Restricted Debate The Case of the South against the North


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

uaskme

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
2,263
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

We will forgive you for not being an Accountant or Economist.

Just think of Sumpter as being a Tax Revolt. Here come the Tax Collectors. I'm an Accountant. I would of jerked the Lanyard. Part of the Romance of the Confederacy.

As far as believing the Secessionist. You have to believe Honest Abe. Just look at him. That chiseled face. Got to believe him. The Emancipation Proclamation re-enslaved more people than it Freeded, which was few. When he ended Slavery in DC, he held off for a few days, so his friend could remove his Slave Servants. Then he apologized to the whites who were left without their Servants. Completely Understandable for a White Supremacist.

In the end, I think he was trying to make good his Campaign Promise. Leave Slavery alone where it existed. A truthful Politician up to the time he expire with Lead Poisoning.
 

leftyhunter

Colonel
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,788
Location
los angeles ca
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 not backup plan other than war.
To be fair to the Southern Commissioners either the Confederacy becomes independent or it does not. It doesn't look right for their to be a President of the Confederacy who tolerates " foreign troops on it's soil who are not allies. The old saying " either fish or cut bait"applies.

We will forgive you for not being an Accountant or Economist.

Just think of Sumpter as being a Tax Revolt. Here come the Tax Collectors. I'm an Accountant. I would of jerked the Lanyard. Part of the Romance of the Confederacy.

As far as believing the Secessionist. You have to believe Honest Abe. Just look at him. That chiseled face. Got to believe him. The Emancipation Proclamation re-enslaved more people than it Freeded, which was few. When he ended Slavery in DC, he held off for a few days, so his friend could remove his Slave Servants. Then he apologized to the whites who were left without their Servants. Completely Understandable for a White Supremacist.

In the end, I think he was trying to make good his Campaign Promise. Leave Slavery alone where it existed. A truthful Politician up to the time he expire with Lead Poisoning.
Not true at all. Tariffs were actually historically low prior to Secession. If Southerners were truly upset about tariffs they would of seceded when tariffs were much higher.
The Secessionists clearly stated that Slavery was the cause of the Civil War but modern day apologists don't want to believe them.
How exactly did the EP cause more people to be enslaved?
Leftyhunter
 

Eric Calistri

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 31, 2012
Messages
3,086
Location
Austin Texas
The bottom line about the “ negotiation” is that the consitutuional means already existed to discuss any and all issues, the Congress and the courts. By removing themselves from these, the secessionists, purposefully, made any “negotiating” impossible, unless the Constitution and laws of the US were to be ignored.

I know a lot of people are heavily invested in denying this. But that is what it is.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,711
Location
Laurinburg NC
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.
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.
I see, so there was oppressive law, after all, the law as Lincoln and his Republican Party hacks chose to interpret it.
 

uaskme

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
2,263
To be fair to the Southern Commissioners either the Confederacy becomes independent or it does not. It doesn't look right for their to be a President of the Confederacy who tolerates " foreign troops on it's soil who are not allies. The old saying " either fish or cut bait"applies.


Not true at all. Tariffs were actually historically low prior to Secession. If Southerners were truly upset about tariffs they would of seceded when tariffs were much higher.
The Secessionists clearly stated that Slavery was the cause of the Civil War but modern day apologists don't want to believe them.
How exactly did the EP cause more people to be enslaved?
Leftyhunter
Look at the Territory he exempted from it. He kept in Slavery everone he could of Freeded except SC Coastal area and those who crossed over and Joined up. Many in LA, TN and MS river area had walked off the job at the sound of the guns. They were exempted from the EP

Protective Tariffs were supposed to be Temporary. They were made permanent and expanded.
 
Last edited:

jgoodguy

.
-*- Mime -*-
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,538
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
To be fair to the Southern Commissioners either the Confederacy becomes independent or it does not. It doesn't look right for their to be a President of the Confederacy who tolerates " foreign troops on it's soil who are not allies. The old saying " either fish or cut bait"applies.

