Oops, big lump of your posts....

Status
Not open for further replies.

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,630
Because I think they had some legitimate gripes. Otherwise I would flat out flunk them, based on two things: falsehoods and non sequiturs. I side with those who have argued that slavery was safer in the union than out of it. That being said, if their object was to preserve slavery, they sure took the wrong path to accomplish their objective.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,630
I think they were being truthful because everything they said and did, publicly and privately, points to that. Of course they used a lot of high-sounding rhetoric about tyranny and states' rights, but (as always) those are abstract ideas. They were incensed about some specific thing, with was an existential threat to the institution of chattel slavery, that they viewed as foundational to their social and economic structure.
I don't see it that way myself. But I am not here to challenge your vision. But simply as a service, might I recommend that you give a look to Paul star old ba but simply as a service, might I recommend that you give a look to Paul Starobin's book. I am 72 years old. I have 20,000 books in my library. His book is the first book I have ever read that I agreed with every sentence in it. If you choose to read it, I would ask you to ask yourself, "do these people in Charleston in 1860 really and truly fear a slave rebellion?" They might have. Stephen Channing might be right. But they were not acting like people would act as I think they would act, if they were frightened. Blacks were leaving Charleston because they themselves were frightened.

Nevertheless, thanks for your post
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,630
I believe if there was an unstated, private agreement the signers had in mind, someone would have revealed it. To quote Benjamin Franklin, "Three can keep a secret if two are dead."
Good quote by Franklin. I will find a way to invoke it the next time I lift a glass with someone over this subject.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
28,919
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
I don't see it that way myself. But I am not here to challenge your vision. But simply as a service, might I recommend that you give a look to Paul star old ba but simply as a service, might I recommend that you give a look to Paul Starobin's book. I am 72 years old. I have 20,000 books in my library. His book is the first book I have ever read that I agreed with every sentence in it. If you choose to read it, I would ask you to ask yourself, "do these people in Charleston in 1860 really and truly fear a slave rebellion?" They might have. Stephen Channing might be right. But they were not acting like people would act as I think they would act, if they were frightened. Blacks were leaving Charleston because they themselves were frightened.

Nevertheless, thanks for your post
I have the book and it seems to contradict the two lines you use from it in a previous post.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,338
Location
los angeles ca
Because I think they had some legitimate gripes. Otherwise I would flat out flunk them, based on two things: falsehoods and non sequiturs. I side with those who have argued that slavery was safer in the union than out of it. That being said, if their object was to preserve slavery, they sure took the wrong path to accomplish their objective.
The Secessionists by their words and actions made it very clear that the Civil War was all about slavery. Yes they did take the wrong path to preserve slavery due to their belief that one Johnny Reb can beat ten Billy Yanks.
Leftyhunter
 

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,833
The real problem with the northern states is the banks were extremely sound and were driving the unbacked currencies out by buying them up and redeeming them.
The Troubled World of Antebellum Banking in Georgia
By Carole E. Scott

The following article was written in 2016 to provide additional material for a 2000 B>Quest article about antebellum banking in the South. Scott is the editor of B>Quest, 1996-2016

Throughout the nation before the Civil War the appropriate role—if any—and structure of banking was a major political issue. Banking in Georgia was embroiled in struggles between agricultural and commercial interests and between the less developed up country and the low country.


https://www.westga.edu/~bquest/2000/antebellumGAbanks.pdf

Sweet Dreams,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments

Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,758
Location
Denver, CO
The Boston and Philadelphia bankers could find the banks issuing notes without specie backing and with a distribution of non performing loans and had good enough lawyers to enforce redemption, or cause the bank to collapse.
The potential for fraud in state created banks, in the south and the Midwest was enormous.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,630
The Secessionists by their words and actions made it very clear that the Civil War was all about slavery. Yes they did take the wrong path to preserve slavery due to their belief that one Johnny Reb can beat ten Billy Yanks.
Leftyhunter
All about slavery, eh? Not a word about past tariffs and injuries? Not a word about western territories? How about if I give you the last word and we let others weigh in, if they wish, about the OP?
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
11,017
Yes, but Slavery, where it stood, is the 1 that Lincoln vowed to Protect. Don’t recall him wielding to the favor of the South on any of the Others.
Thanks for your response.
I'm not sure I understand your point. Let me respond in two parts:
Most will agree that the root cause for secession/war was slavery. Others claim it was another factor. Yet resolving differences over every one of those factors was possible within the constitutional system. By choosing not to pursue resolution through the constitutional avenues, secessionists chose the one path least likely to succeed and most likely to lose the very things they were fighting for
Lincoln addressed slavery first and foremost because it was the most important factor dividing our country. He hoped that by repeatedly promising to leave the responsibility for slavery to the states (something he believed he had no power to change) that he could allay southern fears.
 

