Oops, big lump of your posts....

Status
Not open for further replies.

BlueandGrayl

First Sergeant
Joined
May 27, 2018
Messages
1,551
Location
Corona, California
While they did share common aspects with one another they also diverged culturally, economically, and lingustically throughout:
* North was mostly free and the South was slave.
* North became more and more industrialized while the South was agricultural with some industry.
* Their English dialects differed heavily.
* If you have read Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways to America by David Hackett Fischer you know that their migration patterns were different (East Anglia and the Netherlands were home to the Northeastern Puritans while Southern England was home to the Virginia/Southern Cavaliers).
* More Northerners were likely to have been Whigs/Republicans and most Southerners were affiliated with the Democrats (with some exceptions) if you read American Battlefield Trust/Civil War Trust's North and South article.
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,630
While they did share common aspects with one another they also diverged culturally, economically, and lingustically throughout:
* North was mostly free and the South was slave.
* North became more and more industrialized while the South was agricultural with some industry.
* Their English dialects differed heavily.
* If you have read Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways to America by David Hackett Fischer you know that their migration patterns were different (East Anglia and the Netherlands were home to the Northeastern Puritans while Southern England was home to the Virginia/Southern Cavaliers).
* More Northerners were likely to have been Whigs/Republicans and most Southerners were affiliated with the Democrats (with some exceptions) if you read American Battlefield Trust/Civil War Trust's North and South article.
Thanks for your post.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,630
I did want to take the opportunity to answer your comments, but I do hope I can do this and perhaps go to other pastures.

RE: Ironically, they represent a form of presentism in that all of these other declarations occur AFTER SC's Declaration. Would you agree?

...they represent a form of presentism...???... All of the secession events took place during the same period, ie, secession winter. The SC Sec Dec is dated December 24, 1860. The SC Sec Dec is dated January 15, 1861. The SC Sec Dec is dated December 24, 1860. The SC Sec Dec is dated February 2, 1861. These docs are all within weeks of each... they were contemporaries. This is NOT presentism. Presentism involves gulfs of years, often generations.

I was responding to the question: was the claim "abolition equals the end of the South" hyperbolic? My methodology was to look at the language used contemporarily in the South. There was a discourse about events that was greater than that within the state. Much of what they said, felt, and believed was generated as a unit collective called "The South." My conclusion was that based on what Southerners were saying at the time, that claim was common, normal, and pervasive.

If you can offer another methodology, with a different outcome, I would welcome that.
**********

RE: The wife of General Sherman is alleged to have said “I hope this may not be a war of emancipation but of extermination, & that all under the influence of the foul fiend may be driven like swine into the sea. May we carry fire and sword into their states till not one habitation is left standing.” Not very lady like, but the exact kind of thing SC's Seceshers had in mind when they prophesied of Yankee atrocities. I would guess that many Yankees felt this way, if an ostensibly stereotypically mild mannered female felt this way.

This is out of context with the OP. The secessionists were talking about what would happen if an abolitionist Republican administration took power, not about what would happen during a civil war. The Sherman comments were ABSOLUTELY NOT the exact kind of thing SC secessionists "had in mind when they prophesied of Yankee atrocities." The secessionists were anticipating what would happen in peacetime as a result of Republican control of the Executive branch.

RE: In my quest nothing after that date occurred.

That is a very problematic way to look at history. Often things that are said or happen after a particular event are useful, insightful, and perhaps even necessary to understand the event. From a standpoint of proper methods, I would suggest you rethink that.

- Alan
Other pastures it is. Thanks for your posts here, especially the one that directly answered the OP.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,630
No, this is the place for sharing your views: it is an open discussion, an exchange of information and opinions. Rather than simply observing members try to answer the broad question you posed only to be criticized because their answer didn't fit a preconceived narrative, I urge you to join that discussion. Share your view. Let them compete with the views of others. We can all learn from each other.
WJC,

I have not forgotten this post of yours. In compliance with your request, I submit to you and other posters the following. I have written it in express response to your question. It is NOT something I have had up my sleeve, and I doubt I would have taken the pains to write it all up without your prompt. Though I have not written out the standards by which I would grade this document, I think I have explained clearly why I would flunk these Declarations, if one of my students turned them in as a term paper. As you will see, I have opted for the paradigm of a letter to the editor, especially editor Robert Rhett, Jr. of Charleston's Mercury, as he was one of the fire-eaters in question.

