Oops, big lump of your posts....

Status
Not open for further replies.

mobile_96

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
1,509
Location
Ill.
There can't be anything in his speech about what the South was "fighting for" because at the time there was no war.
Sorry, but I disagree. The word War brings on the vision of guns and cannon and killing and that is true enough. But...there is another kind of war. Such as a War of Words.
And wthen Stephens made his ""cornerstone speech"...it specifically states the 'cause' of the south was fighting for slavery!" there had already been years of a war of words in Congress between the Slave
States and Free States over Personal Liberty Laws, and a war of words about abolitionist and their demand of the end of slavery (a very long running war of words).
From Merriam-Webster
war of words noun phrase
Definition of war of words: an argument in which people or groups criticize and disagree with each other publicly and repeatedly for usually a long time
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,342
Location
los angeles ca
@leftyhunter, you miss the point. This wasn't a move made openly, but one done in the smoke filled back rooms of industrial America. If this theory is to be believed, it must be understood that the TRR wasn't a cause, but a desire pushed through by politically motivated people who used the South's weakness to their advantage.
That theory doesn't make any sense. There was no law preventing a TRR from the South. Congress was even willing to pay for it has shown in earlier posts from the Congressional record. No contemporary Confederate official even stated the war Secession was initiated to build a TRR. If the ACW had nothing to do with slavery why didn't the secessionists just fee the slaves and encourage them to join the Confederate Army?
Leftyhunter
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2019
Messages
83
Location
retired traveling
The secession documents fully reveal that the intention of the seceding states was to peacefully withdraw from the voluntary union of states known as the United States. The war was fought because the United States refused to recognize that the seceding states were perfectly entitled to establish a government of their own choosing. Just as the Founders had done.
why were they seceding ? why were they withdrawing ? what rights did they feel were threatened ? why did tariffs affect the south differently than the north ? why did they want to expand into the territories ? why did they need a majority representation in congress ? why did the first land battle occur in area that the local population considered more closely tied to Pennsylvania and Ohio than Virginia ?
England did not think the colonies had the right to choose a government of their choosing. What would have happened to the Founders if they had lost and been caught ?
What the Founders did was illegal and they knew it but hoped to win and not face charges. the Founders declaration claimed all men were created equal (although they were hypocrites) and the confederate declarations claimed the opposite. some of the southern states had adopted the AoC. how did they get out of the promise of perpetual union it declared ? the constitution did not address or authorize a release from that promise just as it did not specify a mechanism for secession. there is no need to address that which does not exist.
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,342
Location
los angeles ca
I agree with this. Not just the TRR, but tariff increases were to the benefit of some northern business interests, and would be passed if the southern states seceded, regardless of who won the war. The Homestead Act was of interest to many ordinary northerners and also would be passed if the southern states seceded.
We have to keep in mind that Southern businesses interests such has sugar plantation owners in Louisiana , tobacco famers in Kentucky and rice growers in South Carolina favored and received the benefit of protective tariffs. It can't be argued that only the North favored tariffs.
Leftyhunter
 

uaskme

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
1,950
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.
Many Chinese opium traders became pillars of the Boston community. In his eulogy, Perkins is remembered as "one of the noblest specimens of humanity to which our city has ever given birth,"

Arnott says the fact that Perkins was trading in opium was probably not a secret in Boston, but the question, "Is this trade good for the people we're trading with?" is a more recent philosophical concept."

There are signs opinion shifted as Perkins aged, which may help explain why Opium is not mentioned even once in a memoir compiled by his son-in-law and published in 1856, two years after Perkins' death.

But among merchants, there was a robust debate about the morality of selling opium in China, whee at least 2 million residents--and 10 million by some extimates--were addicted to the drug by the mid-1800s. New York David Olyphant refused to trade opium, calling it "an evil of the deepest dye.: Partners at Perkins and Co. made fun of Olyphant.

Johathan Goldstein, a research associate at Harvard University's Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies, says Boston merchants defended the trade, "even though they knew it was a debilitation drug that ruined lives. "Their thinking, says Goldstein, was that opium was no worse than alcohol and better that other forms of trade, namely:slaves. wbyr.org

Could substitute Opium for Human Trafficking, or Slave Trade to the 1870s and beyond.
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2019
Messages
83
Location
retired traveling
I do not understand anyone on here who has a hard line 100% view that they are absolutely correct, that no one else could even be partially correct and have valid points. From my experience in life there are two sides to every story, and if you look past personal bias, you can learn a great deal. Just my 2 cents.
this is not an answer to any of my questions.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,342
Location
los angeles ca
Actually Not. John Brown's Raid made the threats of starting a Race War in the South, more that just crazy people talking. He was Well Financed and Well Supported. Perpetrators always lie about their crimes. Republicans and Abolitionist used Brown as a Martyr. Should tell us something.

