Secession votes before and after Lincoln's call for 75,000 troops to invade the South

FrazierC

First Sergeant
Joined
Sep 20, 2012
You have an evidence of this? Have you read the CSA constitution?
Yes, I have read through it several times. I think you misunderstood what I meant. You implied that the Confederates were being hypocritical because they championed freedom from the Federal government, but didn't promote freedom in reference to slaves, correct? In other words, because the Confederates were denying freedom to people, they were hypocrites. What I meant was that the Confederates wouldn't have started a war if they knew they were wrong, right? Therefore, they must have thought they were correct, whether they were or not.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
"Every strict classification of an historical event distorts it."

"The historian who speaks of cause, and not of causes, should be fired immediately."

-Nicolas Gomez Davila

This guy? Really? :smile:

Still doesn't change the fact that slavery was the issue for the Upper South as well as the Lower South.

I know that there are those who like to think that there was a difference, but the reading of the secession conventions of the Upper South point right back to the issue of slavery, no matter how many stats and charts are used to fog up this inescapeable, historical truth.

Now, ready for the next quote, if you please.

Unionblue
 

FrazierC

First Sergeant
Joined
Sep 20, 2012
This guy? Really? :smile:

Still doesn't change the fact that slavery was the issue for the Upper South as well as the Lower South.

I know that there are those who like to think that there was a difference, but the reading of the secession conventions of the Upper South point right back to the issue of slavery, no matter how many stats and charts are used to fog up this inescapeable, historical truth.

Now, ready for the next quote, if you please.

Unionblue
This is really random, but I like that second quote by George Santayana in your signature. I think it's a good thing for a Southerner like me to remember. :smile:
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Yes, I have read through it several times. I think you misunderstood what I meant. You implied that the Confederates were being hypocritical because they championed freedom from the Federal government, but didn't promote freedom in reference to slaves, correct? In other words, because the Confederates were denying freedom to people, they were hypocrites. What I meant was that the Confederates wouldn't have started a war if they knew they were wrong, right? Therefore, they must have thought they were correct, whether they were or not.


Is it not a fact that the CSA took 4 million human beings away from the possibility of freedom and if so, does not the CSA claim of freedom ring false is a question to ask anyone that makes any claim of freedom by the secessionists.

Are you making a special claim of freedom by the secessionists? Why do you feel it is hypocritical? In the 1860 CSA it has no relevance. Slaves were tools and had not sense or claim of freedom. In the Slave South ideology slaves enabled the freedom of white men from course labor and enabled them to peruse the finer things.

So all you have to do is say 'no'; Slaves were the tool by which White men obtained freedom. It was all about the freedom to enjoy the economic and sociological benefits of slavery.

No one starts a war they figure on losing.
 

Mason and Dixon

Retired User
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
That was not the question.

The question to Bama proud was:
Is it not a fact that you took 4 million human beings away from the possibility of freedom and if so, does not your claim of freedom ring false.
hi,
I don't think it rings 'false'.. the Confederate claim of freedom was for White Southerners, they never made a case that they were fighting to secede for the freedom of Blacks. Most wars aren't fought for magnanimous reasons, they're fought out of self-interest.. White Southerners believed their interests & control of their brand of slavery were being overwhelmed by the interests of the North, they wanted to free themselves from that perceived tyranny & loss of self-determination. What's false about that objective (?)

& the earlier responses were perfect, was the American Revolution 'false' because it was waged for the freedom of White Americans (some who were slave-holders) to extricate themselves from tyrannical White English leaders..? I don't think so. It wasn't an abolition revolution.. it was about English colonists who wanted to be free of unfair English homeland leadership.

The effort to prove how uniquely racist & hypocritical the CSA was, is boring, & it's always waged out of context from the rest of America's pre- and post- CSA history. All the Southern slave-holders were Americans before 1861, but they only then became hypocrites on 'false' freedom once they seceeded ?

America didn't mind all the slave holders who fought valiantly for America in the Revolution, War of 1812, Mexican War.. but then some of those same men suddenly are viewed as slave-holding villains as members of the CSA (?) That seems like a very hypocritical appreciation for & then against slave holders to me ~
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
hi,
I don't think it rings 'false'.. the Confederate claim of freedom was for White Southerners, they never made a case that they were fighting to secede for the freedom of Blacks. Most wars aren't fought for magnanimous reasons, they're fought out of self-interest.. White Southerners believed their interests & control of their brand of slavery were being overwhelmed by the interests of the North, they wanted to free themselves from that perceived tyranny & loss of self-determination. What's false about that objective (?)

& the earlier responses were perfect, was the American Revolution 'false' because it was waged for the freedom of White Americans (some who were slave-holders) to extricate themselves from tyrannical White English leaders..? I don't think so. It wasn't an abolition revolution.. it was about English colonists who wanted to be free of unfair English homeland leadership.