I omitted something in this letter to the editor because by my own standards I had to write it as if I knew nothing beyond December 24, 1860. I just read a day or two ago in Don Doyle's great Civil War book, The Cause of All Nations, a statement by William Yancey that confrms for me my low estimate of the truthfulness of SC's Declarations of which he was an inspiration. On page 5 Doyle writes, "Confederate emissaries abroad were nonetheless instructed to avoid discussion of slavery as the motive for secession, and they happily pointed to Lincoln's own promises to protect slavery in the Southern states as proof this was not the issue." Yancey, whom many believed (and I am among them) had deliberately split the Democratic party in order to get Lincoln elected so the South would have the pretext for independence that it needed, was among these hypocrties, when appealing to slave-hating England for recognition (see. p. 45).

You will observe that I gave SC's Secesh Dec's an A+ instead of an F-. I could have written even more, but this was sufficient. I should hasten to add it is a first draft that I have not proofread thoroughly yet; but I will, as I plan to make more broad use of it.

Sincerely,

James


A Peer Review of South Carolina's 1860 Secession Declarations:​

An A+ in Non Sequiturs, Ambiguities, and Straw Men​

1 January 1861

Robert Rhett, Jr.
Editor, Mercury
Charleston, SC

Dear Editor Rhett,

I have carefully read the recent "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union." I offer the following observations as a suggestion that you and the other creators of them repudiate and rescind this document as soon as that can be done. I am part of the world to which you have addressed them; and, as written, they are altogether too vague and full of half-truths and truths-and-a-half to be of service to me. I now offer my own objections to them on behalf of the same world you have addressed and also for my fellow South Carolinians.

The very first word in your very first sentence --and a word used again in your last paragraph-- raises my antennae. The first thing I find to be untrue in this Declaration is your use of the definite article in front of "people." "The" people of South Carolina were NOT assembled in 1852 or in 1860. I certainly was not one of them and I was not consulted. Only "some" people were assembled. Your use of "The" creates a grandiose impression that fails the test of reality. I know your use of "The" is mere legalese, but that is part of the problem. Legalese often involves just so much sophistry for the purpose of deluding those mentally off guard. My own primary problem is not that I don't listen to language such as yours and your fellow Secessionists but that I do listen. Your use of "The" is tendentious to a fault, a serious fault.

There are a lot of people in South Carolina totally opposed to the Secession to which you ultimately segue in this document; however, in your Mercury and in other venues you and others have beaten them down and threatened them physically for not agreeing with you. Even the creator of this collectively endorsed document, C.G. Memminger, has for years been opposed to secession as a solution to our problems, and has only gone along with you fire-eaters because of overwhelming social pressure. I would have said peer pressure, but Mr. Memminger has few peers. Mr. Memminger, along with the late Robert Hayne, Mr.Pinckney, Mr. Petigru, John C. Calhoun, and many others have been laboring to build railroads (the Louisville, Cincinnati and Charleston Railroad, the Charleston and Hamburg Railroad, the Memphis and Charleston Railroad, etc.) into the West as a source of economic and military strength in order for South Carolina to overpower the North and preserve our institutions. You yourself will recall the toast lifted to Mr. Hayne at a dinner in your father's honor over twenty years ago, to wit, to "Robert Y. Hayne: His untiring efforts in behalf of the Louisville, Cincinnati and Charleston Railroad declare to the world that his patriotism requires not the excitements of power to maintain its existence." Have you forgotten Hayne's formula for the preservation of our institutions --and Hayne even thought slavery was probably on the way out, railroad or not. So, to cut to the quick, the very first word in your Declaration is simply not as representative as you would make it appear, you who graduated from Harvard.

