Oops, big lump of your posts....

Status
Not open for further replies.

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
11,017
Northerners had whipped the Southerners with the 1860 election.
Thanks for your response.
Actually, it is more accurate to say that Republicans, not northerners, won the presidential election. Ironically, the Democrats won control of both Houses of Congress. That irony in itself suggests that the interests of the seceding states would have best been preserved by remaining in the Union and relying on Congress to protect their 'peculiar institution'.
 

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

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
11,017
They would just Tax Slavery. The Federal Government had done it since the Founding
Thanks for your response.
Yes, Article I section 9 permitted the Federal Government to a impose a tax or duty on imported slaves until 1808. And individual states taxed slavery as property. However, I am unaware of a Federal tax on slaves in the years immediately preceding secession. Perhaps you can provide that information.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,630
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.

Just an FYI: You responded to a question I did not ask. Perhaps you might begin a thread with your concerns. Your suspicion of my motivation does not differ at all from my suspicion of SC's motivation. It is a good thing to suspect and not always take at face value, though my OP stands on its own two legs regardless of my own belief.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,630
I remain interested in pointed answers to my OP. I thank all of you who have engaged with me on this question.

Unless I err, I think the prevailing view so far is that SC's Seceshers did not tell the whole truth and that there was some lying. I welcome any counterclaim that the majority who have contributed to this claim see them as pretty honest fellows. I did not actually count the posts, just an impression. I might be wrong. No problem. I am still interested in answers.

Phrased another way, if you lived in Charleston in 1860 and were to vote on SC's Declarations, would you have said

a. Amen. Right on. Well spoken. No corrections necessary.

or would you say, if given the opportunity,

b. Hey, just wait a minute here . . .

But you are free to reply anyway that you want. And I suppose you are even free to respond off post, but I still prefer on post.

James
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,630
I just read about the great fire in Charleston on April 27, 1838. One article states 150 acres in the commercial district were burned including 1,100 buildings

What does this have to do with what the North and South had in common? That same article tells how those Edited. Yankees from Boston and New York sent donations to Charleston to help their brethren recover. yes, those SC Seceshers sure got it right when all they did was accent the differences between the North and South. They sure told the WHOLE story of the events leading up to Secession.

See https://thetandd.com/lifestyles/gre...cle_641d0f19-b92c-5cd9-b3bf-7b44c646fd9e.html
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,630
I just posted this below on a cognate post. It belongs here also. Though it has not been my intent to post my own beliefs aboout the truthfulness of SC's Seceshers in 1860, it is at least one response to posters who have inquired about why I have not found them truthful people but people just seeking an excuse to creat their own new nation. In my view, Southern Nationalism, the aspiration for a great new nation, was the mother --or father-- of Secession. After this submission, I return to my request for your views, not more of mine.

Poem: Just for you
Unionblue

I just read about the great fire in Charleston on April 27, 1838. One article states 150 acres in the commercial district were burned including 1,100 buildings

What does this have to do with what the North and South had in common? That same article tells how those Edited. Yankees from Boston and New York sent donations to Charleston to help their brethren recover. Yes, those SC Seceshers sure got it right when all they did was accent the differences between the North and South. They sure told the WHOLE story of the events leading up to Secession.

See https://thetandd.com/lifestyles/gre...cle_641d0f19-b92c-5cd9-b3bf-7b44c646fd9e.html
 
Joined
Jun 27, 2017
Messages
6,753
Location
Southeast Missouri
Both sides had dreams in common, some dreamed in both regions of freedom of all men. Others dreamed of the freedom to do what they will unmolested by others. These dreams were not so unalike, all had the freedom of bettering themselves. These were ideas that could not be taken from a person. We thought alike and acted alike, and most wanted to better themselves, some with the land and some with industry.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Thanks for your response.
Yes, Article I section 9 permitted the Federal Government to a impose a tax or duty on imported slaves until 1808. And individual states taxed slavery as property. However, I am unaware of a Federal tax on slaves in the years immediately preceding secession. Perhaps you can provide that information.
Originally the Constitutional government taxed property including slaves-the 3/5s compromise another side. Tariffs replaced it quickly.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
126
Location
Adirondacks-New York
Men of the both regions fought together in the Mexican-American War.

Coincidentally General Grant who thought the first war with Mexico was unjustified wanted to invade Mexico to topple the French-supported (Confederate-friendly) regime towards the end of the Civil War. He even saw in these military actions a possibility of ending the Civil War through a joint military operation agreement where confederate participants would have the opportunity to take the oath and avoid prosecution. Even post war Grant envisioned a joint force of veterans conducting the operation.

All that to say, a common foe or objective can create common ground.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,630
Men of the both regions fought together in the Mexican-American War.

Coincidentally General Grant who thought the first war with Mexico was unjustified wanted to invade Mexico to topple the French-supported (Confederate-friendly) regime towards the end of the Civil War. He even saw in these military actions a possibility of ending the Civil War through a joint military operation agreement where confederate participants would have the opportunity to take the oath and avoid prosecution. Even post war Grant envisioned a joint force of veterans conducting the operation.