uaskme

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
1,946
Thanks for your response.
I'm not sure I understand your point. Let me respond in two parts:
Most will agree that the root cause for secession/war was slavery. Others claim it was another factor. Yet resolving differences over every one of those factors was possible within the constitutional system. By choosing not to pursue resolution through the constitutional avenues, secessionists chose the one path least likely to succeed and most likely to lose the very things they were fighting for
Lincoln addressed slavery first and foremost because it was the most important factor dividing our country. He hoped that by repeatedly promising to leave the responsibility for slavery to the states (something he believed he had no power to change) that he could allay southern fears.

Northerners had a Hatred for the Negro, and any class that was not White. There is a lot of material written about the fear of upsetting the Social Order of the North with Emancipation. Probably 90% of Northerners rejected Immediate Abolition, that being the definition of Pro Slavery. Lincoln said he wanted a gradual emancipation that might last 100 years. You can't overestimate the Racism of the North.
What better friend could the South hope for than for the Proslavery North. Erick Foner describes politically, Lincoln is more of a Proslavery Democrat than anything else.

Northerners had whipped the Southerners with the 1860 election. Politically they were marching toward submission. What else should the North hope for. They would just Tax Slavery. The Federal Government had done it since the Founding. The South was simply worth more to the North alive rather than dead. They could outvote them. Slavery Paid!
 

MattL

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 20, 2015
Messages
3,056
Location
SF Bay Area
Well I don't think the purpose was to tell the "whole truth"... it's purpose was it's name, to declare the causes for secession. I have never seen anyone post or suggest otherwise, maybe until now I guess.
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2016
Messages
919
Location
Dixie
Someone used the word “ruse” above. I don’t remember the context but that is what this op question is. The author has phrased it so that it can not be answered without leaving open the possibility for deception, which is his point. The ordinance makes any [many]claims on many topics and if they were not controversial we would not be here. However that the document makes clear what the priority motive was and should not be in question. So the answer to the question , “did south carolina’s Ordinance of secession state it’s reason or motivation for secession, YES.
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,338
Location
los angeles ca
All about slavery, eh? Not a word about past tariffs and injuries? Not a word about western territories? How about if I give you the last word and we let others weigh in, if they wish, about the OP?
If the Southern whites were truly willing to go to war over tariffs they would of done so decades before when tariffs where much higher. Before Secession tariffs were at a historical low.
As pointed out earlier few Southerners could even afford foreign goods. Most tariffs were paid outside the South.
Western territories were free to vote in slavery if they so wished to do so . Has a history teacher you have heard of " popular sovereignty"?
What exact injury was the South receiving at Northern hands?
Leftyhunter
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,338
Location
los angeles ca
Northerners had a Hatred for the Negro, and any class that was not White. There is a lot of material written about the fear of upsetting the Social Order of the North with Emancipation. Probably 90% of Northerners rejected Immediate Abolition, that being the definition of Pro Slavery. Lincoln said he wanted a gradual emancipation that might last 100 years. You can't overestimate the Racism of the North.
What better friend could the South hope for than for the Proslavery North. Erick Foner describes politically, Lincoln is more of a Proslavery Democrat than anything else.

Northerners had whipped the Southerners with the 1860 election. Politically they were marching toward submission. What else should the North hope for. They would just Tax Slavery. The Federal Government had done it since the Founding. The South was simply worth more to the North alive rather than dead. They could outvote them. Slavery Paid!
What tax on slavery did the North ever impose on the South? If the North wished to continue slavery it would not of freed the slaves. It was not the South that implemented laws to establish racial equality. The North Vancouver did not whip the South in the 1860 elections. It's not the fault of the Northern voter that Breckenridge failed to win their vote.
Leftyhunter
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
11,017
Northerners had a Hatred for the Negro, and any class that was not White.
Thanks for your response.
Racism existed throughout the world in the mid-nineteenth century. Any discussion of the antebellum United States, the Civil War and Reconstruction has to acknowledge that as a starting point.
However, secession and rebellion were not about race; they were about slavery. One racist region increasingly found slavery abominable; the other saw it as "a positive good". South Carolina did not secede because of racism; she seceded to protect the right to enslave and hold other humans as property.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads




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