If someone threatens you, is it you responsibility to with 100% probability that it is real. The Upper South, knew they were going to be attacked by a hostile force. Did they not have the right to respond. 30 years of Rancor between the Sections, was ample proof that the Federal Government led by the Republicans was going to be Hostile to them. The Treatment of the States who wanted to stay neutral is evidence enough, they were correct in their analysis.
If the white Southerners freed the slaves and gave them full equality then there would of been no threat of a race war.
Leftyhunter
 

uaskme

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
1,950
Too bad the secessionists didn't recognize that. Although to give them their due, had the rebels won, slavery would have been protected and expanded. It would have persisted for many more years, probably into the next century.
Not True, Slavery started quaking when Confederates started to build fortifications. Lincoln exempted areas under occupation from the EP. Because he didn't want a bunch of Freedmen running around, um, Free.

Confederacy's goal was INDEPENDENCE. They Could of bartered away, INDEPENDENCE any time for Slavery. Lincoln Plead with Southerners to return to the Union and bartered Slavery and the Negro even till the spring of 65. All Cloaked by the Single Causer and the Single Cause Fallacy.
 

DanSBHawk

First Sergeant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Messages
1,202
Location
Wisconsin
During the Civil War, Northerners build the Unimportant Road. The Road that had no consequence, going thru the West, which the Confederates didn't want, to California that meant Nothing to the Confederacy. That is the Single Cause Fallacy

Build by Who?
President Ulysses S. Grant. In a December address to Congress, Grant sympathized with the antislavery impulses behind exclusion. The great proportion of the Chinese immigrants who come to our shores do not come voluntarily. . but come under contracts with headmen, who own them almost absolutely," Grand reported. He lamented that Chinese women imported into California for "shameful purposes" suffered form an even "worse form" of servitude that their male coolie counterparts. He conceded that some sort of restriction on Chinese immigration was necessary to halt "this evil practice." Had pp220 Freedom's Frontier by Smith

What happened to the Republican, Free Labor Principles?
Again, stuff that happened mid-war or post-war had no effect on the cause of the war.
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,342
Location
los angeles ca
It is really convenient how some people consider slavery to be the only cause of the war; although, it was an important contributing factor. However, the Union did not raise an army against the south over the issue of slavery in 1861. Therefore, it is possible there could have been some other reasons for the war.
Such has?
Leftyhunter
 

uaskme

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
1,950
My question is what else could southerners do for a vocation other than grow cotton produced by slave labor? Through my reading thus far, they knew very little about industry/technology/inventions/innovation. It appears, the south's entire economy depended on cotton exports supported by slave labor, so the threat of ending slavery was a threat to end their economy. I know for a fact that out 143 important inventions from 1776-1860, 93% came out of the free states(Roger Burlingame, March of the Iron Men: A Social History of Union Through Invention (New York, 1938). Therefore, the evidence points in the direction of self-preservation was what prompted secession. The south just could not compete in market capitalist society, and that juggernaut was ominous enough for them to bug out..
Unfortunate Myth. SC was losing Cotton Production. SC had built Rail Roads thru GA and from Charleston to Memphis. Not for Cotton, but for other Trade.

VA's Tobacco economy declined from the Revolutionary War, because Europe wasn't Buying. They were looking for a MFG based Economy.

Slavery's economics was forcing it South and West. Where Cotton Production was. Other areas of the South didn't grow Cotton, or where they were, were losing it.
 
Last edited:

SJU5

Private
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
177
Ouch, indeed. I got my copy new years ago and didn't check the prices when I posted. Must be out of print. I see Abe Books has a "new" one for $667.79. Sorry about that.

It is available in a couple of local libraries up this way if you are in NJ.
Thanks, I live on Long Island but always drive through Jersey on my way down to Chattanooga. Usually stop in Millburn where I grew up!
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
7,656
Location
South Carolina
why did tariffs affect the south differently than the north ?
https://teachingamericanhistory.org...ess-of-south-carolina-to-slaveholding-states/