In the caption of your document you refer to "immediate causes." That raises another problem I have with this document, to wit, its frequent generalities among which is your reference to "frequent violations," and "encroachments," ambiguities that are meaningless to others than the "initiated" for whom --and presumably for God Almighty in person-- these Declarations are intended. I think I know what you mean; however, you ostensibly intend this document for the "world," and not everyone in the world will have any idea what you mean about a lot of things in it that are simply left to the imagination. My guess about "immediate causes" (plural) is that you mean at least two things that you do go on to specify: (1) the election of Lincoln to the presidency and (2) the writing into law in Northern states that those states are under no obligation to return slaves to the South in spite of the federally passed Fugitive Slave Law. Before addressing these two causes, let me say in passing that in your reference to frequent violations of the Constitution, I see that you are ignoring just as recent federal conformities to the Constitution such as the Fugitive Slave Law, the judgment on John Brown, and the affirmations of President-elect Lincoln that he has no intention whatsoever of violating the Constitution in regard to slavery. In short, your Declarations have the distinct ring of tendentious selectivity, to say nothing at all of ignoring the monumental gift of the federal government of $10,000,000 in 1853 for enhancing the feasibility of the South to build a railroad to the Pacific, a railroad even only part of which Robert Hayne and John C. Calhoun said would enable South Carolina to preserve slavery in the Union or out of it.

In reference to the election of Lincoln as a cause for South Carolina's departure, let me say a couple of things. Number one, I have read your reporting about Lincoln and his beliefs ever since he was nominated by the Republicans to run for president over six months ago. Those reports are far from surgically precise; and if somehow they were transmuted into medical terms, you yourself would not submit to an operation under the guidance of a physician who employed them. You have straw-manned Mr. Lincoln beyond reasonable belief; and based upon that along I cannot agree that his actual election is a threat to South Carolina that you harangue that it is. In addition, you are well aware by now that Mr. Yancey, not only the father of fire-eaters but of fire-gulpers, has been implicated by several Southerners as actually having deliberately divided the Democratic party for the express purpose of causing Lincoln to be elected to provide South Carolina with the pretext he felt it would need to effectuate the Secession you now declare. There is something not only exponentially hypocritical about this but reeking with odors of a long dead and putrefying syllogism. Lincoln could not possibly be more clear in his declarations of support for slavery in South Carolina. Your characterization of him is simply false. And as for individual northern states enacting laws to preclude the return of fugitive slaves in contravention of the Constitution, you may wish to recall that South Carolina above all has peddled the doctrine of Nullification. By so doing you have eviscerated your own concern. It would appear on the surface that your only concern is whose ox is being gored.

I see also that the Secession Convention has likened its action to the Declaration of Independence in 1776, a Declaration from which you quote --and quote selectively. i notice that you have omitted a reference to a key ingredient of even this hypocritically document that loftily included in it a reference to equality. This, of course, is a studied omission on the part of the Convention, denying its Declarations equivalency to the original. Notwithstanding these critiques, I do happen to agree with the Convention that a State has the right to secede under the conditions identified in the Declaration of Independence, though I remain unconvinced by the ostensibly supporting Declarations that these conditions have been met.

The Convention's claim of an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to (emphasis mine) is ambiguous enough to be totally false. What might be and probably is true is that there are abolitionists in all of the non-slaveholding states who continue to harp on out peculiar institution; however, you do not, and I think you cannot, cite a single action on the part of a single state called into legislative session that disturbs slavery in South Carolina, ostensibly the people for whom the Convention attempt to speak. Abolitionists everywhere, yes. State action, no. Straw.

Straw, too, is the statement that the Republican party has declared that the "South" cannot move into the western territories. "South" and "slavery" are not synonymous terms no matter how much fire-gulpers like you would like to teach that equivalency to the world. Numerous Southerners who have owned no slaves have moved into the far West without incident. A remedial course in good grammar and Aristotelian logic would benefit all readers of the Mercury and these pitifully tendentious Declarations. This is to say nothing of all of the informal declarations from 1845--1860 that openly and clearly outline other ways to maintain the Union and to preserve slavery, all of which have been ignored by these formal Declarations that pretend to outline history from 1776 until 1860. There are enormous gaps in this chronicle of complaints.