/QUOTE]
I'd like it better if the Confederate apologists puffed out their chests and said we went to get the Yankee to surrender instead of all the usual run around.

IMHO it was not independence they wanted but immediate independence.
 

TnFed

Sergeant
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
920
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
The lower rate of slaves in Eastern TN. would seem to back up your view.
 

Lost Cause

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
Messages
3,036
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 not backup plan other than war.
Do you have a source where this demand was indicated?
 

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,612
Location
Midwest
In his inaugural address, Lincoln practically threatens an invasion of the South if he is not able to collect the duties and imposts (tariffs).
A country can't invade itself. It was still all the United States at that point, every state of which was equally expected to pay duties and tariffs or risk penalties. Can one just decide to stop paying their mortgage without consequence?
 

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,612
Location
Midwest
The North wanted their taxes and the South wanted their Independence.
As if the South, as an independent nation, didn't also demand taxes of its populace. As if any nation, including the United States, didn't want independence.

This Lost Cause stuff is getting ridiculous. There was no nation of Lost Cause. It was a post-war self-serving amalgation of desperation. Closest thing to it today are some spiteful U.S. Citizens who don't have conviction enough to renounce the comfort of their U.S. Citizenship to embrace the precepts of the Confederacy still, being by definition traitorous to their own pretend cause. Anyway, who wants to own human beings anymore besides criminals? Such a shattered hoax. Pity it.
 
Last edited:

wbull1

First Sergeant
Official Vendor
Joined
Jul 26, 2018
Messages
1,047
We will forgive you for not being an Accountant or Economist.

Just think of Sumpter as being a Tax Revolt. Here come the Tax Collectors. I'm an Accountant. I would of jerked the Lanyard. Part of the Romance of the Confederacy.

As far as believing the Secessionist. You have to believe Honest Abe. Just look at him. That chiseled face. Got to believe him. The Emancipation Proclamation re-enslaved more people than it Freeded, which was few. When he ended Slavery in DC, he held off for a few days, so his friend could remove his Slave Servants. Then he apologized to the whites who were left without their Servants. Completely Understandable for a White Supremacist.

In the end, I think he was trying to make good his Campaign Promise. Leave Slavery alone where it existed. A truthful Politician up to the time he expire with Lead Poisoning.
I think there is another series of posts about the EP. The argument for re-enslaving, if I understand it correctly, is that some blacks were forced to work against their will. Some were mistreated. Agreed. Some white army officers abused the blacks under their control. The argument against re-enslavement is that children born to the blacks were no longer pieces of property and did not belong to someone else. Wives and husbands could not be sold and separated possibly forever from one another against their will. Blacks now had the ability to petition legal authorities about grievances. In my opinion, the mistreatment of some, which absolutely happened, does not change the effect of the EP, i.e. imperfect surely but still emancipation from the worst aspects of slavery.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,639
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
The argument reminds me of a fan dancer.

The one fan is the tariff, the other is secession, both attempting to hide what is clearly slavery dancing behind the fans. By waving these fans and trying to place them in a strategic manner, we are to somehow to accept the notion that slavery had nothing to do with secession.

Problem is. as with any fan dancer, we all KNOW what's behind the fans.
 

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
10,090
As if the South, as an independent nation, didn't also demand taxes of its populace. As if any nation, including the United States, didn't want independence.

This Lost Cause stuff is getting ridiculous. There was no nation of Lost Cause. It was a post-war self-serving amalgation of desperation. Closest thing to it today are some spiteful U.S. Citizens who don't have conviction enough to renounce the comfort of their U.S. Citizenship to embrace the precepts of the Confederacy still, being by definition traitorous to their own pretend cause. Anyway, who wants to own human beings anymore besides criminals? Such a shattered hoax. Pity it.
You don't have to read it if you don't like it.
 

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
10,090
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.
Those fire-eaters in the North wanted all the slaves.
 


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