The Southern States, now stand exactly in the same position towards the Northern States, that the Colonies did towards Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British parliament. “The General Welfare,” is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation, this “General Welfare” requires. Thus, the Government of the United States has become a consolidated Government; and the people of the Southern State, are compelled to meet the very despotism, their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776.​
The consolidation of the Government of Great Britain over the Colonies, was attempted to be carried out by the taxes. The British parliament undertook to tax the Colonies, to promote British interests. Our father, resisted this pretension. They claimed the right of self-taxation through their Colonial Legislatures. They were not represented in the British Parliament, and therefore could not rightfully be taxed by its Legislature. The British Government, however, offered them a representation in parliament; but it was not sufficient to enable them to protect themselves from the majority, and they refused the offer. Between taxation without any representation, and taxation without a representation adequate to protection, there was no difference. In neither case would the Colonies tax themselves. Hence, they refused to pay the taxes laid by the British parliament.​
And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue–to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.​
There is another evil, in the condition of the Southern toward the Northern States, which our ancestors refused to bear toward Great Britain. Our ancestors not only taxed themselves, but all the taxes collected from them, were expended among them. Had they submitted to the pretensions of the British Government, the taxes collected from them, would have been expended in other parts of the British Empire. They were fully aware of the effect of such a policy in impoverishing the people from whom taxes are collected, and in enriching those who receive the benefit of their expenditure. To prevent the evils of such a policy, was one of the motives which drove them on to Revolution. Yet this British policy, has been fully realized towards the Southern States, by the Northern States. The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three-fourths of them are expended at the North. This cause, with others, connected with the operation of the General Government, has made the cities of the South provincial. Their growth is paralyzed; they are mere suburbs of Northern cities. The agricultural productions of the South are the basis of the foreign commerce of the United States; yet Southern cities do not carry it on. Our foreign trade, is almost annihilated. In 1740, there were five shipyards in South Carolina, to build ships to carry on our direct trade with Europe. Between 1740 and 1779, there were built in these yards twenty-five square rigged vessels, besides a great number of sloops and schooners, to carry on our coast and West India trade. In the half century immediately preceding the Revolution, from 1725 to 1775, the population of South Carolina increased seven-fold.​
No man can for a moment believe, that our ancestors intended to establish over their posterity, exactly the same sort of Government they had overthrown.​
 

uaskme

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
1,950
i said that the primacy of slavery as a cause of the war and secession is indisputable. no need for that discussion. what i asked is why is it so important to some people that the south was the victim and do these people think the cause of the confederacy was noble , as per the tenets of the lost cause ideology ? what is the benefit of honoring an enemy of the USA ? if their cause was noble , is it not still noble ?
the lost cause tenets claim that the south only wanted to be let go and live in peace but they started by ripping the USA in half including territories claimed by the USA. That is not peace but theft, insurrection, and destruction, by force of arms against the USA. i simply do not understand the confederate support encountered here and what gain to honoring the confederacy. the confederacy represents the exact opposite of what we consider our national values today.
So, Single Causers except the Mob Mentality of History, and are Offended by people who are not too Lazy to Research for themselves. How does one know what other people have Researched and Studied? There are 50K books on the Civil War and estimated 15K on Lincoln. Maybe we should make it simple and eliminate all but 1. Do all history books say the same thing? Do all people always come to the same conclusion about a event? Indisputable, is pretty had to prove. If someone hasn't heard about it, don't guess it can be true? Maybe there are some things, that an individual hasn't studied. If someone studies a topic, their minds can change.

Part of Fallacy Reasoning extends to recognizing that someone who doesn't think Slavery was the Only Cause, as being Confederate Support or thinking someone wants Slavery to come back. Or they want to go back picking Cotton. Or they want to Secede again. Guess it goes on and on? Seems as though, some people don't have the reasoning ability to Separate events. There is a term for it, Single Cause Fallacy.
 
Last edited:

lurid

Corporal
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
313
Unfortunate Myth. SC was losing Cotton Production. SC had built Rail Roads thru GA and from Charleston to Memphis. Not for Cotton, but for other Trade.

VA's Tobacco economy declined from the Revolutionary War, because Europe wasn't Buying. They were looking for a MFG based Economy.

Slavery's economics was forcing it South and West. Where Cotton Production was. Other areas of the South didn't grow Cotton, or where the were, were losing it.
Well, once Lincoln ordered the blockade they could not export cotton, which the southern economy contracted and contracted and then crashed. Also, the Confederacy tried to dupe the Europeans into breaking the blockade by tantalizing them with cotton.

I'm still waiting for someone to point me in the direction of a important invention/innovation/patent that came out of the southeast during antebellum/CW/post CW/or even the past 100 years.
 

uaskme

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
1,950
If the white Southerners freed the slaves and gave them full equality then there would of been no threat of a race war.
Leftyhunter
Same principles could of saved the Federal Government from a Race War with Native Americans. Which was going on at the same time, Single Causers believed the Civil War was over Slavery, Why didn’t Republicans extend Revolutionary Principles to Redmen and Chinamen, or Brownmen? Or say sorry, we didn’t really mean it, when 5 angry White Republicans nullified the Civil Rights Bill?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
11,026
some people consider slavery to be the only cause of the war
This seems to be a common response in our threads, despite the fact that many of us have explained that slavery was one of many factors, some very important, others less or only locally important. Slavery was, however, chief among those factors, the single root cause.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads




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