Restricted Debate The Case of the South against the North

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

wbull1

First Sergeant
Official Vendor
Joined
Jul 26, 2018
Messages
1,077
Understand your point. Although I see it as "official path" could be done if you are seceding, then again you could always be told "NO". If you are revolting, then "official path" really doesn't mean much. Win and you are out. Regardless, without having to dot every I, cross every t, curve every s, in an "official" way, it sure wouldn't have hurt to have some unofficial dialog and not of the Seward type.

If you look at it in a non-biased way, with an open mind, the CSA believed they had seceded. Obviously they also knew that Lincoln could possibly do something about it if he chose. The back and forth with Seward. Hope one day, despair the next. Positive from Seward, then wishy washy the next day. Gossip about ships gathering, a potential plan in place. More hot/cold from Seward. The way I see it the commissioners were there for a reason, and I don't see it as just having the US "Surrender" as some like to say. IMO them being there and showing a willingness to talk also means they may be willing to compromise, at least some. Lincoln would have none of it, which was his right and decision.

So you get down to near the end of the crisis with rumor's, rejection, then the note to Pickens, and a re-supply on the way. They knew the game was up and winning by the sword was nearly the only option left. I do believe the CSA hoped to secede or leave in peace but were preparing for what would happen with rejection. I wouldn't call that war mongering, I'd call that a smart contingency plan, after all it was all about Independence. An Independence that was short lived by a perfect storm of shot and shell.

That's is a good summary. Seward must have frustrated the daylights out of the commissioners. The "fire-eaters" in the South wanted a war and pushed hard for it for decades. They did not hold positions of power, but their constant agitation in favor of war, I believe, made the idea more acceptable.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

leftyhunter

Colonel
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,820
Location
los angeles ca
What you dont understand and what I have said numerous times. The above document explains it, to those who WILL read. The protective tariff stayed it the North, because the manufacture was in the North. It was a Sectional Issue. Citizens from both Sections would of consumed the Tax. But the revenue would of gone to the Manufacture. The Job would of Stayed in the North. The benefit would of been to the North.

Confederacy imposed taxes. But those revenues would of stayed in the South. The Benefit would of stayed in the South, support to the AG produced or Manufactures product. The Farm job and Manufacturing job would on been supported, which was in the South.

Republicans made the Protective Tariff an issue until the Great Depression. It was Trickle Down Economics on Steroids.
Therefore Southern men were willing to die so they could save a dollar or two on buying a French dress for their sweethearts?
We should absolutely ignore the fact that residents in all states payed tariffs but only in the states that had the most slaves per capita did the majority of white men fight for the Confederacy?
We should ignore the Ordinances of Secession that mentioned slavery?
We should ignore the fact the lower the rate of slaves was in a Southern county the higher the rate of Unionists and Union enlistment was?
Leftyhunter
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,529
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Thanks for your response.
Only so long as the two parties refused to negotiate on the single point of union.
IMHO the Southern Commissioners could have negotiated through Justice Cambell side issues for some time. It is possible they could have negotiated protocols to reduce tensions. They, however, marched into Washington demanding the surrender of Sumter and Pickens plus independence or war, figuring they had their heel on the Yankee neck and Lincoln would give up. When disabused of that notion they had no backup plan other than war.
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,529
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Therefore Southern men were willing to die so they could save a dollar or two on buying a French dress for their sweethearts?
We should absolutely ignore the fact that residents in all states payed tariffs but only in the states that had the most slaves per capita did the majority of white men fight for the Confederacy?
We should ignore the Ordinances of Secession that mentioned slavery?
We should ignore the fact the lower the rate of slaves was in a Southern county the higher the rate of Unionists and Union enlistment was?
Leftyhunter
And the CSA had tariffs too, unlike the US both on imports and exports(forbidden under the US Constitution).
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,788
Location
Laurinburg NC
Please list the laws passed by the Lincoln administration that forced the suffering Southern States to secede.
You know, come to think of it, I don't remember Lincoln mentioning that the seceded states had violated a specific Constitution clause or law. Perhaps I should edit my earlier post to read: Southerners felt that Lincoln and his party's so-called free soil policy would make the North so politically dominate that nothing but oppressive laws affecting Southern interests would be forthcoming.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,529
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
That would"t be a compromise that would be the submission by the Confederate States.
There were lots of possibilities, but an inexperienced Davis sent inexperienced diplomats with a single possibility. Immediate independence, surrender of Sumter and Pickens or war. That also happened with CSA diplomacy in general; arrogance and inexperience got failure. Once the facts of this mission are confronted, then we can argue that the Southerners had and an excellent chance of getting independence dejure or defacto, a President Steward would have folded. Many possible Union presidents would have folded. However, the single-mindedness was a disaster under Lincoln. A bit of flexibility could have gotten months to prepare and even defacto independence.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,788
Location
Laurinburg NC
There were lots of possibilities, but an inexperienced Davis sent inexperienced diplomats with a single possibility. Immediate independence, surrender of Sumter and Pickens or war. That also happened with CSA diplomacy in general; arrogance and inexperience got failure. Once the facts of this mission are confronted, then we can argue that the Southerners had and an excellent chance of getting independence dejure or defacto, a President Steward would have folded. Many possible Union presidents would have folded. However, the single-mindedness was a disaster under Lincoln. A bit of flexibility could have gotten months to prepare and even defacto independence.
I doubt it. Lincoln loved the South, slaves and all too much, to part with them without a fight. :unsure:
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,529
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Like the US wartime income tax and apparent economic necessity to raise money to fund the war.
The US never confiscated the means of livelihood for widows and orphans like the Confederates sequestration acts or sent armed gangs out to take by force farmers harvests.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,788
Location
Laurinburg NC
It did matter, Davis' folly united the North into angry rage militaire`.
Once Davis was convinced Lincoln meant war, don't you reckon his more immediate concern was doubling his white population by bringing in the four upper-South states than about a bunch of enraged Yankees?
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,788
Location
Laurinburg NC
The US never confiscated the means of livelihood for widows and orphans like the Confederates sequestration acts or sent armed gangs out to take by force farmers harvests.
The war, for the most part, wasn't fought on Northern soil the north had plenty of problems, but they were a different sort than the South.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,529
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
You know, come to think of it, I don't remember Lincoln mentioning that the seceded states had violated a specific Constitution clause or law. Perhaps I should edit my earlier post to read: Southerners felt that Lincoln and his party's so-called free soil policy would make the North so politically dominate that nothing but oppressive laws affecting Southern interests would be forthcoming.
Lincoln said in his inaugural

Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.​
I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.​
Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as acontract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it--break it, so to speak--but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it​
It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.​
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I can not be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the National Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution--which amendment, however, I have not seen--has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.​
In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices.​
Davis said give me or war.
 
Top