The "States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and . . . they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery"? I did not know it was the business of states to proclaim what is "sin" and what is not. I do understand that to be a practice of churches but not states. The omission by the Convention of a single instance in which a "state," a Northern state in particular, has gone into the preaching business leads me to think that it cannot produce such. But it is true that several ministers and even non-ministers in our very own state have decried slavery as a sin. The words of the convention cause it to appear to an otherwise uninformed world that support for slavery in South Carolina is unanimous. Hardly so. I for one am opposed to it and do not see the total destruction of South Carolina as the result of a studied and gradual emancipation. The fact that I have been threatened for my views suggests to me that any power latent in these Declarations is not from logic and truth but from an application of the sword and gunpowder, tar and feathers. In short, the Declarations not have the ring of truth. Instead they have the ring of wrong; and for that reason and many others I flunk them as representing reality but only rebellion that will bring upon our heads something not as soft as cotton.

Sincerely your Rebel against Straw Men and Scarecrows,

The Ghost of Robert Hayne
 
Last edited:

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
11,024
On page 5 Doyle writes, "Confederate emissaries abroad were nonetheless instructed to avoid discussion of slavery as the motive for secession, and they happily pointed to Lincoln's own promises to protect slavery in the Southern states as proof this was not the issue."
Thanks for your response.
Why should that be a surprise? it simply shows that the so-called 'Confederate government' recognized that in order to win over the British and French governments, they were going to have to hide the slavery issue. Rather than showing that the Declaration of Cause and other documents were lying about the crucial role of slavery in the decisions to secede, it shows the foreign governments were intentionally misled.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,630
Thanks for your response.
Why should that be a surprise? it simply shows that the so-called 'Confederate government' recognized that in order to win over the British and French governments, they were going to have to hide the slavery issue. Rather than showing that the Declaration of Cause and other documents were lying about the crucial role of slavery in the decisions to secede, it shows the foreign governments were intentionally misled.
Thanks for your post --and again for your previous post that prompted my further examination of this issue. I have been well-served, and I hope you have been even though I indulge not inclination that you will even tilt ever so slightly toward my view..

My point is that Yancey et al. talked out of both sides of their mouths. They were no more credible in SC's Declarations than they were to the Europeans. They lied to their fellow southerners in these Declarations and they lied to the Europeans about them. So why should I take SC's Declarations in 1860 to be truthful? I don't. That is why I flunk them and do not accept them as stating the real cause, i.e., nationalism, their passionate and reckless desire for their own country.

Note the following quote I just fished up from the South Western newspaper, published in Shreveport, LA., on 5 September 1860:

"Proclaim, Messrs. [i.e., Yancey, et al.], your fixed determination to dissolve the Union, if Lincoln be elected, and then proceed systematically to a course of conduct that will have a reasonable prospect of producing that very contingency! That is the programme. Acts [notice: actions spoke louder than words even then] and words all conspire to prove it. --Read the jubilations of one of the advocates of this programme, which we clip from an exchange: "The High Peaks!" A distinguished member of the legislature remarked to us a few days since that he "felt gloriously" --could see the high peaks of a southern confederacy looming up in the distance."

I fully believe Yancey et al. conspired to get Lincoln elected as a cause celebre in order to shout, "The sky is falling!" Do you dispute this programme about which Yancey said, "National parties will not save us. We must influence parties, conventions, statesmen, and at the proper time precipitate the cotton states into a revolution"? And he added in a letter, "There is not an idea that I do not now entertain [in re: precipitating this revolution]." This can be found in the same issue of the South Western.

All of which is to say that I am grateful to you and others for long past feedback about my TRR thesis, that it was so much baloney because SC's Declarations and the declarations of others outright stated that slavery was the cause. That was the best I could see anyone throwing at my proposition. I have always felt that SC's Declarations were nothing but vacuous posterity papers but never really examined them in any great detail until I kept getting this response. Accordingly, I decided to look into this a bit further, and my findings confirm my hypothesis: vacuous posterity papers. Short and simple. NOTE: I would not argue that the confirmation of my hypothesis proves my TRR thesis. That would be a non sequitur. I think I prove that on other grounds. All it does is to show me that the statements by South Carolinians alone that it was about slavery do not hold water. That being the case, what does?

