Oops, big lump of your posts....

Status
Not open for further replies.

uaskme

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
1,963
Thanks for your response.
My reading of Foner indicates that he believes Lincoln's position was one that Southern slaveholders should have found agreeable compared to the other option: immediate emancipation. That does not, as I understand it, mean that Lincoln was "Pro Slavery". He was not.
Lincoln agreed not to disturb slavery in the States where it then existed. But he intended to outlaw it in the Territories. He did not, in 1861, support immediate emancipation as he felt- as many did- that over time slavery would end on its own.
If you can cite where Foner has a different view please share it with us.
Makes no difference if he, or others despised Slavery or not. His and the vast majority of Northerners, decision to do Nothing, about Slavery, was just as Supportive, to Slavery, as someone who thought it was a Positive Good. So, by default, he and the 85% of Northerners who wanted to leave it alone, were Pro Slavery. I will give you the 15% who wanted Immediate Abolition. That 85% was far more concerned about CW, and the Social and Racial consequences about ending Slavery, than they were about giving Negros rights.

Eric Foner is a Lincoln Apologist. However even he, recognizes how conservative Lincoln was on the Slavery Issue. Lincoln wanted the South subjugated, so he could get what he wanted, for his Section. That was a far greater concern of his, than ending Slavery. Slavery was alway something to be negotiated.
 

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

civilwartalk

Lieutenant General
Owner & Webmaster
Joined
Apr 1, 1999
Messages
141,721
Location
Martinsburg, WV
So, I was just having a discussion with one of out members about the changes, and I thought my response to one of his comments might be helpful for some of you....

.... we are only at the beginning here. It hasn’t been 48 hours yet. I know that this forum was being run one way before.....

Don’t judge the way I’m currently moderating the forum based on how you were treated in the past.

I don’t moderate based on the number of views your post will generate, I moderate on the appropriateness of the post, and if it falls within our guidelines. That’s all there is to it.

We repeatedly ask each member to treat other members with respect, if you aren’t meeting that level of conversation, your posts are more likely to be rejected.

If you need a refresher on the Session & Politics Forum Rules and important links, you can view them here:

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/one-thread-to-rule-them-all-secession-politics.153384/
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,166
Location
Laurinburg NC
Such as? Not tariffs because who is going to have their son die to pay a few cents less on an item. Not states rights since no one can identif what state right was lost that can never be reclaimed. Not a TRR since Congress was about to fund two TRR's just before the ACW started.
Not big government since big government didn't even start until the election of FDR seventy odd year's latter.
Leftyhunter
Substitute prospect of government dominance by the North for "big government" and you have the reason.
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
7,666
Location
South Carolina
Such as? Not tariffs because who is going to have their son die to pay a few cents less on an item. Not states rights since no one can identif what state right was lost that can never be reclaimed. Not a TRR since Congress was about to fund two TRR's just before the ACW started.
Not big government since big government didn't even start until the election of FDR seventy odd year's latter.
Leftyhunter
And not slavery, because there was so little of it in Maryland. So now that we've eliminated all the reasons for secession sentiment, what's left?
 

ebg12

Corporal
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Messages
444
There can't be anything in his speech about what the South was "fighting for" because at the time there was no war.
Are you saying, then, that there was no confederate states at ALL until the shot at fort Sumter, and any declaration of "secession" by any Southern State was not valid until the shot at Fort Sumter?
 

Carronade

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
4,351
Location
Pennsylvania
I also think the Confederates tied down a disproportionate share of their best troops and commanders in Virginia, but that would have been a significant theater of war whether or not the capital was there. Richmond and its industries were an important objective. Much of the Union's combat power originated in the mid-Atlantic and New England states and could most easily be deployed and supported in the eastern theater.
 

uaskme

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
1,963
Just imagine if all those northern men were conscripted. Male population of the north was roughly 11 million, knock out 4 or 5 million either too young, old, or infirmed and you still have enough to easily roll over the 2 million at most the csa could field. I think old Shelby was right, the north did have one arm behind it's back. Why they could have easily put a 100k army in coastal NC or SC to drive inland, gave grant another 100k, added another 100k army to help Sherman, and get this...still have plenty of men left over. The question is why not? Why did it have to drag on si long?
It went on so long, because the Confederates were fighting for their and their families lives and INDEPENDENCE.

