The Slave States Seceded to Protect Slavery--The Rest is Baloney

[unionblue]

The worst cause a people ever fought for.

Agree to that.What I am trying to understand is the question of what caused this nation to divide into two hostile sections over so many generations of being one ,To say that it was just one issue is to say that every war that man has fought since time emortal is due to one and only one main cause.OR at one mark on a calendar.Jefferson was a prophet of the South ,one who taught state 's authority, not rights.This became a montra of Southern politics ,To the rural farmer of the South ,Jefferson and regional/states authority subsided central authority.What would drive these people into the radical sectionionist is the fear of NorthernCentral authority over these states.The war came with one statment,just leave us to our own life style and do not threaten us with submission to your rule.What happen was that the North was no longer to be threaten with succession and secession was the only way that the South was sure of achieving this .No more land ,fear of losing political control and generations from 1787 to 1856 of differences.The worse cause was not slavery but that neither side finally could resolve the issues that divided the two.BOOK=']The FIELD of Blood -violence in Congress and the road to Civil WAR=Joanne B. Freeman'' Disease of the Public Mind=Thomas Fleming and HEIRS of the FOUNDERS =H.W. Brands

Might I suggest the book, Lincoln & the Politics of Slavery: The Other Thirteenth Amendment and the Struggle to Save the Union, by Daniel W. Crofts.

It speaks to the idea of the Southern leadership inflaming the population of the South with false stories of the North wanting to abolish slavery, while the North stated over and over again that it had no right to interfere with slavery in the states where it already existed.

Unionblue

 

[unionblue]

The North Threatened Secession at least 5 times prior to 1850. Over the Mexican War for example. The Minority used the Threat of secession, both North and South. So, this Union thing had problems from the Beginning. The North was Invested in Slavery as much as the South was. To say the North didn’t have Slavery would be like saying Spain didn’t have Slavery because it was in Cuba. So, the Baloney answer to this Thread is that the war was only about Slavery.

I’ve just purchased Disease of the Public Mind. Haven’t read ir yet.

Does not disprove the already established fact that the issue of slavery caused Southern secession. Continually suggesting that the leaders of Southern secession said otherwise is simply calling them liars in the face of their own stated reason for secession.

 

[CSA Today]

Nope, I couldn't.

Selfish and arrogant purposes to enslave a people forever prevents me making such a "precedent."

Nope, I couldn't.

Selfish and arrogant purposes to enslave a people forever prevents me making such a "precedent."

What about those “patriot” secessionists of 1776 whose reason for rebellion was his majesty's government refused to support their gobbling up Indian lands in the Ohio Valley.? What about the "patriot” trans-Atlantic slave traders, and slave owner, (North and South) signers of the Declaration of Independence who favoured ending slavery but not during their lifetime? It seems such rebellions were justified only if Yankeestan was aboard with their dreams of a distant future.
“The flag which he [my grandfather, Francis Scott Key] had then so proudly hailed, I saw waving at the same place over the victims of as vulgar and brutal despotism as modern times have witnessed.”
Francis Key Howard, a prisoner of Lincoln at Fort McHenry, 1861

 

[unionblue]

What about those “patriot” secessionists of 1776 whose reason for rebellion was his majesty's government refused to support their gobbling up Indian lands in the Ohio Valley.? What about the "patriot” trans-Atlantic slave traders, and slave owner, (North and South) signers of the Declaration of Independence who favoured ending slavery but not during their lifetime? It seems such rebellions were justified only if Yankeestan was aboard with their dreams of a distant future.
“The flag which he [my grandfather, Francis Scott Key] had then so proudly hailed, I saw waving at the same place over the victims of as vulgar and brutal despotism as modern times have witnessed.”
Francis Key Howard, a prisoner of Lincoln at Fort McHenry, 1861

First, wrong label.

Revolutionaries, not "secessionists."

Second, why is it so hard to focus on the years 1861-1865? Why the desperate need to declare "Something shiny over there!" in another century, and the lack of ability to face the facts of another?

It seems to me the desperate use of labels (Yankeestan) belies a frustration of being able toi provide supporting evidence that the Confederacy's primary goal when it seceded from the Union was the preservation of slavery.

No one here has denied that the North was perfect or that the history of the United States is flawed and has defects.

But the continual cry "They did it too!" is not going to change the facts of the Southern Confederacy's reason for secession.

To keep human beings in bondage for the MONEY.

Unionblue

 

[CSA Today]

First, wrong label.

Revolutionaries, not "secessionists."

Second, why is it so hard to focus on the years 1861-1865? Why the desperate need to declare "Something shiny over there!" in another century, and the lack of ability to face the facts of another?

