Oops, big lump of your posts....

Status
Not open for further replies.

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

jgoodguy

.
-*- Mime -*-
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,538
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
I don't know of anyone who "blames everything" on slavery, but if you meant "blames the Civil War" on slavery, well yes folks do claim that.

But it's not that they find that an easy conclusion, but rather that they find it an inescapable conclusion.

Anyone who would focus on the mere politics, the things called Secession and the Confederacy, rather than on the people that had to endure those things will never see it that way, and some of them "d----- if they ever do." Just a fact of life here, less upsetting as time goes on.
The quote in Post #148 does not add anything to what has been previously posted. Coercion is just another word for don't interfere with the Slave States.
 

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,630
Location
Midwest
... Coercion is just another word for don't interfere with the Slave States.
...yes, "don't interfere with the Slave States" but in this context of Virginia it's "do interfere with the Free States," to note Slave state U.S. congressmen (including Virginia's) having blackmailed for the Fugitive Slave Law (the ultimate infraction of states' rights), Slave State legislatures (including Virginia's) having condoned the taking of U.S taxpayer-owned forts, armories and docks.

Is it to be then "Coercion" for the goose but merely "Assertion" for the gander?
 
Last edited:

Viper21

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Messages
2,456
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
From that page.

View attachment 299542
View attachment 299544
View attachment 299543
Joined the Slaveholding South.
View attachment 299545
Where slavery was less than 25% of the population, no secession.

This single page is unremarkable unless one wants to assert that coercion was the only reason unentangled with slavery.

From Page 24-25 of the above book.
Slave States here Slave States there Slave States everywhere where secession is.
View attachment 299561
View attachment 299568
Secession is for the Slave States only according to the Fire-Eaters.
View attachment 299569
Interesting interpretations. I read the exact same words, & come up with a different conclusion. Weird. Seems to be a passage adding some significance to Coercion leading Virginia & others to join the CSA.

For folks claiming a desire for an accurate, & complete history...... sure are a lot of folks with tunnel vision.
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
12,203
And what was said of slavery...and how did Virginians outlook at the time on the "Cornerstone speech" by Confederate vice president made approx. 3 weeks before April 15th? What influence did the speech have on the Virginia Assembly? If the cornerstone speech explicitly details the Southern Cause was because of slavery, then doesn't joining the Confederacy negates any other form of reasons for rebellion other then the desire to keep slavery. If you fight on the side of perpetuating slavery, are you not guilty for your actions even though you say your motives are different?
Stripped to its bare essentials, the so-called 'Confederate States' was a government established for the sole purpose of not only protecting but perpetuating the practice of slavery.
If any Virginian doubted that they had ample evidence provided them by secessionists from the Lower South who spoke in the Virginia Conventions and in newspaper coverage of events such as Stephens' 'Cornerstone'.
No Virginia secessionist supported secession because he hoped it might result in a reduction in the cost of imported goods.
 

jgoodguy

.
-*- Mime -*-
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,538
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
VIRGINIA’S RELUCTANT SECESSION

We seem to be edging into the topic of States Rights, so let's go there.

Professor Freehling next considers the state rights argument. “Posterity thinks of state rights as the right of state governmental power to check federal governmental power, in a two government system. When neo-Confederates now claim that state rights impelled secession, they usually mean that disunionists wished to preclude Lincoln from boosting federal governmental power at the expense of state governmental power inside the Union. According to this interpretation, long popular in southern precincts, secessionists acted not to save slavery but to save state rights from Lincoln’s expansive federal legislation, including high protective tariffs, internal improvements, and national banks. Charles Dew describes his shock, as a native Southerner who relished his southern education, to find in the Lower South commissioners’ documents almost nothing about fighting tariffs et al and almost everything about fighting to preserve slavery. Any Southerner who investigates the prewar Virginia secession documents, expecting to find fury about an expansive federal government’s potential economic imperialism, will be equally shocked. Instead, the slavery issue provoked almost all Virginia disunionists’ outrage. So too, western Virginians’ potentially confiscatory taxes on slaves inspired a dozen times more anxiety than the federal government’s potentially prohibitive tariffs on imports.” [p. 84]​