Yankees didn't have one hand behind their back. The other hand was building the TRR, which the Single Causer would have us to believe had Nothing To Do With It. In order to settle the West, which the Single Causer would have us to believe, Had Nothing To Do With It. In order to get to California, which the Single Causer would have us to believe, Had Nothing To Do With It.

Also the Rich Aristocrat Yankee, which the Single Causer denies, Yankees had any Aristocrats, were busy getting Richer, for their War Efforts.

So, the Poor Northerners were fighting while the Rich Played. But were quite Busy. Northerners were Blessed to have Western Lands and the ability to Borrow Money to pay for their Mercenaries, the poor Immigrants and Blacks for Yankee substitutes. Other Facts, the Single Causers with soon deny.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,166
Location
Laurinburg NC
You

You believe what a Southern, South Carolinian newspaper said?

Kevin Dally
It went on so long, because the Confederates were fighting for their and their families lives and INDEPENDENCE.

Yankees didn't have one hand behind their back. The other hand was building the TRR, which the Single Causer would have us to believe had Nothing To Do With It. In order to settle the West, which the Single Causer would have us to believe, Had Nothing To Do With It. In order to get to California, which the Single Causer would have us to believe, Had Nothing To Do With It.

Also the Rich Aristocrat Yankee, which the Single Causer denies, Yankees had any Aristocrats, were busy getting Richer, for their War Efforts.

So, the Poor Northerners were fighting while the Rich Played. But were quite Busy. Northerners were Blessed to have Western Lands and the ability to Borrow Money to pay for their Mercenaries, the poor Immigrants and Blacks for Yankee substitutes. Other Facts, the Single Causers with soon deny.
Amen to that.
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
11,062
It went on so long, because the Confederates were fighting for their and their families lives and INDEPENDENCE.
Or, alternatively, because U. S. citizens were fighting to preserve the American Experiment, which they felt was important not only to themselves and their posterity but to the people of the world. To them, it truly was a struggle to assure "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
 

SJU5

Private
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
183
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
7,666
Location
South Carolina
Or, alternatively, because U. S. citizens were fighting to preserve the American Experiment, which they felt was important not only to themselves and their posterity but to the people of the world. To them, it truly was a struggle to assure "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
Hyperbole by Lincoln. The United States would have been just fine with eleven fewer states.
 

ebg12

Corporal
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Messages
444
Makes no difference if he, or others despised Slavery or not. His and the vast majority of Northerners, decision to do Nothing, about Slavery, was just as Supportive, to Slavery, as someone who thought it was a Positive Good. So, by default, he and the 85% of Northerners who wanted to leave it alone, were Pro Slavery. I will give you the 15% who wanted Immediate Abolition. That 85% was far more concerned about CW, and the Social and Racial consequences about ending Slavery, than they were about giving Negros rights.

Eric Foner is a Lincoln Apologist. However even he, recognizes how conservative Lincoln was on the Slavery Issue. Lincoln wanted the South subjugated, so he could get what he wanted, for his Section. That was a far greater concern of his, than ending Slavery. Slavery was alway something to be negotiated.
see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil...the north turned a blind eye to slavery and was guilty by association.....allowing slavery to continue (except the Quakers in Pa that were involved in the Underground railroad and were outspoken against slavery as being immoral).
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
11,062
the Rich Aristocrat Yankee.... were busy getting Richer, for their War Efforts.
Thanks for your response.
One way to acquire and preserve wealth is to choose one's options wisely. Southern aristocrats did not make a wise choice. But they most certainly were ready to get richer, for their "war efforts" if the rebels had won.
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
7,666
Location
South Carolina
Thanks for your response.
Until the next time a faction lost an election or didn't 'get their way' on some government policy and decided to 'take their football and go home'.
That badly misstates how deep the divisions in the country were, and how far back the discontent went. Secession was caused by much more than pique at losing an election.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads




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