The effort to prove how uniquely racist & hypocritical the CSA was, is boring, & it's always waged out of context from the rest of America's pre- and post- CSA history. All the Southern slave-holders were Americans before 1861, but they only then became hypocrites on 'false' freedom once they seceeded ?

I am agnostic on 1860s morality. As long as were are in agreement that secession took 4 million humans away from the possibility of freedom I am satisfied. We agree that it is factually true, yes?

I don't care what labels you want to toss around or side trips or distractions you wish to take, that is the bottom line and it is a fact. Interpretation of that fact is up to the individual.

Rebellion is amoral. It is putting a question to a trial by combat. The side that wins is right.

The Southerners had a ideology that slavery was a social good, that was an example to the world of an ideal labor system. Free States were a threat to this slavery ideology and the North preferred the Free Labor ideology and the South did not have the power to impose slavery on the Free States. The South rebelled to keep its slavery ideology from threat. They figured on winning on 3 main reasons, King Cotton and foreign dependence on Cotton, short cheap war if any and the North remaining divided. The South miscalculated and lost.

Slavery made the CSA the forth richest nation on earth in 1861. Another good reason to fight for it.

Edit

The American revolution increased freedom in general, including free blacks and had the seed of freedom for all. The CSA revolution decreased freedom all over, threatened free blacks with enslavement and extinguished the seed of freedom for all.
end edit.
 

John Hartwell

Major
Forum Host
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Location
Central Massachusetts
As I've said before, from 1789-1865, the United States Constitution both recognized and protected slavery, while championing "freedom". So, the U.S. as a whole must also share a taint of hypocracy to a large degree. The majority of citizens at the time did not believe they were being hypocritical, so they were not. A hypocrite must know he is acting or advocating the opposite of what he truly believes to be right. Otherwise, he is unenlightened, and morally in error, but not hypocritical. Those who came to understand the evil and hypocracy of slavery, yet failed to speak out against it were the hypocrites.

The Confederacy's defense of slavery was not a sign of hypocracy, but of ignorance and moral backwardness -- characteristics shared at the time by a majority also in the north. On the issue of slavery, only Abolitionists could claim complete moral rectitude.

jno
 

Battalion

Banned
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Still doesn't change the fact that slavery was the issue for the Upper South as well as the Lower South.

I know that there are those who like to think that there was a difference, but the reading of the secession conventions of the Upper South point right back to the issue of slavery, no matter how many stats and charts are used to fog up this inescapeable, historical truth.

Now, ready for the next quote, if you please.

Unionblue
You're the one who is always trumpeting "facts." Except you ignore them when it they don't fit your ideas...

Vote for Convention Delegates
December 1860-February 1861
.................Secession.....Union
Total..........288,742.....369,822
......................43.8%........56.2%
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
As I've said before, from 1789-1865, the United States Constitution both recognized and protected slavery, while championing "freedom". So, the U.S. as a whole must also share a taint of hypocracy to a large degree. The majority of citizens at the time did not believe they were being hypocritical, so they were not. A hypocrite must know he is acting or advocating the opposite of what he truly believes to be right. Otherwise, he is unenlightened, and morally in error, but not hypocritical. Those who came to understand the evil and hypocracy of slavery, yet failed to speak out against it were the hypocrites.

The Confederacy's defense of slavery was not a sign of hypocracy, but of ignorance and moral backwardness -- characteristics shared at the time by a majority also in the north. On the issue of slavery, only Abolitionists could claim complete moral rectitude.

jno

Interesting.

Are you asserting that the Antebellum North ideology of Free Labor was morally equivalent to the Antebellum South ideology of chattel slavery? If so, what is your justification for this?

How is the term ignorance and moral backwardness any different from the term hypocrisy? Both appear to be modern conceits about long dead people.

Was not the Antebellum South the reason that the United States Constitution both recognized and protected slavery. Did not the Antebellum South leave the Union when the North threatened slavery. Your claims seem to be of the nature of the fellow that killed his parents and then asked the court for mercy because he was an orphan.
 

Mason and Dixon

Retired User
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
I don't care what labels you want to toss around or side trips or distractions you wish to take, that is the bottom line and it is a fact. Interpretation of that fact is up to the individual.

hi again..
what side trip did I take (?) I believe the South was fighting to preserve it's state-level control over slavery.. I stated in my post that the South was fighting for the freedom of Whites from their perception of Federal tyranny, they weren't waging a war for the freedom of Blacks.
You're caught up in trying to prove your point & curry agreement, you didn't bother to read what my response was. My point is, that attitude (of the CSA) is squarely & fairly, in the context of America's traditional worldview.. Manifest Destiny, wars w/Indians, the American Revolution, etc. White Americans, like every ethnic group on Earth, puts their self-interests above others.. so what (?) peace.
 

Battalion

Banned
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Interesting.

Are you asserting that the Antebellum North ideology of Free Labor was morally equivalent to the Antebellum South ideology of chattel slavery? If so, what is your justification for this?
The antebellum north ideology was free white labor.
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
jgoodguy said:
Interesting.

