The Real Cause of Secession

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

NedBaldwin

Major
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
California
Well, I have certainly never seen you criticize the US for it slave-owning. That, oddly, seems to be reserved for the CSA only.
This thread is about the causes of secession, something done by the CSA, so naturally I am focused on the CSA here
And since this is a forum about the Civil War, a time when the US ended slavery but the CSA fought for it, my criticisms do favor freedom
Nonetheless a lot of different threads I've posted in over 9 years, so you will find my criticism of slavery in the US where it fits the topic
 

seboyle

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 11, 2010
Location
Squamish, B.C.
All I see in your response is that you, as the governing authority, will decide what is and is not just. That reduces the promise of the DOI into a meaningless jumble of useless words. No thank you.

And here you go again, making demands of me that I identify and define what was unjust. How about this instead; you demonstrate to me what was just about the constitutional order of 1860.
Lol so you can't/won't answer.

That doesn't surprise me. It's far more difficult to say what something is, to explain in depth and give something substance, than it is to snipe from the outside without backing up claims or providing evidence.

I notice it's a frequent tactic of yours to avoid answering and to reply with another question. That only works for a while though, eventually people will see that you don't have the courage to back your convictions. Despite that, yes, I will demonstrate what was just about the political order in 1860. I have to pop out for a bit but I'll do it when I get back, shouldn't be much more than an hour or two.

In the meantime, if you would be so kind, would you mind formulating something, anything, on what made the CSA more just than the Union. Please. Otherwise we continue going nowhere. If I write out why the Union in 1860 was just will you explain why it was not and why the CSA was more just? Thanks in advance.
 

major bill

Colonel
Forum Host
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
So you too condemn, without qualification, the New England slave-traffickers?
There is a reason why most shipping in North American came out of New England. Most cotton shipped to Europe came out of Northern ports, as was most other goods. This was the prevailing trade winds.
tade winds.jpg


So a slave ship that left South Carolina to catch the trade winds, would have sailed empty or with some goods to unload in New England. Doing so would add time and cost to going to Africa to get slaves. A slave ship from the South would have to recover these costs. A slave ship sailing from New England had a cost advantage. All shipping to Europe and Africa originating in New England had a cost advantage because of the prevailing trade winds. Prior to the Civil War there was no secret conspiracy of Northern ports picking on Southern ports when it came to shipping items to Europe, Southern ports were at a cost disadvantage. This is why the pre war South did not ship much cotton directly to Europe.This cost advantage did included slave ships.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

seboyle

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 11, 2010
Location
Squamish, B.C.
All I see in your response is that you, as the governing authority, will decide what is and is not just.
Actually, before I go, this is incorrect, this is not what's happening at all. I am merely holding you to account for an erroneous claim you made earlier - that there was 'right' to revolution in this specific instance.

The thing is, if you're going to use rights based language and the philosophy of rights then I think it's OK for me to point out where that must go wrong in this case. Rather than being the authority I am explaining to you what the actual authorities on this subject would say.
 

NedBaldwin

Major
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
California
There is a reason why most shipping in North American came out of New England. Most cotton shipped to Europe came out of Northern ports, as was most other goods. This was the prevailing trade winds.
View attachment 352384

So a slave ship that left South Carolina to catch the trade winds, would have sailed empty or with some goods to unload in New England. Doing so would add time and cost to going to Africa to get slaves. A slave ship from the South would have to recover these costs. A slave ship sailing from New England had a cost advantage. All shipping to Europe and Africa originating in New England had a cost advantage because of the prevailing trade winds. Prior to the Civil War there was no secret conspiracy of Northern ports picking on Southern ports when it came to shipping items to Europe, Southern ports were at a cost disadvantage. This is why the pre war South did not ship much cotton directly to Europe.This cost advantage did included slave ships.
wouldnt the the southern based ship have the advantage on the return journay?
and isnt this why there was a "triangular" trade?
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Eric Calistri

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 31, 2012
Location
Austin Texas
Answer or don’t. I couldn’t care less.

I agree. You couldn't care less about history.

But prove me wrong by answering the questions from my initial response.


As per #1206 above:

1) You seem to be stating that 100% of the slaves were transported by "New England slave-traffickers." Is that actually true?

2) Weren't the Dutch, British, Portugese and Spanish transporting slaves as well?

3) Is your apparent insistence that "New England slave-traffickers" are the only responsible parties based on historical analysis?

4) If so, can you provide that?


Answer these and I will gladly answer yours.

Or just continue with the duck and cover.
 

major bill

Colonel
Forum Host
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
😂😂😂 So the infamous slave-trading Brown family of Rhode Island dealt in slaves because of the wind, not for the money.

