Oops, big lump of your posts....

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
May 20, 2015
Messages
46
Location
New Orleans
If the Confederacy was repugnant, I guess the states that remained in the Union where slavery was still practiced were okay then.
Nope, but thankfully the 13th amendment nicely dealt with that problem. Constant whataboubtism appears to be the only rhetorical tactic available to Confederate apologists.
 

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

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,249
To the extent 'other causes' of secession and war were not dependent solely upon slavery, those others that existed before the war, existed after the war. Only slavery was lost.

Why did not any of them, or any combination of them not cause another Secession attempt, if they were so buurdensome that revolution was necessary, in the first place?
 
MD didn’t have the opportunity to secede. So, we will never know, how that would of gone. Mr Lincoln knew with the geography significance of MD to DC, she had to stay in the Union. Ballot Boxes stolen, coercion, the American Way.
No, McClellan, with the governor's approval, just arrested the traitor secessionists from the state legislature that held a rump meeting to pull Maryland out of the Union.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,249
P.S. By the way, if it has not already been mentioned, a new word to describe the traditional 'Lost Cause' theory is not really necessary. A perfectly good word already exists, especially in the field of the study of history ... 'Revisionism' (a new word for the main stream of historical study of today is not necessary).
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,249
The only goal of the Union war effort was Reunion and emancipation and when that was achieved the war war ended, even though, Most, if not all 'the other' causes still remained.

During the rancorous debates in the confederate congress in 1865, over enlisting slaves into the confederate armed forces, to preserved southern independence, a most telling argument presented IMO, was that if slaves made good soldiers then the whole theory for secession was wrong, no reason for the seceded states to have left the Union.
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
7,656
Location
South Carolina
Why did not any of them, or any combination of them not cause another Secession attempt, if they were so buurdensome that revolution was necessary, in the first place?
When, after the war, did the South ever have the men and resources to try again? They were crippled and impoverished for most of the next century. And I honestly think a genuine attempt was made to avoid another war after the horrors of the one we actually had.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
6,958
Location
Central Florida
I found this article about slavery in the Southwest by Native Americans...

https://www.newsweek.com/native-americans-were-kept-slaves-too-454023


Snippet...

Consider the debate at the conclusion of the U.S.-Mexican War of 1846–1848. The United States had just acquired Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah, more than half of Colorado and parts of Wyoming and Kansas. The question facing the country was whether slavery should be allowed in this vast territorial haul.

Snippet...

Therefore it came as a revelation to many easterners making their way across the continent that there were also Indian slaves, entrapped in a distinct brand of bondage that was even older in the New World, perpetrated by colonial Spain and inherited by Mexico. With the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo at the end of the war, this other slavery became a part of Americans’ existence.

Snippet...

As early as 1846, the first American commander of San Francisco acknowledged that “certain persons have been and still are imprisoning and holding to service Indians against their will” and warned the general public that “the Indian population must not be regarded in the light of slaves.” His pleas went unheeded.

The first California legislature passed the Indian Act of 1850, which authorized the arrest of “vagrant” Natives who could then be “hired out” to the highest bidder. This act also enabled white persons to go before a justice of the peace to obtain Indian children “for indenture.”


Snippet...

Brigham Young and his followers, after establishing themselves in the area, became the most obvious outlet for these captives. Hesitant at first, the Mormons required some encouragement from slavers, who tortured children with knives or hot irons to call attention to their trade and elicit sympathy from potential buyers or threatened to kill any child who went unpurchased.

Brigham Young’s son-in-law Charles Decker witnessed the execution of an Indian girl before he agreed to exchange his gun for another captive. In the end, the Mormons became buyers and even found a way to rationalize their participation in this human market.

“Buy up the Lamanite [Indian] children,” Brigham Young counseled his brethren in the town of Parowan, “and educate them and teach them the gospel, so that many generations would not pass ere they should become a white and delight- some people.” This was the same logic Spanish conquistadors had used in the sixteenth century to justify the acquisition of Indian slaves.


Snippet...

Americans learned about this other slavery one state at a time. In New Mexico, James S. Calhoun, the first Indian agent of the territory, could not hide his amazement at the sophistication of the Indian slave market.

