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

jgoodguy

.
-*- Mime -*-
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,538
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
And that quote, which is often presented here as having some sort of relationship to the issues between north and south, i.e. slavery, is itself an example of misinterpretation, IMHO. In my view Tripp is speaking to the mistakes and personal crimes he has committed in his own life and he saw a "need" to make up for it, to try to make it right, so to speak. And thus, his heroic death in assault upon Battery Wagner.

Its being latched onto as a metaphor for slavery, and thus equivocation, is a tragedy. Again IMHO.
Just another quote out of context. Another day in secession and politics. I admire the Chutzpah in turning a fictional account in an antislavery movie about former slaves attacking a fort of a slaveholding republic into some sort of pro-slavery apology argument.

Memory and Myth: The Civil War in Fiction and Film from Uncle Tom's Cabin to Cold Mountain
edited by David B. Sachsman, S. Kittrell Rushin
1553349381369.png

1553349632119.png
 

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

O' Be Joyful

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
3,198
Location
Use-ta be: Zinn-zä-nätti o-HI-o The BIG city.
Just another quote out of context. Another day in secession and politics. I admire the Chutzpah in turning a fictional account in an antislavery movie about former slaves attacking a fort of a slaveholding republic into some sort of pro-slavery apology argument.

Memory and Myth: The Civil War in Fiction and Film from Uncle Tom's Cabin to Cold Mountain
edited by David B. Sachsman, S. Kittrell Rushin
View attachment 298541
View attachment 298542
Excellent find. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: I was unaware of that analysis.

Bookmarked, as I'm certain this will come up...again sometime.
 

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
8,869
Location
District of Columbia
Just another quote out of context. Another day in secession and politics. I admire the Chutzpah in turning a fictional account in an antislavery movie about former slaves attacking a fort of a slaveholding republic into some sort of pro-slavery apology argument.

Memory and Myth: The Civil War in Fiction and Film from Uncle Tom's Cabin to Cold Mountain
edited by David B. Sachsman, S. Kittrell Rushin
View attachment 298541
View attachment 298542
I'll have to get this article ("Ain't Nobody Clean") and read it. Might even make a thread on it. A point that I made in a previous post is that, people of the era were not afraid to use violence to solve problems. We, today, have the notion that "war is not the answer, only love can conquer hate." That's not how people felt back then. For them, war was the answer. When British colonists in the 1770s felt they were suffering under despotism, war was the answer. War was the answer in seizing land from native peoples from coast to coast. War was the answer in seizing land from Mexico. Slavery was maintained by violence.

It might be too much to say people of the era "embraced" violence. It is more correct to say that when people had differences, having a fight to see who wins was a legitimate way to resolve those differences. Remember, this was a time when people fought duels, sometimes leading to fatalities, over their honor. Historian Shearer Bowman has remarked that in part, the Civil War was a fight by both sides over perceived attacks on their honor.

- Alan
 
Last edited:

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
8,869
Location
District of Columbia
The Homestead Act providing free land to small farmers had been blocked by southern Congressmen who wanted large farms with slaves. How does that cause a war? Northerners wanted those Homesteads. That is a large part of why Lincoln was elected.
That doesn't explain why the Unionists wanted to preserve the Union. If that was their goal, then the most logical way to do would have been for the pro-Homestead states to themselves secede, so they could make political decisions unhindered by southern votes. In other words, what you suggest about the desire for homesteading is an argument for dissolving the Union, not preserving it.

- Alan
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,428
So even if slavery was the main motivation for the south, is it possible that southern representatives were in conflict with northern business interests and the interests of ordinary northerners, and that is part of the cause of the war.


Logically then, you are claiming, without Slavery those 'other' causes cited would still be enough to incite secession of the Slave States, even with its(secession) main cause missing?
 

jgoodguy

.
-*- Mime -*-
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,538
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
The Homestead Act providing free land to small farmers had been blocked by southern Congressmen who wanted large farms with slaves. How does that cause a war? Northerners wanted those Homesteads. That is a large part of why Lincoln was elected.
Good points, but the problem for me is that the CSA shot first not the North. We have to turn the logic around to the South wanted large farms with slaves and was willing to go to war for that.
 
Joined
May 8, 2015
Messages
1,920
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
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.
Just another quote out of context. Another day in secession and politics. I admire the Chutzpah in turning a fictional account in an antislavery movie about former slaves attacking a fort of a slaveholding republic into some sort of pro-slavery apology argument.

Memory and Myth: The Civil War in Fiction and Film from Uncle Tom's Cabin to Cold Mountain
edited by David B. Sachsman, S. Kittrell Rushin
View attachment 298541
View attachment 298542
I haven't read her whole article, but from the excerpt provided, Ms. Culbertson strikes me as yet another ambassador from the Land of Beautiful Souls, in which any act of courage, commitment and self-sacrifice in any way tainted by violence is judged manifestly unworthy of respect, admiration, or appreciation. I don't live in her imaginary world. Nearly every human being on Earth has things that they would fight and perhaps even die for. When someone chooses to risk or sacrifice their own life or welfare for an idea larger than themselves or their immediate interests, I am sometimes inspired, even if that act occurs in the context of violence and mayhem. Ms. Culbertson's words seem to drip with contempt, both for the courage, commitment and sacrifices of any soldier on any battlefield, regardless of the reasons or circumstances that placed him there, and for anyone else who may respect and admire those sacrifices.
 