Who knew?
So you chose to completely ignore the trade winds having any impact on shipping? This shows me you simply are not serious about the slave trade. Also using insulting emojis is probably a violation of the rules. I did not insult you and see no reason you would insult me instead of discussing the issue.
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Eric Calistri

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 31, 2012
Location
Austin Texas
[QUOTE="Duncan, post: 2220589, member: 30056"]
I agree. You don’t care so much as a fig leaf for history. But please, by all means continue to bob weave to avoid the hard realities of New England’s role in establishing slavery in America. Answer or don’t answer, I couldn’t care less.
[/QUOTE]

Tell you what I will go ahead and provide the answers to the questions you have been evading. You can thank me later.

1) You seem to be stating that 100% of the slaves were transported by "New England slave-traffickers." Is that actually true?

No. USA flagged vessels embarked less than 3% of the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade.

2) Weren't the Dutch, British, Portugese and Spanish transporting slaves as well?

Yes. In fact those nations moved 85% of the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade.

3) Is your apparent insistence that "New England slave-traffickers" are the only responsible parties based on historical analysis?

No. It's an emotional need to blame someone, anyone, other than the slave owners who seceded to protect their wealth.

4) If so, can you provide that?

No. see above.
 

NedBaldwin

Major
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
California
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

seboyle

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 11, 2010
Location
Squamish, B.C.
😂😂. You can’t answer so you write this vacuous nonsense.
Ummm no, I said i was going out and would answer when I got back. Here it is, as promised. I don't duck questions.

And you don’t make demands of me, I make them of you.
Demands? This is a discussion forum, asking a question of you for clarification is not making demands, it's how a discussion board works. If someone asks a question of you it's only polite, and in the spirit of a discussion, to try and answer it so that we can get closer to the bottom of what is being discussed.

As for you making demands of me, sure, whatever floats your rather strange boat. You ask, I'll answer. But it would also be useful if occasionally you could do the same.

So, here's why (with one or two rather glaring exceptions) the Union was just.

As per the DOI, a just government is one in which there is government by consent (in some basis or other) but one in which the rights of individual's are protected against both the government and the ruling majority.

1) The Union protected individual rights through the Bill of Rights and the workings of the USSC and also through other systemic ideas such as the separation of powers.
2) There was the consent of the governed through elections, which allowed for future change in cases where one person's or one group's interests (but not rights) might be subordinated to another's through democratic rule.
3) The Constitution itself made provision for amendments so that it could also change with the times.

Where was it not just? Women's rights, the treatment of First Nations and, do I need to spell this out for you? S L A V E R Y.

Was it perfectly just? Hell no, but that might never be a realistic goal. Was it as just as any form of government that had hitherto existed? I would say yes. It contained injustice because hard choices and compromises had to be made in order to get it ratified (and you know who caused those hard choices and all that compromise?) but it also contained enough room for amendment and change that it could continue to slowly move towards greater justice.

Now, there's my reasoning why the Union was reasonably just. How about you tell us how the CSA would have been more so, how it would have improved the aggregate amount of justice in the system? Or is that too demanding of me to ask you that?
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
I am genuinely stunned at the questions asked and the focus of your post.

I'm shocked that you're stunned! (Come on, @Duncan, you're about as stunned as I am by your reply.)

How is it that you are not lamenting the inhumane treatment of the slaves, as you do when Southern slavery is discussed?

I have, I will, and always will be. ANYONE involved in the slave trade is scum, in my own opinion, New England slave ship captains and Southern slaveholders, Northern slave catchers, etc., you name them, doesn't matter where or who they are, they're all wrong to practice the trade.

When Southern slavery is discussed, you do not ask questions about how much money changed hands between North and South, you do not ask how much cotton Boston textile mills purchased, nor do you ask how much sugar Philadelphia sugar refineries purchased. All the emphasis is on the inhumanity of Southern slavers. Indeed, you even, somehow, cooly ignore the suffering of the slaves in Kentucky, Missouri, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, and West Virginia.

You are incorrect in your assumptions above. Slavery is a NATIONAL sin, but the facts speak for themselves if we listen. And I do.


Why is that? I'm just curious.

I am curious why you do not answer direct questions concerning the very facts you yourself make in your posts.

Like, who is the more guilty of the sin of slavery? New England carriers? Southern slave dealers? Or Southern slaveholders on the plantations?

Did any slave buyers in Charleston refuse New England slave ship captains when they offered their human cargo for sale?

Like I said, unless their is a market, there is no supply.
All I can sumize is that you are reluctant to address the fact that the need for slaves was powered by Southern demand for them. You wish to condemn everyone else involved with the trade, but pointedly, time after time, refuse to acknowledge the demand from Southern slaveholders for more slaves. This, even long after slavery was diminished in the North by 1860, but yet increased in the South during the same period.