All that to say, a common foe or objective can create common ground.
A very good and important point. They had been comrades in arms. Thanks much for this post.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,131
Location
Laurinburg NC
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.
What the North saw as a positive good was keeping as many as possible of the black race, slave or free, out of the North and West,
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,630
What the North saw as a positive good was keeping as many as possible of the black race, slave or free, out of the North and West,
What the North saw as a positive good was keeping as many as possible of the black race, slave or free, out of the North and West,

Good point. Is it possible that Lincoln wasn't so much opposed to slavery in the territories as he was just blacks in general? Certainly the latter had to be in his mind, whether slavery existed or not. But I wonder which was more important.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,131
Location
Laurinburg NC
Good point. Is it possible that Lincoln wasn't so much opposed to slavery in the territories as he was just blacks in general? Certainly the latter had to be in his mind, whether slavery existed or not. But I wonder which was more important.
I don't think free or black mattered that much to Northerners, as historian Leon Litwack put it they were described as “a depraved and inferior race."

"The justification for such discrimination in the North differed little from that used to defend slavery in the South: Negroes, it was held, constituted a depraved and inferior race which must be kept in its proper place in a white man's society.”
Leon Litwack's North Of Slavery, Preface, p. viii.
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
7,653
Location
South Carolina
I remain interested in pointed answers to my OP. I thank all of you who have engaged with me on this question.

Unless I err, I think the prevailing view so far is that SC's Seceshers did not tell the whole truth and that there was some lying. I welcome any counterclaim that the majority who have contributed to this claim see them as pretty honest fellows. I did not actually count the posts, just an impression. I might be wrong. No problem. I am still interested in answers.

Phrased another way, if you lived in Charleston in 1860 and were to vote on SC's Declarations, would you have said

a. Amen. Right on. Well spoken. No corrections necessary.

or would you say, if given the opportunity,

b. Hey, just wait a minute here . . .

But you are free to reply anyway that you want. And I suppose you are even free to respond off post, but I still prefer on post.

James
As I am discovering as I read through the debates in the secession convention, then men involved in writing and voting on the Declaration of Causes disagreed on what should and should not be put into it. One of them even called the disagreement over fugitive slaves "unimportant", and yet that's one of the main charges in the Declaration of Causes. Keep an eye on upcoming posts in the secession day by day thread.
 

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,833
THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES
How Hubris, Economics, Bad Timing and Slavery Sank King Cotton Diplomacy with England
by Joan Thompson
Senior Division
Individual Paper

All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence, and then the success is sure.
-Mark Twain


DISASTROUS OVERCONFIDENCE
The ancient Greeks viewed hubris as a character flaw that, left unrecognized, caused personal destruction. What is true for a person may be true for a people. For the Confederate States of America, excessive faith in cotton, both its economic and cultural aspects, contributed mightily to its entry into, and ultimate loss of, the Civil War. The eleven states that seceded from the Union viewed British support as both a necessity for Southern success and a certainty, given the Confederacy’s status as the largest (by far) supplier of cotton to Britain. Yet, there was a huge surplus of cotton in Britain when the war began. Moreover, cotton culture’s reliance on slavery presented an insurmountable moral barrier. Southern over-confidence and its strong twin beliefs in the plantation culture and the power of cotton, in the face of countervailing moral values and basic economic laws, blinded the Confederacy to the folly of King Cotton diplomacy.


https://www.ohiohistory.org/File Library/Education/National History Day in Ohio/Nationals/Projects/2011/Thompson.pdf
543

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments

Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,630
As I am discovering as I read through the debates in the secession convention, then men involved in writing and voting on the Declaration of Causes disagreed on what should and should not be put into it. One of them even called the disagreement over fugitive slaves "unimportant", and yet that's one of the main charges in the Declaration of Causes. Keep an eye on upcoming posts in the secession day by day thread.
You have rendered us great service on many threads. Thank you. This one in particular really addresses my OP. If anyone has any idea of the actual financial loss to South Carolina alone from runaway slaves, I would like to know what it is. Did SC lose 10 slaves? 100? 1,000? And even if they did, how would those losses be any different from the losses to which any business is exposed? So should Wal-Mart secede because of shoplifters? Most business people project some kind of losses along the way. Maybe the slaves who ran away had good reason to expose themselves to that risk when the real problem was a violent taskmaster and not the Northerner who helped them escape.
 

uaskme

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
1,946
Thanks for your response.
Yes, Article I section 9 permitted the Federal Government to a impose a tax or duty on imported slaves until 1808. And individual states taxed slavery as property. However, I am unaware of a Federal tax on slaves in the years immediately preceding secession. Perhaps you can provide that information.
I was referring to the Protective Tariff. First thing Republicans did when Cotton States secede was to raise the Morrill Tariff. Don’t recall any legislation that was proposed to end Slavery.
 

uaskme

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
1,946
Thanks for your response.
Actually, it is more accurate to say that Republicans, not northerners, won the presidential election. Ironically, the Democrats won control of both Houses of Congress. That irony in itself suggests that the interests of the seceding states would have best been preserved by remaining in the Union and relying on Congress to protect their 'peculiar institution'.
Your catching up with us. This should be moved to the did Secession Protect Slavery Thread
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 30, 2016
Messages
919
Location
Dixie
Just an FYI: You responded to a question I did not ask. Perhaps you might begin a thread with your concerns. Your suspicion of my motivation does not differ at all from my suspicion of SC's motivation. It is a good thing to suspect and not always take at face value, though my OP stands on its own two legs regardless of my own belief.
Because I asked the question the way it should have been asked.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads




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