southern planters weren't in business to grow cotton. They were in business to make money! Slave-grown cotton was just the way the greatest number of them found to do it. Focussing on the particular commodity produced is just a deliberate distraction - it's an obvious way to try and sidestep the real issue.
And who did they get rich from? It just so happened to be, yep, The North!
 
Joined
May 8, 2015
Messages
1,920
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
And who did they get rich from? It just so happened to be, yep, The North!
And yet the North was willing to restrict the spread of slavery, thus risking the Golden Goose's demise, to preserve the integrity of their democratic institutions. The South wasn't. That was the issue. Edited.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
10,089
And yet the North was willing to restrict the spread of slavery, thus risking the Golden Goose's demise, to preserve the integrity of their democratic institutions. The South wasn't. That was the issue. Edited.
If it wasn't for the Complicity of the yankess and their past slavery work, The South would not have been rich. If the North was such a virtuous country, why didn't they try to go through Congress to get rid of Slavery? Because it would affect the Northern Incomes.
Slavery was still legal in the US and it was still going on in the North up to the 13th Amendment. Edited.
 

SAIsaac

Cadet
Joined
Aug 10, 2018
Messages
14
Location
Illinois
I find it odd that this issue is still even debated. The main ultimate cause of the war was the issue of slavery. The southern states themselves made that very clear at the time in secession documents, debates, etc. You can certainly argue that there were other issues also at play, but many of those issues are also related to the plantation economy of the south which is built on slavery.
 

SAIsaac

Cadet
Joined
Aug 10, 2018
Messages
14
Location
Illinois
The North certainly wasn't "clean" of the slavery issue itself. There are lots of Northerners, even staunch abolitionists, that made their wealth from slave grown cotton. One that I can't remember by name right now was an abolitionistthat owned textile companies, one of which used southern cotton to make clothing sold back to the plantations for slaves!
 
Joined
May 8, 2015
Messages
1,920
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
If it wasn't for the Complicity of the yankess and their past slavery work, The South would not have been rich. If the North was such a virtuous country, why didn't they try to go through Congress to get rid of Slavery? Because it would affect the Northern Incomes.
Slavery was still legal in the US and it was still going on in the North up to the 13th Amendment. Edited.
I don't need to prove that the North was "a virtuous nation" in order to make the case that the North considered the spread of slavery to be inimical to their interests. "They were bad guys too" is a red herring and yet another distraction. Most Northerners were concerned about the corrosive and coercive effects of African slavery on white democratic institutions. Edited.
 

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
10,089
I find it odd that this issue is still even debated. The main ultimate cause of the war was the issue of slavery. The southern states themselves made that very clear at the time in secession documents, debates, etc. You can certainly argue that there were other issues also at play, but many of those issues are also related to the plantation economy of the south which is built on slavery.
Slavery built America piece by piece until the War came. Oh, but that was OK, you see?
 
Joined
May 8, 2015
Messages
1,920
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Slavery built America piece by piece until the War came. Oh, but that was OK, you see?
Edited. the war was begun over a disagreement over the expansion of slavery. Regardless of what any particular northerner's motivation may have been at the time, that gave the war a moral dimension and a priceless legacy that remains to this day. You can list examples of northern complicity with slavery all day long, and it doesn't change the fact that Northern victory ended slavery. Before the war's end, that had become the North's stated goal. Lincoln won the 1864 presidential election in a landslide against an opponent who would have ended the bloodshed immediately on terms allowing the continuation of slavery. The northern electorate, and Lincoln himself, in his second inaugural speech, resoundingly rejected that idea.
 

19thGeorgia

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
2,921
Edited. the war was begun over a disagreement over the expansion of slavery. Regardless of what any particular northerner's motivation may have been at the time, that gave the war a moral dimension and a priceless legacy that remains to this day.
Moral dimension? Priceless legacy?
Yeah, sure. The key motive behind the North's aim to outlaw slavery in the territories was to outlaw black people.
 

Potomac Pride

First Sergeant
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Messages
1,664
Location
Georgia
Moral dimension? Priceless legacy?
Yeah, sure. The key motive behind the North's aim to outlaw slavery in the territories was to outlaw black people.
You make a very good point 19th Ga. In 1860, Lincoln and the Republican Party did not want slavery to be extended into the western territories. This policy wasn't really based on moral grounds but on economic and political factors. The Republicans wanted slave labor kept out of the territories so it would not be able to compete with white labor. In addition, the introduction of slaves into the territories would increase the congressional power of the Democratic Party. The three-fifths clause of the Constitution at that time allowed slave states to increase their congressional seats in regards to their slave population. The Republicans believed that this was unfair to the Northern states and resulted in an imbalance of power for the Southern states.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,709
Location
Laurinburg NC
You make a very good point 19th Ga. In 1860, Lincoln and the Republican Party did not want slavery to be extended into the western territories. This policy wasn't really based on moral grounds but on economic and political factors. The Republicans wanted slave labor kept out of the territories so it would not be able to compete with white labor. In addition, the introduction of slaves into the territories would increase the congressional power of the Democratic Party. The three-fifths clause of the Constitution at that time allowed slave states to increase their congressional seats in regards to their slave population. The Republicans believed that this was unfair to the Northern states and resulted in an imbalance of power for the Southern states.
Especially well stated. :thumbsup:
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,639
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
I tend to agree that it is rather useless to argue with established, historical, fact.

And I see a decided lack of effect when it is attempted to divide slavery from any other issue that brought on the Civil War.

It's simply too obvious to deny such a fact or attempt to distract from the mountains of historical documentation that clearly identifies slavery as THE issue of the time. Every attempt to bring forth another issue that would be so decisive as to bring on civil war simply does not measure up to the contention and disruption that slavery caused.

Time after time, that issue is found in EVERY document to some degree brought forth to "prove" slavery was not the only reason for the war, when it should be recognized with no effort, that slavery contaminated every issue of the time.

It cannot be denied or shifted into other excuses or reasons.

The issue of slavery was the only one that could be settled by the sword.

As history so desperately wants to tell us, if we would only give it a fair and impartial hearing.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,709
Location
Laurinburg NC
I tend to agree that it is rather useless to argue with established, historical, fact.

And I see a decided lack of effect when it is attempted to divide slavery from any other issue that brought on the Civil War.

It's simply too obvious to deny such a fact or attempt to distract from the mountains of historical documentation that clearly identifies slavery as THE issue of the time. Every attempt to bring forth another issue that would be so decisive as to bring on civil war simply does not measure up to the contention and disruption that slavery caused.

Time after time, that issue is found in EVERY document to some degree brought forth to "prove" slavery was not the only reason for the war, when it should be recognized with no effort, that slavery contaminated every issue of the time.

It cannot be denied or shifted into other excuses or reasons.

The issue of slavery was the only one that could be settled by the sword.

As history so desperately wants to tell us, if we would only give it a fair and impartial hearing.
I don't think anybody would argue with established, historical, fact.
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
12,136
If it wasn't for the Complicity of the yankess and their past slavery work, The South would not have been rich.
Surely you agree that Southern entrepreneurs were quite able of success on their own. Why even suggest that they needed help from others?
 


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