Seems states rights were always in service to slavery

We turn next to the relationship between slavery and state rights as it pertains to secession. “Indeed, prewar Southerners’ master mission, to preserve slavery inside a dual system of federal and state governance, dictated crusades to expand federal power and to limit state rights. The fugitive slave issue of the 1850s especially shoved Southerners to the supposedly wrong end of the federal power/state rights spectrum. After Congress enacted the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, several northern states passed so-called Personal Liberty Laws. In these laws, a state’s legislature empowered the state’s courts to stop the federal government’s agents from removing alleged black runaways, if the federal intrusion violated the state’s right to try the accused and to protect the defendant’s rights. … To secure a Union-saving reconstruction in 1860-61, Virginians sought further expansion of the federal government’s power to reach inside northern states for fugitive slaves. The reconstructionists also sought to contract any supposed state rights to resist the federal intrusion. But after Lincoln’s proclamation of April 15, state rights became not a northern weapon to protect slaves fleeing from their masters but a southern tactic to safeguard slaveholders fleeing from the Union. State rights now meant not a limitation of one government at the expense of the other, inside a Union of both, but a prohibition of every speck of federal governmental power, after the people of a state no longer consented to federal governance.” [pp. 84-85]​
 

Viper21

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Messages
2,456
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
The very allegory of tunnel vision being the Lost Cause.
Exploring the WHOLE story, ALL the information, ALL their words, & acts... not just slavery, slavery, slavery, should be in everybody's interest.

It often leaves me scratching my head. That so many only want to acknowledge one narrative, or interpretation. Odd to say the least.
 

jgoodguy

.
-*- Mime -*-
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,538
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Interesting interpretations. I read the exact same words, & come up with a different conclusion. Weird. Seems to be a passage adding some significance to Coercion leading Virginia & others to join the CSA.

For folks claiming a desire for an accurate, & complete history...... sure are a lot of folks with tunnel vision.
Exploring the WHOLE story, ALL the information, ALL their words, & acts... not just slavery, slavery, slavery, should be in everybody's interest.

It often leaves me scratching my head. That so many only want to acknowledge one narrative, or interpretation. Odd to say the least.
Your disbelief is not evidence of anything but your disbelief.
 

Tin cup

Captain
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
5,899
Location
Texas
Exploring the WHOLE story, ALL the information, ALL their words, & acts... not just slavery, slavery, slavery, should be in everybody's interest.

It often leaves me scratching my head. That so many only want to acknowledge one narrative, or interpretation. Odd to say the least.
Seems to me those who seceded, and forced war for slavery, had a lot to SAY about slavery!

Kevin Dally
 

Viper21

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Messages
2,456
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
Seems to me those who seceded, and forced war for slavery, had a lot to SAY about slavery!

Kevin Dally
Ahh... the broken record.... slavery, slavery, slavery.

This thread is about Virginia. Virginia didn't force any war. Virginia seceded AFTER Lincoln's planned invasion was announced. Pretty sure it's detailed at least a couple times in this thread. I recommend starting from page one, & following along.....
 

Tin cup

Captain
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
5,899
Location
Texas
Ahh... the broken record.... slavery, slavery, slavery.

This thread is about Virginia. Virginia didn't force any war. Virginia seceded AFTER Lincoln's planned invasion was announced. Pretty sure it's detailed at least a couple times in this thread. I recommend starting from page one, & following along.....
I'd simply suggest you look at Virginia's actions, and who they followed into illegal secesion, and ultimately to war.

Kevin Dally
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,664
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
No, I am afraid that ALL the evidence doesn't suggest that. Please read the quote from the book that I provided in Post #148.
I read it.