I wish you would be more honest and recognize the historical, proven fact, that slavery, the fear of it being restricted and eventually abolished in the South, brought on unilateral secession and the Civil War.

Until our next post,
Unionblue
 

major bill

Colonel
Forum Host
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
So you chose to completely ignore the trade winds having any impact on shipping? This shows me you simply are not serious about the slave trade. Also using insulting emojis is probably a violation of the rules. I did not insult you and see no reason you would insult me instead of discussing the issue.


So you choose to ignore the profit motive of the Rhode Island Brown family to engage in the slave-trade? That tells me you are simply not serious about discussing the slave-trade. And the suggestion that it was the wind that motivated the Rhode Island Browns, and not the money, is insulting.
[/QUOTE]

I posted a reasonable post to which you responded by insulting me. All business North and South are motivated by profit. Northern ports had an advantage is all I said and you respond by insulting me. Also using bold type is insulting and against the rules.

Your main purpose of posting appears to be to insult and belittle people. I would put this in bold, but that would be insulting, and against the rules. The US slave trade ended decades prior to the Civil War so has little impact on the OP. The Northern states ended slavery on their own. The South seceded because they wanted to continue the vile and loathsome practice of slavery forever. I for one am glad they the South was forced to end this sickening, , disgusting, inhumane practice so that slavery is still not a part of North America today. Without the Civil War slavery would have lasted another 100+ years
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Eric Calistri

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 31, 2012
Location
Austin Texas
Tell you what I will go ahead and provide the answers to the questions you have been evading. You can thank me later.

1) You seem to be stating that 100% of the slaves were transported by "New England slave-traffickers." Is that actually true?

No. USA flagged vessels embarked less than 3% of the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade.

2) Weren't the Dutch, British, Portugese and Spanish transporting slaves as well?

Yes. In fact those nations moved 85% of the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade.

3) Is your apparent insistence that "New England slave-traffickers" are the only responsible parties based on historical analysis?

No. It's an emotional need to blame someone, anyone, other than the slave owners who seceded to protect their wealth.

4) If so, can you provide that?

No. see above.
Assuming the above isn't pure garbage, which I certainly do not, that in no way excuses the New England slave-traffickers for their foul and sadistic practices. I have no idea why you think it does. The questions, and "answers" are, therefore, utterly worthless. And you can thank me later.
[/QUOTE]


If you can quote me excusing "the New England slave-traffickers for their foul and sadistic practices" please do so.

It seems a real shame that all the folks who spent years compiling ships logs and manifests to create the database I used to produce the above numbers and table are written off by you as "garbage" and "utterly worthless." I'd say those two terms much more aptly describe what you have posted above.

Please look at the data, and provide whatever learned criticisms have led you to so slander the results.

 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
I can only assume that you refuse to address the fact that it was greed that motivated the Northern slave-traders because you wish to pursue the tired and worn-out "North good, South bad" interpretation of history. I wish you would be more honest and recognize the proven historical fact that Northerners kidnapped Africans from their homes, chained them in the bowels of filthy slave-ships, then sold them into slavery in Kentucky, for profit. And that means they were guilty of some of the most severe human rights abuses in the history of humanity. And it also means they established slavery in the US, which means that New England slave-trading was the real cause of secession.
@Duncan ,

You are going to assume what you want in order to avoid staying on topic and answering questions posed to you.

It is clear your agenda is to throw sand in history's eyes, dodge any attempt at real discussion in order to foist a false agenda on what clearly caused Southern secession.

The sad thing is, you are not accomplishing anything in the way of historical debate or learning by employing such tactics. Your claims have been proven to be wrong by other member's posts which contain actual evidence and sources, which you ignore, over and over again.

I am of the opinion that you serve no useful function here nor contribute to any real learning about the Civil War and it's causes.

You disappoint me, as I feel you have great potential and could contribute much in the way of factual debate here. But it appears all you wish to do is "win." And that type of attitude makes everyone lose.

Henceforth, I will no longer address your posts or replies nor participate in any of the threads you create.

I'm too old to play games that only show points instead of new learning.

Unionblue
 

major bill

Colonel
Forum Host
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
I posted a reasonable post you responded by insulting me. So all business North and South are motivated by profit. Northern ports had an advantage is all I said. Also using bold type is insulting. Your main purpose of posting appears to be to insult and belittle people. I would put this in bold, but that would be insulting.

It was you who insulted me. I just responded in kind. And please, by all means, put your next post in bold type. I would welcome it. And it would certainly be less insulting that the giant pictures you posted.
[/QUOTE]

What was in in post #1,286 that so insulted you, an image of the prevailing trade winds? Anyway it is probably best if you take my insulting image to the moderators.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top