Money, Money, Money Makes the Secession Go Round

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

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
Side-step again, CSA Today.

Like I said, you have my answer.

Problem is, it isn't the one you want, just like the actual history you cannot face.
The answer I wanted from you was your explanation as to why the majority white Southern states simply didn't vote the radicals out of office if there was less suppression of the white vote than the black.
 

MattL

Guest
Joined
Aug 20, 2015
Location
SF Bay Area
Info I read said 12.5 million slaves came to the Americas---2 million died on the way---Of the 10.5 only 6 percent went to North America----That is 630,000---The rest went to South America where sugar cane killed them off in about 7 yrs. on the average.
Yup... often estimates of slave that came to the US region land around the 300-400k mark or so. Of course they were sexually violated and bred in the US generation after generation. The South in the 19th century didn't want slavers arriving either, they had slave breeders and local slavers and didn't want the competition.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Tin cup

Captain
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Location
Texas
For once we agree, while I don't feel economic considerations should be disregarded, the right to self- determination is certainly more valuable overall. You can achieve a lot of things once you have self-determination.
They had all the "self-determination" the US Constitution allowed! Self determination does not mean you are free to do whatever you want, guidelines are agree'd upon, and set. Were they not electing Local, State, and Federal Representatives? Did they not give their consent to be governed, and abiding to the US Constitution? Lincoln had the consent of the governed to be a duly, and legally elected President.
What "self-determination" were they wanting, that they were not getting already, that wasn't in the US Constitution?

Kevin Dally
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
They had all the "self-determination" the US Constitution allowed! Self determination does not mean you are free to do whatever you want, guidelines are agree'd upon, and set. Were they not electing Local, State, and Federal Representatives? Did they not give their consent to be governed, and abiding to the US Constitution? Lincoln had the consent of the governed to be a duly, and legally elected President.
What "self-determination" were they wanting, that they were not getting already, that wasn't in the US Constitution?

Kevin Dally
The right to vote? Are you under the impression that whites in white majority states supported Radical Reconstruction?
 

Silverfox

Sergeant
Joined
Oct 8, 2012
Location
Georgia Coast
Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness---Happiness meaning property. If government takes your property should not the government be expected to reimburse you at fair market value? What plans did Lincoln have to reimburse Southern planters for loss of their property? Did the Constitution allow that some states could ruin other states economies-- no matter how noble the cause? Was not the rights of the individual to be protected from mob rule? Were the rights reserved to the states not sacred also?
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness---Happiness meaning property. If government takes your property should not the government be expected to reimburse you at fair market value? What plans did Lincoln have to reimburse Southern planters for loss of their property? Did the Constitution allow that some states could ruin other states economies-- no matter how noble the cause? Was not the rights of the individual to be protected from mob rule? Were the rights reserved to the states not sacred also?
Silverfox,

Aren't you aware of the compensation plans to slaveholders before and during Lincoln's administration?

And as I recall, Lincoln had stated he had no plans to interfere where slavery already existed, so how was those state economies going to be ruined by other states?

And what rights reserved to the states were being violated before secession?

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

Silverfox

Sergeant
Joined
Oct 8, 2012
Location
Georgia Coast
You know--I know---and folks back in the day knew as soon as more free states were admitted to the union and the South was out voted slavery would be under threat. Secession was not mentioned therefore it was deemed a state option reserved to the state. Was any compensation ever given to anyone who lost their property during this era?
 

Tin cup

Captain
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Location
Texas
You know--I know---and folks back in the day knew as soon as more free states were admitted to the union and the South was out voted slavery would be under threat. Secession was not mentioned therefore it was deemed a state option reserved to the state. Was any compensation ever given to anyone who lost their property during this era?
:rofl: You REALLY believe THAT?

Kevin Dally
 

Silverfox

Sergeant
Joined
Oct 8, 2012
Location
Georgia Coast
:rofl: You REALLY believe THAT?

Kevin Dally
Yes if the voters of that era voted for it---No if you are talking modern times--The issue was settled by the war. But without getting into modern issues we may have government units that do not follow all federal laws even now.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Right here.
For once we agree, while I don't feel economic considerations should be disregarded, the right to self- determination is certainly more valuable overall. You can achieve a lot of things once you have self-determination.
I guess that's why the secessionists felt they needed to prevent blacks from having self-determination.
 

WJC

Major General
Judge Adv. Genl.
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
What "self-determination" were they wanting, that they were not getting already, that wasn't in the US Constitution?
Kevin Dally
The 'self determination' to ignore a valid, legal election and sulk because their candidate lost.
Nowadays kids call it 'taking your football and going home' when you don't get your way. Back then it was called 'secession'.
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

WJC

Major General
Judge Adv. Genl.
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Was any compensation ever given to anyone who lost their property during this era?
When Lincoln signed legislation abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia on April 16, 1862, the Emancipation Claims Commission compensated slave holders based on an appraisal of each of the 2,989 freed slaves by a Baltimore slave trader.
 
Last edited:

WJC

Major General
Judge Adv. Genl.
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Where did Lincoln get his money for the war?
?
Yesterday I read yet another article claiming Lincoln was the first of the 'big spending Progressives'.
Such nonesense.
First, the obvious: Lincoln was not a 'Progressive', a political philosophy that hadn't surfaced yet.
Second, 'big spending': he inherited a government near financial ruin, with just $200,000 in the Treasury. He was immediately faced with a rebellion that he was forced to fight for four years at great human, property and financial cost.
In spite of these challenges, far greater than anything our country had faced since the Revolution, some still complain about how he funded the government.
I ask the critics, what would you have done? The response is silence....
 

seboyle

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 11, 2010
Location
Squamish, B.C.
Secession of a group from another group be it a state, country or whatever is similar to a young adult leaving his parents.
Nope, that depends on the reasons they leave and the means they use to achieve secession.

The person/group leaving the unit is no longer obligated to live under the rules of the group when they secede/leave.
Again, that depends on why they've left and how.

They can join another group or form one of their own where there was none like the founders.
There are enormous differences between what happened in 1776 and 1860/61 to the point where secession in 1860/61 is simply not justified using the arguments that the Founders used. I suggest you read the DOI in detail, not just where it says the people have a right to alter or abolish their government but the bits where it explains, very clearly, the circumstances under which that action is justified because it really doesn't give carte blanche to altering or abolishing the government just because a group feels a bit aggrieved.

Do we really need sources on this Secession 101 too?
If Secession 101 includes an explanation of how the Founders justified leaving GB then you need to re-sit this class also.

A group of "free men" held together by force are not free. A "free country" held together by force is not a free country.
If those free men are, in utilising that freedom, subjugating others then the country is not free in the first place.

The Civil War did not create more freedom in the US. It lessened it.
I can think of at least four million people who might have disagreed with you about that.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

seboyle

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 11, 2010
Location
Squamish, B.C.
The problem of installing or taking over currency/central banks has always been a huge motivator for wars.
Really? I'd love to hear which wars you think this was a motivator for. I'm struggling to think of any. Seems to me the very premises of the argument this thread began with are spurious.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top