And to anticipate the critiques of some who will continue to label me a lost causer, let me repeat my characterization of such as lost logic-ers. I have nothing whatsoever to do with lost causes, presentism, or North or South predispositions.

James
 

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,833
Rollins College
Rollins Scholarship Online
Master of Liberal Studies Theses
2009

The Ports of Secession: The Economics of Florida Ports in the Secession Crisis
by Michael P. Robbins

This Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by Rollins Scholarship Online. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master of Liberal Studies Theses by an authorized administrator of Rollins Scholarship Online. For more information, please contact rwalton@rollins.edu.

From the moment of its admission to the Union in 1845, Florida's economy was structured around its numerous ports and the ability to ship resources to centers of production and commerce. The population of Florida reflected this reality. Most Floridians were part-timers, snowbirds who came south not for the enjoyable weather so much as the economic opportunities created by climate and peninsular
geography. During the peak season of December to April in the 1840s and 1850, the Gulf Coast's population swelled with the arrival of Northerners and foreigners seeking profit in Apalachicola, primarily in the cash crop industry of cotton. Down the coast in Tampa, the cattle industry was growing as local ranchers found markets in the Caribbean Sea. The ability to connect cotton and cattle with buyers was facilitated by Florida's approximately 1,800 mites of coastline and an expanding shipping industry.


Throughout its initial fifteen years of statehood, shipping defined the state's economy. During the winter months, non-southerners by birth far outnumbered the permanent or lifelong residents of the Florida Gulf-Coast. Though it was the southernmost state in the Union, it would have been a stretch to consider Florida truly a part of the South, either in demographics or culture. In the decades preceding the American Civil War, the state's centers of population were exclusively port cities inhabited by a regionally, nationally, and racially diverse lot. A lack of cohesive state identity made Florida less of an actor and more of an object in the conflict that was to come.

https://scholarship.rollins.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1034&context=mls
172

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,249
Almost all Revolutionary documents, especially those calling for the world to witness it, are as a matter of course, based upon half truths and partial lies. No surprise there.. But, the goal(s) of that revolution is usually clearly states, as in SC's .

Quite clearly, IMO, SC's goal of protecting its unique political, social and economic institutions, by protecting the institution of slavery as being the necessary base upon which their very existence depended.

All other causes will be judged by how much they help or hinder the realization of the final and complete protection of the South's peculiar institution of chattel slavery.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,630
Almost all Revolutionary documents, especially those calling for the world to witness it, are as a matter of course, based upon half truths and partial lies. No surprise there.. But, the goal(s) of that revolution is usually clearly states, as in SC's .

Quite clearly, IMO, SC's goal of protecting its unique political, social and economic institutions, by protecting the institution of slavery as being the necessary base upon which their very existence depended.

All other causes will be judged by how much they help or hinder the realization of the final and complete protection of the South's peculiar institution of chattel slavery.
Is this a "No, they did not tell the whole truth"?
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
11,024
Is this a "No, they did not tell the whole truth"?
Just a comment on the overall tenor of this thread. The standard "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" is a naively high bar. The documents are clearly biased opinion, not fact. They do, however, give us a clear understanding of the issues that the authors THOUGHT important.
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
8,733
Location
District of Columbia
Thanks for your post --and again for your previous post that prompted my further examination of this issue. I have been well-served, and I hope you have been even though I indulge not inclination that you will even tilt ever so slightly toward my view..

My point is that Yancey et al. talked out of both sides of their mouths. They were no more credible in SC's Declarations than they were to the Europeans. They lied to their fellow southerners in these Declarations and they lied to the Europeans about them. So why should I take SC's Declarations in 1860 to be truthful? I don't. That is why I flunk them and do not accept them as stating the real cause, i.e., nationalism, their passionate and reckless desire for their own country.