Thanks for your comments. The issue of slavery was an important topic in Virginia that was discussed by the General Assembly and the Secession Convention in early 1861. Furthermore, resolutions regarding the institution of slavery were even passed by these groups as discussed. In addition, the majority of the other southern states had already seceded by early 1861. However, the Secession Convention of Virginia still voted against secession in April 1861 by a 2 to 1 margin when the issue of slavery was the primary area of concern and other states had seceded. It wasn't until Lincoln's call for troops later that same month that they voted to secede. This was in accordance with the resolution passed in Jan. 1861 that opposed any type of federal coercion which would be resisted by any means necessary. The opposition to coercion was also expressed by the delegates during the Virginia Secession Convention. Therefore, it was the threat of federal coercion and possible war against the other southern states that caused Virginia to ultimately decide to secede.

My comments are supported by the noted historian William J. Cooper who discussed the secession of Virginia and the other states in the Upper South in his book We Have the War Upon Us: The Onset of the Civil War, Nov. 1860 - April 1861. This book was published in 2012 to excellent reviews from the critics. William J. Cooper is a retired Professor Emeritus of History at LSU who has also written other books on the Civil War era.

In his book, Professor Cooper writes that Virginia and the other Upper Southern states had all originally hoped to stay in the Union. However, things changed dramatically on April 15, 1861 when Lincoln issued his Proclamation Calling for Troops from the states following the Ft. Sumter incident. Cooper states in his book: "Lincoln's proclamation exploded all hope. It made plain the he intended to invade the Confederate States. Such military action meant coercion in its baldest form. The Upper South began racing toward secession. Almost overnight in Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas top-heavy Conservative-Unionist majorities turned into lopsided secessionist majorities. In these four states, conventions, legislatures, and popular referenda all testified to the powerful shift in public opinion. By early June, all had joined the Confederate States." We Have the War Upon Us: The Onset of the Civil War, Nov. 1860 - April 1861, page 271, by William J. Cooper.
jgoodguy's post covers your post.

From that page.

View attachment 299542
View attachment 299544
View attachment 299543
Joined the Slaveholding South.
View attachment 299545
Where slavery was less than 25% of the population, no secession.

This single page is unremarkable unless one wants to assert that coercion was the only reason unentangled with slavery.

From Page 24-25 of the above book.
Slave States here Slave States there Slave States everywhere where secession is.
View attachment 299561
View attachment 299568
Secession is for the Slave States only according to the Fire-Eaters.
View attachment 299569
It really takes a lot of selective reading to arrive at one's own point of view on this topic.

In my opinion. :smile:

Unionblue
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,664
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Exploring the WHOLE story, ALL the information, ALL their words, & acts... not just slavery, slavery, slavery, should be in everybody's interest.

And yet, all that information circles back to slavery, no matter what the information (or excuse) claims to show.

It often leaves me scratching my head.

Mine too, often until it bleeds in the face of continued denial of obvious historical facts. But, hey, keeps me out of the bars at night.

That so many only want to acknowledge one narrative, or interpretation.

To me, that so many folks want to close their eyes and deny the obvious, even when it is in black and white by the very same folks who left a record that slavery, slavery, slavery, was their primary concern over every other issue.

Odd to say the least.
Down right remarkable to me. :smile:
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,664
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Ahh... the broken record.... slavery, slavery, slavery.

This thread is about Virginia. Virginia didn't force any war. Virginia seceded AFTER Lincoln's planned invasion was announced. Pretty sure it's detailed at least a couple times in this thread. I recommend starting from page one, & following along.....
Virginia herself led us here, not any broken record.

And that trail she left began at page one.
 

Greywolf

Sergeant
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
790
I read it.



jgoodguy's post covers your post.



It really takes a lot of selective reading to arrive at one's own point of view on this topic.

In my opinion. :smile:

Unionblue
I really like the "and federal military intervention" regarding the border states. Pushing the % agenda regarding the border states excludes the federal military intervention as being part of the reason that none of them seceded.
 

jgoodguy

.
-*- Mime -*-
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,538
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
VIRGINIA’S RELUCTANT SECESSION

Moving right along. Even the purity of war defending one's home is entangled with slavery.