It a good read... https://www.newsweek.com/native-americans-were-kept-slaves-too-454023
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,249
When, after the war, did the South ever have the men and resources to try again? They were crippled and impoverished for most of the next century. And I honestly think a genuine attempt was made to avoid another war after the horrors of the one we actually had.

When, exactly, did the South ever have those resources, even before the War?

Historically some of those 'Other Causes' cited by lost causers, were the source of great social and political unrest through the decades after the CW, some of them very violent, plenty of room for southerners to make common cause with their Northern sisters, wouldn't it, to strike another blow for southern independence and freedom?
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
6,958
Location
Central Florida
Here is an act a Law that shows Lincoln was no anti-slavery President the Arizona Organic Act of 1863... it was passed and signed by Lincoln after the Emancipation Proclamation had been signed by Lincoln... Did you see why slavery was not abolished completely because of silver... So where is the Emancipator?

From wiki...

The Arizona Organic Act was an organic act passed in the United States federal law introduced as H.R. 357 in the second session of the 37th U.S. Congress on March 12, 1862, by Rep. James M. Ashley of Ohio. The Act provided for the creation of the Arizona Territory by the division of the New Mexico Territory into two territories, along the current boundary between New Mexico and Arizona. On February 24, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln signed the bill once it had been approved by Congress. The bill established a provisional government for the new territory. It abolished slavery in the new Arizona Territory, but did not abolish it in the portion that remained the New Mexico Territory. During the 1850s, Congress had resisted a demand for Arizona statehood because of a well-grounded fear that it would become a slave state.

According to Marshall Trimble, the official historian of Arizona, the Arizona Organic Act can be traced to the Northwest Ordinance. Business people from Ohio had silver mining interests in the Arizona Territory, and they took their request for Arizona territorial status to Congress. The U.S. Civil War was occurring at the time, and the Union needed silver, which Trimble explains as being one of the main reasons for passage of the Act.[1]

The New Mexico Territory had a long history of enslavement of Native American people, first by each other and later by Hispanic settlers (cf. Genízaros). Although in 1860 there were relatively few African American slaves in New Mexico, the legislature formally approved of slavery shortly before the Civil War.

During the war, the Confederate States of America established an entity called the Arizona Territory, which had different boundaries from modern Arizona. According to historian Martin Hardwick Hall, invading Confederate troops brought an unknown number of enslaved African Americans into the territory. Historian Donald S. Frazier estimates there were as many as fifty black slaves brought by Confederate officials and troops, in his book Blood & Treasure: Confederate Empire in the Southwest.


It points outs Lincoln was not anti-slavery at his core...
 
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Messages
533
Location
Pittsburgh
Perhaps it is time to create a poll as to what those who hold that slavery had something to do with the war should be called. I have suggested “historian”, another suggestion was “realist”. I may have this wrong but “de factor” was mentioned? Confederate apologists have mentioned many of their own but sadly, Treasury of Virtue has too many syllables to meet the OP’s arbitrary criteria...
 

CW Buff

First Sergeant
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Messages
1,501
Location
Connecticut
It is truly surprising, shocking really, to discover that there is a multitude of persons who steadfastly insist and stubbornly maintain that because the CSA did not codify diplomatic relations with a foreign sovereignty, it was not a sovereign state. This notion is utterly and demonstrably false, and more than that, it, rather appallingly, completely ignores the specific history of American Independence as it is embodied in The Declaration of Independence.

On July 4th, 1776, the Second Continental Congress adopted The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, more commonly referred to as The Declaration of Independence. The Declaration, in all its elegance and profundity, served as the intellectual, moral, philosophical, and political justification for the secession the slave-owning, slave-trafficking, colonists were then perpetrating. And while the Declaration did indeed offer “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind”, as an instrument of diplomacy and international relations, it went no further. In fact, the language of the Declaration is bold, peremptory, and utterly unapologetic as it announces to the world that there are thirteen new sovereignties in the international community of states. Consider, carefully, the language of its concluding paragraph:

“We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

It is obvious, then, that in making their Declaration, the good People of the Thirteen United States asked permission of absolutely no one, sought the approval of absolutely no one (other than “the Supreme Judge”), apologized to absolutely no one, and sought diplomatic recognition from absolutely no one. Quite the contrary in fact; they make their Declaration in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies”, and then immediately and imperiously announce that they were “Free and Independent States” with “full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.” Moreover, they announce that in order to sustain their independence, they “mutually pledge to each other, our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor”. Revealingly, they rely and depend on Divine Providence and each other to vindicate their political independence, and they do not even remotely consider the idea that their statehood and sovereignty is dependent upon diplomatic recognition. The very idea is patently offensive and a risible absurdity.

All of this, of course, is explicitly and officially recognized under American law, as the legal date of American Independence is July 4th, and not, ridiculously, February 6th. The United States achieved sovereignty, independence, and statehood on the strength of their solemn promulgation, and so did the Confederate States. Diplomatic recognition has nothing whatsoever to do with achieving independent statehood, a fact the Founding Fathers published, declared, demonstrated, and established for all posterity.
So in your opinion, apparently, any subgroup of people within a sovereign polity can simply declare themselves an independent sovereign state and voila, it is so??? Now THAT is truly surprising, shocking really! Any state, province, county, city, town, heck even colonies can leave any existing sovereignty, anytime, for any reason, by mere declaration? Apparently, in your view, sovereignty is absolutely meaningless. But in fact sovereignty is, for one thing, the concept by which the sovereign nations of the world define themselves. I really don't see them adopting your rather meaningless concept of sovereignty, by which their own sovereignty can be nullified by mere declaration.

Non-sequitur. If you have sources, please share them. Pwiddy, pwiddy pweeze.
"SOVEREIGNTY. The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any independent state is governed..." — Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition

Your concept of sovereignty fails, miserably, on all three counts: "supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable."

As far as the DOI, as you noted, the Founding Fathers were appealing to God's law (i.e. moral right and wrong), not any system of man's law (legal right and wrong). They felt no need to declare there was some vague, secret provision in the British constitution, or to pervert that constitution into some kind of treaty or compact that could be unilaterally invalidated by mere declaration. Believing their cause was truly just, they were completely satisfied with the moral right to revolution. They did, after all, hand down to us a term for their struggle: American Revolution.

And one of the purposes of the DOI was of course to obtain recognition and meaningful assistance from foreign nations. For that, they had to indicate they were serious about leaving Britain (i.e. throwing off British sovereignty). They had, after all, fought for over a year for a settlement that would have left them within the British Empire, with their historic self-goverenance intact. If foreign recognition and assistance were not an object of the DOI, it is strange then that they followed the DOI up by sending emissaries to Britain's rivals seeking... recognition and assistance. With the defeat of Burgoyne at Saratoga and the capture of over 6,000 British soldiers, the Americans demonstrated ability as well as intent, and it gained them an official alliance and treaty with France. That eventually resulted in another crushing British defeat when Cornwallis's 9,000-man army was surrounded at Yorktown by a 19,000-man combined American-French army, with a powerful French fleet cutting him off from the British navy. Now THAT'S what recognition looks like.

Sovereignty is legally supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable. A new independent sovereignty can only be established by acquiring sovereignty from the existing sovereign. There are only two ways to do that: by consent or by force. If one chooses to proceed by force, the issue is not resolved until one side gives up. Sure, in the interim the rebel force will of course establish a government, if possible. The war effort must be prosecuted, domestic and foreign policy must be administered. And the interim period of conflict will eventually belong to the victor. The former colonies didn't need to renew or reissue their 1778 treaty with France. But all of the acts of the Confederacy (e.g. contracted debt) were rendered null and void by their defeat. That's the difference between a successful rebellion (revolution) and an unsuccessful one.
 
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Messages
533
Location
Pittsburgh
You know Arizona secede from the union too... but it was not about slavery directly... maybe states rights? well, future state?

Are some snippets...