Are you asserting that the Antebellum North ideology of Free Labor was morally equivalent to the Antebellum South ideology of chattel slavery? If so, what is your justification for this?​
The antebellum north ideology was free white labor.

OK, The question is now.

Are you asserting that the Antebellum North ideology of Free White Labor was morally equivalent to the Antebellum South ideology of chattel slavery? If so, what is your justification for this?
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
hi again..
what side trip did I take (?) I believe the South was fighting to preserve it's state-level control over slavery.. I stated in my post that the South was fighting for the freedom of Whites from their perception of Federal tyranny, they weren't waging a war for the freedom of Blacks.
You're caught up in trying to prove your point & curry agreement, you didn't bother to read what my response was. My point is, that attitude (of the CSA) is squarely & fairly, in the context of America's traditional worldview.. Manifest Destiny, wars w/Indians, the American Revolution, etc. White Americans, like every ethnic group on Earth, puts their self-interests above others.. so what (?) peace.

Never heard of point & curry agreement.

 

ole

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Near Kankakee
Hmm. If Charleston wanted to compete with New York, Charleston needed better harbor facilities and all the infrastructure improvements needed to build and repair ships, lighthouses, river and harbor dredging, docks, warehouses, etc. They'd also need to improve connections to the rest of whatever country they were going to be in, along with all the required supporting industry for ships and RRs and the rest. All of this requires investment of large sums, and South Carolina seems opposed to the concept of such spending by government. Who does the author of the article say will be paying?

Then there's the whole question of why all those ships would be coming to Charleston. I am sure they will come when there is cotton to buy, or maybe rice. That would give us a reason for about 10-12 weeks/year, I suppose. What will these fleets of merchantmen be coming to Charleston for the rest of the year? Does the author of this Charleston Mercury piece tell us that?

While we're at it, who wrote this? Is it an editorial? Is it a letter to the editor?

Tim
Beat me to it. Obvious naivete.
 

Carronade

Captain
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Location
Pennsylvania
How is the term ignorance and moral backwardness any different from the term hypocrisy?

There is a tendency in these discussions to throw words around without regard to details like their actual meaning, but words do have specific definitions which can be looked up in the dictionary, though in this case John Hartwell stated it correctly. "something bad" is not automatically equivalent to "something else bad".
 

John Hartwell

Major
Forum Host
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Location
Central Massachusetts
Interesting.

Are you asserting that the Antebellum North ideology of Free Labor was morally equivalent to the Antebellum South ideology of chattel slavery? If so, what is your justification for this?

How is the term ignorance and moral backwardness any different from the term hypocrisy? Both appear to be modern conceits about long dead people.

Was not the Antebellum South the reason that the United States Constitution both recognized and protected slavery. Did not the Antebellum South leave the Union when the North threatened slavery. Your claims seem to be of the nature of the fellow that killed his parents and then asked the court for mercy because he was an orphan.


1. The antebellum north was willing to tolerate that southern ideology, thus it shared moral responsibility for it.
2. As I stated, hypocrisy must be self-aware, otherwise it is simply error, ignorance, etc. In view of the general trend of Western thought in regards to slavery by the mid-19th slavery, wasn't the southern ideology "morally backward?" Some in the south were, indeed hypocritical, in that they knew slavery for a moral evil, but adhered to it because it was economically beneficial to them. It was their influence that encouraged the backwardness of the rest.
3. There were elements in the north (Abolitionists), who threatened slavery. "The north" did not. The south claimed it did either because they sincerely believed it, or for their own cynical political purposes (I think both apply to different segments of the southern population). I'm afraid I don't see where your 'orphan' enters the picture.

Cheers!

jno
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
1. The antebellum north was willing to tolerate that southern ideology, thus it shared moral responsibility for it.
2. As I stated, hypocrisy must be self-aware, otherwise it is simply error, ignorance, etc. In view of the general trend of Western thought in regards to slavery by the mid-19th slavery, wasn't the southern ideology "morally backward?" Some in the south were, indeed hypocritical, in that they knew slavery for a moral evil, but adhered to it because it was economically beneficial to them. It was their influence that encouraged the backwardness of the rest.
3. There were elements in the north (Abolitionists), who threatened slavery. "The north" did not. The south claimed it did either because they sincerely believed it, or for their own cynical political purposes (I think both apply to different segments of the southern population). I'm afraid I don't see where your 'orphan' enters the picture.

Cheers!

jno

I personally find figuring out the morals of long dead folks futile. You seem insistent in opining about hypocrisy, when the only person using the term is you.

The Antebellum North, by its Free(White) Labor ideology did threaten slavery. Its politics of Popular Sovereignty threatened slavery.

Road to Session Vol 2 P 273
P273.jpg


In short, if the Antebellum North is not actively supporting slavery, because slavery demands a huge investment in political and social terms and the North has this Free Labor ideology, the Antebellum North is a threat to slavery.
 
Top