Another powerful motive for Virginians was the choice they had to make. “Once Virginians at last realized that they lay trapped in unstoppable crossfire between Confederate and Federal riflemen, they only could choose which infantry to join. For most of them, it was no contest. Secessionists were erring brothers. Yankees were despicable insulters. The North’s provoking critics, not the South’s provoked defenders, most deserved a fist in the mouth or a bayonet in the gut or a bullet in the brain. This intensely emotional, highly fraternal, and ultimately controlling sense of menace to kin saturates the sources. ‘If we are to be dragged … either to the North or to the South,’ John Randolph Chambliss asked fellow Virginia convention delegates, ‘then in the name of our ancient fame, by whom would we prefer to be dragged? Would you be dragged by the Northern confederacy, your known haters or enemies–or would you prefer to be dragged by your brethren of kindred ties and similar interests?’ … ‘I had rather be under King Cotton than under King Abolition. I had rather be ruled by King Davis than by Autocrat Lincoln.’ War is the ultimate We versus They, and Virginians had been schooled that We equaled southern defenders, They equaled Yankee defamers, throughout thirty years of verbal warfare over slavery.” [p. 85]​
Volume 5, Issue Number 4 (May, 2002) of North & South Magazine (pages 80-89) VIRGINIA’S RELUCTANT SECESSION
PP 85-86
Thirty years of conflict over slavery had weaponized Southern opinion against their nation. The North was the enemy. There was always some threat to slavery.
War is the ultimate We versus They, and Virginians had been schooled that We equaled southern defenders, They equaled Yankee defamers, throughout thirty years of verbal warfare over slavery. In the major prewar slavery controversies, as in the secession debate over whether Lincoln could immediately menace slavery, an important minority of Southerners had seen a danger to slavery's endurance-whether the supposed menace was antislavery Englishmen in pre-annexation Texas, northern slave stealers in Kansas, the underground railroad in fugitive slave incidents, or Lincoln's patronage during the secession crisis. The supposed menace always allegedly threatened some weak spot on the fringes of the Slave South, akin to slavery weakened plight in northwestern Virginia.​

Maybe the North had some responsibility for secession.

As most white Southerners usually saw it, southern precipitators of these crises exaggerated the menaces, proposed dubious antidotes, and might even counterproductively increase the dangers to slavery. Thus just as the prewar southern majority thought the secessionists exaggerated Lincoln's menace and that disunion would menace slavery more, so most Southerners thought that southern precipitators of the fugitive slave and Kansas controversies exaggerated the menace of Yankee slave stealers and of a free soil Kansas. The southern majority also worried that new pro-slavery laws would yield slim chance of enslaving Kansas, return few fugitives to the South, and inspire many more Northerners to fulminate against aggressive southern defenders. But fellow Southerners saw a menace, they proposed a remedy, and Yankees called the proposers barbarians.​

Maybe less inflammatory rhetoric would have helped. Sounds sort of like Secession and Politics on a bad day.

Barbariansl Tyrants! Rapists! Proprietors of brothels! That tone pervaded Yankee antislavery blasts. The insult roused Southerners to scream back about honor ravaged and good name savaged, whatever the plausibility of the supposed menace that began the verbal brawl. To understand why the more moderate Southerners rallied against the insulters, consider how William Lloyd Garrison's tone would offend any self- respecting gentleman. Slaveholders treat slaves, charged Garrison, "as brutal beasts." Slaves enjoy "no protection from licentious and murderous outrages." Their families "are ruthlessly torn asunder- der-the tender babe from the arms of its frantic mother-the heartbroken wife from her weeping mother." The "irresponsible tyrants," continued Garrison, have "most fearfully debased and deteriorated... the entire white population of the slave States." Cursed whites display "unrestrained licentiousness, filthy amalgamation, incurable laziness, profligate wastefulness, satanic pride, pitiable ignorance, hardness of heart, atrocious barbarity." Slavery has set "their passions'on fire of hell,' blending in their character the conceit of the peacock with the ferocity of the tiger," destroying "in them all sense of justice, all perception of right, all knowledge of virtue, all regard for humanity.”​








 
Status
Not open for further replies.


Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top