Since 1856, settlers in southern New Mexico Territory had sought to split off and organize their own territorial government. Their aspiration got caught up in the growing sectional tensions of the late 1850s and the belief in the U.S. Congress that the impetus to divide New Mexico Territory into two separate northern and southern territories was that the settlers hoped to expand slavery into the southern portion.

The Ordinance of Secession, creating the Arizona Territory and announcing its intention to join the Confederacy, passed in a convention in Mesilla on March 16, 1861, and a second convention at Tucson on March 28, 1861.

Unique among the secession justifications, slavery was not an explicit issue in this document. Despite a statement complaining of the rise of the Republican party in the North and how it “has disregarded the Constitution of the United States, violated the rights of the Southern States, and heaped wrongs and indignities upon their people,” the Arizona Ordinance of Secession never once mentioned the word “slave” or its variations and its specific reasons for secession instead reflect the problems of settlers in a region in which the American imprint was growing but still limited.

Yet except for language expressing solidarity with the slave states, the specific grievances of the Arizona Ordinance of Secession instead reflected the complaints of frontier settlers–not slaveholders. Congress recently had halted mail service along the stage line linking southern New Mexico territory with the rest of the country. The Arizona Ordinance stated, “That the recent enactment of the Federal Congress, removing the mail service from the Atlantic to the Pacific States from the Southern to the Central or Northern route, is another powerful reason for us to ask the Southern Confederate States of America for a continuation of the postal service over the Butterfield or El Paso route, at the earliest period.” The settlers also were angry at the failure of federal troops to halt Apache Indian raids directed at them. The Ordinance exclaimed, “the Government of the United States has heretofore failed to give us adequate protection against the savages within our midst and has denied us an administration of the laws, and that security for life, liberty, and property which is due from all governments to the people

https://cwemancipation.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/sometimes-the-civilwar-wasnt-about-slavery/
“Unique among the secession justifications, slavery was not an explicit issue...”...

...
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
28,929
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
@James Lutzweiler ,

See, once again, you are posting what you think you know and not being very sure.

For your information, I am not being evasive, it's just that when I started researching the cause of the war, 28 years ago, I didn't keep a catalog of all the articles, books, websites, blogs, primary sources, etc., that I have read. I consider this a normal occurance, as I see other members making statements that "I've read it somewhere and I'll look it up and get back to you," or "I can't remember exactly where I saw it," etc.

I am not being evasive and I was not giving anyone, to include you, any kind of impression. I have read articles by DeBow (more than one, less than a dozen, as far as I can recall), if that in your opinion is being evasive, I'll live with it.

As for trying to convert you, never intended to and don't feel I have to try since your theory is just wrong considering the history I have read. Your belief is your own and you are going to keep it, no matter what any other member or source here tells you, so let's let that one consideration go.

However, whenever I see you espouse this theory of yours that the TRR was the cause of the war, and that SC and others lied about the real reasons they seceded or when you state slavery had nothing to do with secession and the coming of the Civil War, I will state my disagreement with your theory of such.

Just think of it as another opportunity to restate your views.

Until that time,
Unionblue
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Messages
533
Location
Pittsburgh
See again, posting what you think you know and not being very sure.

For your information, I am not being evasive, it's just that when I started researching the cause of the war, 28 years ago, I didn't keep a catalog of all the articles, books, websites, blogs, primary sources, etc., that I have read. I consider this a normal occurance, as I see other members making statements that "I've read it somewhere and I'll look it up and get back to you," or "I can't remember exactly where I saw it," etc.

I am not being evasive and I was not giving anyone, to include you, any kind of impression. I have read articles by DeBow (more than one, less than a dozen, as far as I can recall), if that in your opinion is being evasive, I'll live with it.

As for trying to convert you, never intended to and don't feel IU have to try since your theory is just wrong considering the history I have read. Your belief is your own and you are going to keep it, no matter what any other member or source here tells you, so let's let that one consideration.

However, whenever I see you espouse this theory of yours that the TRR was the cause of the war, and that SC and others lied about the real reasons they seceded or when you state slavery had nothing to do with secession and the coming of the Civil War, I will state my disagreement with your theory of such.

Just think of it as another opportunity to restate your views.

Until that time,
Unionblue
:smile coffee:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads




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