It seems to me the desperate use of labels (Yankeestan) belies a frustration of being able toi provide supporting evidence that the Confederacy's primary goal when it seceded from the Union was the preservation of slavery.

No one here has denied that the North was perfect or that the history of the United States is flawed and has defects.

But the continual cry "They did it too!" is not going to change the facts of the Southern Confederacy's reason for secession.

To keep human beings in bondage for the MONEY.

Unionblue

It was money for whatever you want to call them signers in 1776 too.

 

[DanSBHawk]

It was money for whatever you want to call them signers in 1776 too.

No, not really. If they had representation like the later slavery secessionists, they most likely would not have started a revolution.

 

[John S. Carter]

Might I suggest the book, Lincoln & the Politics of Slavery: The Other Thirteenth Amendment and the Struggle to Save the Union, by Daniel W. Crofts.

It speaks to the idea of the Southern leadership inflaming the population of the South with false stories of the North wanting to abolish slavery, while the North stated over and over again that it had no right to interfere with slavery in the states where it already existed.

Unionblue

Thank you for the information. The book that I really recommend is "Disease of the Public Mind ," author Thomas Fleming.It is a book that is about how the public of both North and South were influenced over the years by the events and what they read from books,papers.and what we term as other media sources.After reading think if you see any similarities of then and today.or any other times in history where the people were persuaded by the media .The other book is other book is '' Field of Blood' by Freeman who has written a very enjoyable on the First Congress.To her the war stated in the halls of Congress before the first shot.Again it was the media which motivated this war after reading that their Congressmen were being man handled by Southern gentlemen . Brand's book'Heirs of the Founders', is the final years of the greatest statesmen of 1840-50 Clay and Webster from the North and Jefferson's apostel and Jackson's arch foe ,Calhoun.Lincoln was influenced by Clay's politics,

 

[John S. Carter]

The North Threatened Secession at least 5 times prior to 1850. Over the Mexican War for example. The Minority used the Threat of secession, both North and South. So, this Union thing had problems from the Beginning. The North was Invested in Slavery as much as the South was. To say the North didn’t have Slavery would be like saying Spain didn’t have Slavery because it was in Cuba. So, the Baloney answer to this Thread is that the war was only about Slavery.

I’ve just purchased Disease of the Public Mind. Haven’t read ir yet.

Please after you have read it ,please inform me what you have learned as to the influence of what we call the Media on the population.thenrelate that to the effect of what the people were told and what they read today's thought control of media today with social media.I once read a book called "A Nation of Sheep",I can not remember the author but the book would be a good follow up to this one.'Field of Blood" is the war in Congress before the actual war .She tells how the North would react to stories of their Rep.being man handled and treated by the gentlemen Congressmen from the South.Canes were the least weapons used.She writes of the development of the press and the the telegraph and the effect of the reports from Washington to the people back home -relate to the social media and broadcast news of today.

 

[CSA Today]

No, not really. If they had representation like the later slavery secessionists, they most likely would not have started a revolution.

I remember one of Dr. Ramsay's lectures where he said that the colonists' demand for representation in Parliament was all a bluff. He went on to say the colonists knew full well his Majesty's government couldn't grant that kind of representation to the American colonies without giving it to all their colonies some of which were far more valuable. Dr. Ramsay went on to say the colonists knew full well that if the parliamentary representation was granted to all the colonies that they would be in not only economic competition with the British and other colonies but political competition and that was the last thing they wanted. The disgruntled minority wanted independence for the same reason the later Confederates did to be be masters of their own economic and political interests. It had nothing to do with a morality crusade that grade school history teachers and a number of posters on this forum would have us to believe.

“ If we were wrong in our contest, then the Declaration of Independence of 1776 was a grave mistake and the revolution to which it led was a crime. If Washington was a patriot; Lee cannot have been a rebel.”
Wade Hampton

 

[unionblue]

I remember one of Dr. Ramsay's lectures where he said that the colonists' demand for representation in Parliament was all a bluff. He went on to say the colonists knew full well his Majesty's government couldn't grant that kind of representation to the American colonies without giving it to all their colonies some of which were far more valuable. Dr. Ramsay went on to say the colonists knew full well that if the parliamentary representation was granted to all the colonies that they would be in not only economic competition with the British and other colonies but political competition and that was the last thing they wanted. The disgruntled minority wanted independence for the same reason the later Confederates did to be be masters of their own economic and political interests. It had nothing to do with a morality crusade that grade school history teachers and a number of posters on this forum would have us to believe.