Note the following quote I just fished up from the South Western newspaper, published in Shreveport, LA., on 5 September 1860:

"Proclaim, Messrs. [i.e., Yancey, et al.], your fixed determination to dissolve the Union, if Lincoln be elected, and then proceed systematically to a course of conduct that will have a reasonable prospect of producing that very contingency! That is the programme. Acts [notice: actions spoke louder than words even then] and words all conspire to prove it. --Read the jubilations of one of the advocates of this programme, which we clip from an exchange: "The High Peaks!" A distinguished member of the legislature remarked to us a few days since that he "felt gloriously" --could see the high peaks of a southern confederacy looming up in the distance."

I fully believe Yancey et al. conspired to get Lincoln elected as a cause celebre in order to shout, "The sky is falling!" Do you dispute this programme about which Yancey said, "National parties will not save us. We must influence parties, conventions, statesmen, and at the proper time precipitate the cotton states into a revolution"? And he added in a letter, "There is not an idea that I do not now entertain [in re: precipitating this revolution]." This can be found in the same issue of the South Western.

All of which is to say that I am grateful to you and others for long past feedback about my TRR thesis, that it was so much baloney because SC's Declarations and the declarations of others outright stated that slavery was the cause. That was the best I could see anyone throwing at my proposition. I have always felt that SC's Declarations were nothing but vacuous posterity papers but never really examined them in any great detail until I kept getting this response. Accordingly, I decided to look into this a bit further, and my findings confirm my hypothesis: vacuous posterity papers. Short and simple. NOTE: I would not argue that the confirmation of my hypothesis proves my TRR thesis. That would be a non sequitur. I think I prove that on other grounds. All it does is to show me that the statements by South Carolinians alone that it was about slavery do not hold water. That being the case, what does?

And to anticipate the critiques of some who will continue to label me a lost causer, let me repeat my characterization of such as lost logic-ers. I have nothing whatsoever to do with lost causes, presentism, or North or South predispositions.

James
RE: All it does is to show me that the statements by South Carolinians alone that it was about slavery do not hold water.

(1) SC did not say in the Declaration that "it was about slavery." They said it was about their fear of the pro-abilitionist Republican Party would do to slavery once it held the presidency. Saying that the Sec Dec was "about slavery" is a straw man argument.

(2) Your critique is mainly about (a) the linguistics and rhetoric used in the Declaration, as well as some factual inaccuracies therein and (b) the character of some of the men responsible for the declaration. But even if every argument made in the faux-Hayne's letter is valid, that still does not mean that the secessionists weren't motivated by the fear of what the pro-abolitionist Republican Party would do to slavery once it held the presidency. It means the people who wrote the doc were not all the nicest people nor the most rational, which is not the most uncommon criticism of fire-eaters.

(3) It is useful to note that people outside of SC said that they feared what the pro-abilitionist Republican Party would do to slavery once it held the presidency. The feeling was widespread. The employment of secession as a response to that was controversial, but in fact, secession was the over-riding choice of the white Southern elite.

- Alan
 
Last edited:

John Hartwell

Major
Forum Host
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
7,748
Location
Central Massachusetts
My point is that Yancey et al. talked out of both sides of their mouths. They were no more credible in SC's Declarations than they were to the Europeans. They lied to their fellow southerners in these Declarations and they lied to the Europeans about them. So why should I take SC's Declarations in 1860 to be truthful? I don't. That is why I flunk them and do not accept them as stating the real cause, i.e., nationalism, their passionate and reckless desire for their own country.
James
If they "lied to their fellow southerners in these Declarations and they lied to the Europeans about them," how do we answer the question of the "real" cause of secession?

If the secession leaders ("Fire Eaters," if you prefer) were not motivated principally by fears for the continuance of slavery, why did the Declarations of Causes (and so many other public writings), so strongly emphasize it? Was it not because they knew that was the line that would most appeal to other southerners, and most attract the other slave states to join them in secession?

It's not a usual claim of defenders of the Confederacy that the people of the South truly were attracted to the idea of secession because of their fears about slavery, to which the "lying Fire Eaters" were pandering. That would, indeed, mean that secession was "all about slavery," despite those lies.

I would hesitate to make such an assertion.