Last edited:

jgoodguy

.
-*- Mime -*-
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,538
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
I haven't read her whole article, but from the excerpt provided, Ms. Culbertson strikes me as yet another ambassador from the Land of Beautiful Souls, in which any act of courage, commitment and self-sacrifice in any way tainted by violence is judged manifestly unworthy of respect, admiration, or appreciation. I don't live in her imaginary world. Nearly every human being on Earth has things that they would fight and perhaps even die for. When someone chooses to risk or sacrifice their own life or welfare for an idea larger than themselves or their immediate interests, I am sometimes inspired, even if that act occurs in the context of violence and mayhem. Ms. Culbertson's words seem to drip with contempt, both for the courage, commitment and sacrifices of any soldier on any battlefield, regardless of the reasons or circumstances that placed him there, and for anyone else who may respect and admire those sacrifices.
Or panning exploitative movies.
 

jgoodguy

.
-*- Mime -*-
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,538
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Thanks for your comments. However, the historical evidence shows that slavery wasn't the only factor that led to the secession of Virginia.
I am pleased you read my post.
I look forward to seeing that Historical Evidence unentangled with slavery for Virginia. I have been inspired to get at great expense the proceedings of the Arkansas Secession Convention to search for truth.
 

Viper21

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Messages
2,458
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
And that quote, which is often presented here as having some sort of relationship to the issues between north and south, i.e. slavery, is itself an example of misinterpretation, IMHO. In my view Tripp is speaking to the mistakes and personal crimes he has committed in his own life and he saw a "need" to make up for it, to try to make it right, so to speak. And thus, his heroic death in assault upon Battery Wagner.

Its being latched onto as a metaphor for slavery, and thus equivocation, is a tragedy. Again IMHO.
I disagree with your assessment.... Shocker, I know. :wink:

I interpret Tripp as speaking about the situation they were all in, & how that related to himself, & what would become of himself afterwards. He specifically stated to Shaw, "I ain't fighting this war for you, sir". Later in the conversation he states, "what's in it for us..? You go back to a big house, & all...... what do we get..?"

I quote his words, "Ain't nobody clean... we all covered up in it" because I like the quote. I interpret it as the situation the whole country was in, & that everybody was responsible for it coming to what it did.
 

jgoodguy

.
-*- Mime -*-
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,538
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
I disagree with your assessment.... Shocker, I know. :wink:

I interpret Tripp as speaking about the situation they were all in, & how that related to himself, & what would become of himself afterwards. He specifically stated to Shaw, "I ain't fighting this war for you, sir". Later in the conversation he states, "what's in it for us..? You go back to a big house, & all...... what do we get..?"

I quote his words, "Ain't nobody clean... we all covered up in it" because I like the quote. I interpret it as the situation the whole country was in, & that everybody was responsible for it coming to what it did.
It was scripted for movie. The motivation was to sell movie tickets.
 

jgoodguy

.
-*- Mime -*-
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,538
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Corwin Amendment was another amendment intended to defuse secession. Perhaps in its text, we can find other issues sans slavery.

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.[2][3][4]

There was a competing amendment

On February 27, 1861, the House of Representatives considered the following text of a proposed constitutional amendment:[9]

No amendment of this Constitution, having for its object any interference within the States with the relations between their citizens and those described in second section of the first article of the Constitution as "all other persons", shall originate with any State that does not recognize that relation within its own limits, or shall be valid without the assent of every one of the States composing the​
It lost and Corwin was passed. The Civil War intervened and the rest is history.

Yes, Lincoln did not oppose it.
 

jgoodguy

.
-*- Mime -*-
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,538
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
The document that is referenced does not mention slavery as the reason for secession but thanks for your comments anyway.
As always I appreciate you taking the time to read my posts. I will quibble and note the document mentions slavery, but your quote of it does not. Your quote says that stealing stuff by the Slave States is ok because asking for its return is an "inhuman doctrine of coercion". I started a thread on the Arkansas secession https://civilwartalk.com/threads/why-did-arkansas-secede.156132
 

Potomac Pride

First Sergeant
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Messages
1,664
Location
Georgia
I am pleased you read my post.
I look forward to seeing that Historical Evidence unentangled with slavery for Virginia. I have been inspired to get at great expense the proceedings of the Arkansas Secession Convention to search for truth.
Even before the Virginia Secession Convention met, the General Assembly of Virginia passed an anti-coercion resolution in early Jan. 1861. This resolution expressed their opposition to any type of coercion against the states for this would be a federal abuse of power. The resolution is shown below.

“Resolved by the general assembly of Virginia, that the Union being formed by the assent of the sovereign states respectively, and being consistent only with freedom and the republican institutions guaranteed to each, cannot and ought not to be maintained by force.

Resolved, that the government of the Union has no power to declare or make war against any of the states which have been its constituent members.

Resolved, that when any one or more of the states has determined or shall determine, under existing circumstances, to withdraw from the Union, we are unalterably opposed to any attempt on the part of the federal government to coerce the same into reunion or submission, and that we will resist the same by all the means in our power."

The Virginia Secession Convention had originally voted against secession by a sizeable majority in early April 1861. However, after Lincoln's Proclamation calling for troops, the Convention reconvened later that same month and voted to secede by a clear majority. This was in direct response to Lincoln's call for troops which they considered to be a violation of the Constitution and not a result of slavery.
 
Last edited:


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