“ If we were wrong in our contest, then the Declaration of Independence of 1776 was a grave mistake and the revolution to which it led was a crime. If Washington was a patriot; Lee cannot have been a rebel.”
Wade Hampton

Wade makes the same mistake as you have done when concerning the differences between the Revolution and the Rebellion.

He must make the two events the same in order to justify his own treason in the defense of slavery.

 

[DanSBHawk]

I remember one of Dr. Ramsay's lectures where he said that the colonists' demand for representation in Parliament was all a bluff. He went on to say the colonists knew full well his Majesty's government couldn't grant that kind of representation to the American colonies without giving it to all their colonies some of which were far more valuable. Dr. Ramsay went on to say the colonists knew full well that if the parliamentary representation was granted to all the colonies that they would be in not only economic competition with the British and other colonies but political competition and that was the last thing they wanted. The disgruntled minority wanted independence for the same reason the later Confederates did to be be masters of their own economic and political interests. It had nothing to do with a morality crusade that grade school history teachers and a number of posters on this forum would have us to believe.

“ If we were wrong in our contest, then the Declaration of Independence of 1776 was a grave mistake and the revolution to which it led was a crime. If Washington was a patriot; Lee cannot have been a rebel.”
Wade Hampton

I get why people want to equate the secessionists with the revolutionaries. To try to ennoble a bad cause. I just don't find it very convincing.

 

[CSA Today]

I get why people want to equate the secessionists with the revolutionaries. To try to ennoble a bad cause. I just don't find it very convincing.

I don't think that you do get it, I have never implied that one set of secessionists was any nobler than the other. Both groups wanted the same thing self-rule and self-determination, neither group wanted outsiders telling them what to do.

“ If we were wrong in our contest, then the Declaration of Independence of 1776 was a grave mistake and the revolution to which it led was a crime. If Washington was a patriot; Lee cannot have been a rebel.”
Wade Hampton

 

[CSA Today]

Wade makes the same mistake as you have done when concerning the differences between the Revolution and the Rebellion.

He must make the two events the same in order to justify his own treason in the defense of slavery.

According to you, Southern secession was treason; according to me, the 1776 secession was definitely treason.

“ If we were wrong in our contest, then the Declaration of Independence of 1776 was a grave mistake and the revolution to which it led was a crime. If Washington was a patriot; Lee cannot have been a rebel.”
Wade Hampton ​

 

[unionblue]

According to you, Southern secession was treason; according to me, the 1776 secession was definitely treason.

“ If we were wrong in our contest, then the Declaration of Independence of 1776 was a grave mistake and the revolution to which it led was a crime. If Washington was a patriot; Lee cannot have been a rebel.”
Wade Hampton ​

Yes and Yes.

Both events were treason, one against the Crown and the other against the United States.

Washington was a traitor, rebel, and a patriot.

Lee was a willing traitor and rebel and "wrong in our contest."

The battlefield was chosen for both causes to settle the issues of the time.

We both live in a nation as a result of those choices, as did Hampton and Lee.

The only way we can, in a state of historical reality, not wishful thinking.

 

[CSA Today]

Yes and Yes.

Both events were treason, one against the Crown and the other against the United States.

Washington was a traitor, rebel, and a patriot.

Lee was a willing traitor and rebel and "wrong in our contest."

The battlefield was chosen for both causes to settle the issues of the time.

We both live in a nation as a result of those choices, as did Hampton and Lee.

The only way we can, in a state of historical reality, not wishful thinking.

Fortunately, what some deem historical reality is subject to change. Hopefully soon.

 

[unionblue]

Fortunately, what some deem historical reality is subject to change. Hopefully soon.

Hope does not change facts.

Evidence changes facts.

 

[John S. Carter]

Hope does not change facts.

Evidence changes facts.

May I suggest that you look up 1619 educational program. The gentleman ,CSA,may be more correct than he states.

 

[unionblue]

May I suggest that you look up 1619 educational program. The gentleman ,CSA,may be more correct than he states.

Your advice is noted.

My opinion of this thread has not changed in spite of it.

The South seceded to protect slavery, the rest is baloney.

 

[Dead Parrott]

Yes and Yes.

Both events were treason, one against the Crown and the other against the United States.

Washington was a traitor, rebel, and a patriot.

Lee was a willing traitor and rebel and "wrong in our contest."

The battlefield was chosen for both causes to settle the issues of the time.

We both live in a nation as a result of those choices, as did Hampton and Lee.

The only way we can, in a state of historical reality, not wishful thinking.

Both were treason. One succeeded.

 

[unionblue]

Both were treason. One succeeded.

And the other seceded.