As for making false representations to the European governments, that's diplomacy ("lying abroad for your country"), and has nothing to do with true "causes" of anything.

I would agree that lies and falsehoods are at the very root of the Fraud perpetrated on the southern people (indeed, on all Americans), known as "The Confederate States of America." But, as to who was lying to whom about what we must differ.

----------
ETA: in purely "presentist" terms, wouldn't your argument make the "FireEaters" the "good guys;" and the people of the South the "bad guys"?
 
Last edited:

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,249
Just a comment on the overall tenor of this thread. The standard "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" is a naively high bar. The documents are clearly biased opinion, not fact. They do, however, give us a clear understanding of the issues that the authors THOUGHT important.



True, up to a point. But, to me, more precisely, what the authors thought important was to use arguments they assumed would most favorably impress the readers to whom the document was addressed and, draw them to their cause. Hopefully with the truth, but, did not quibble over the details of veracity. in the quest to win friends and influence people to their cause.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
True, up to a point. But, to me, more precisely, what the authors thought important was to use arguments they assumed would most favorably impress the readers to whom the document was addressed and, draw them to their cause. Hopefully with the truth, but, did not quibble over the details of veracity. in the quest to win friends and influence people to their cause.
I'd opine that universal truth is not necessary for advocacy and the Fire Eaters el. al. were advocating for their version of the truth to become the truth for a new nation and the world. A relationship to some universal truth is not necessary.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,630
Thanks for all these recent posts. I will reply in due course.

Meantime, a brief advertisement for a thread I am about to open, if this advertisement is not too far off the OP. In point of fact, the new thread is a result of this thread, as I chased down the representations of the Seceshers to England, France, and Spain, on which chase I came across William Yancey's expressions about Lincoln that differed widely from what was said in Charleston.

(Aside: Yes, WJC, there is evidence for this conspiracy involving Yancey, Rhett, and Miles, though I personally repudiate identification with conspiracies in general. Case basis).

I refer to an upcoming thread on RAILROADS AND STEAM about Napoleon III and his setting up puppet Maximilian as emperor in Mexico during the Civil War. Without going into details, I would invite those of you who have kindly followed some of my threads on the TRR et al. to let me know if you know of any literature at all about French railroads from 1848--1865 and anything about Napoleon III and his relationship to them. This inquiry relates to his plan to begin crossing Mexico in the early 1860s with a TRR, almost certainly for the same reason he promoted the building of the Suez Canal beginning in 1859, namely, to find a shorter path to India and China a la Columbus. Same reason his GREAT uncle went to Egypt with a bunch of engineers: trade with Asia.

Yes, at first blush this might seem off OP; but I hope you Moderators will let it stand. I came across this important information as a direct result of this thread. For more info, please go to that NT and see if you can help me. Even if you can't, I think you'll find some facts in it to be of use. Maybe not. Maybe you know all of it already.

Best,

James
 
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
281
The Cause for secession is clearly(and truthfully) stated, IMO. However, the reasonings justifying Secession are, I believe, flawed and, probably, deliberately so.
The "elephant in the room" has been here since before the CW....and that elephant has not been slavery.
Certainly there were many White South Carolinians who wished to keep slavery. But there were probably many more who did not care about slavery very much. Almost all Whites in SC had a real fear of the large number of Blacks among them. That is the "elephant" that few wish to discuss.
The were proportionately fewer Whites in the rest of the "South" that would fight over the retention of slavery, but the fear of Blacks was everywhere. The abolitionist activities of the late 18th century did not feed this fear outside the "South" as they did not create large numbers of free Blacks. The manumission movement in the early 19th Century started well but faltered as free Blacks began remaining in general society.
This fear, this "elephant" was not, and is not, a propietary southern thing. But, it was only of paramount concern where large numbers of free Blacks might become a reality: much of the "South".
South Carolina Whites had the most to fear, and there was no practical remedy for that fear. Except the retention of slavery.
To White South Carolinians, slavery was a cure, not a cause.
Slavery is a moral issue, among other things. To make the CW a morality play does not do justice to the "elephant", which is still with us anymore than SC did justice to it in its secession document.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads




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