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

uaskme

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Location
SE Tennessee
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.
Most Politicians are Liars. The secessionist arguments were Political Arguments. Yankees lied too. It wasn’t about Union. It was about not letting the South take away a large part of the Northern Economy. Lincoln said the two sections couldn’t Separate. Just like you can’t leave the Mob. The Plantation system was an economic driver of the Country. North was Invested in it. They fought to protect their investment. South continued to reject Union. Only then did attacking Slavery become a War Measure. Most Yankees though the Plantation system would be more cost effective with Wage Slavery. And with White Labor.

It was Never about the Slave. Lincoln loved Colonization more than he hated Slavery.
 
Last edited:

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Most Politicians are Liars. The secessionist arguments were Political Arguments. Yankees lied to. It wasn’t about Union. It was about not letting the South take away a large part of the Northern Economy. Lincoln said the two sections couldn’t Separate. Just like you can’t leave the Mob. The Plantation system was an economic driver of the Country. North was Invested in it. They fought to protect their investment. South continued to reject Union. Only then did attacking Slavery become a War Measure. Most Yankees though the Plantation system would be more cost effective with Wage Slavery. And with White Labor.

It was Never about the Slave. Lincoln loved Colonization more than he hated Slavery.

AS has been stated by another poster, "Your opinion is noted."
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
Well, I'd say their noble deeds had SOMETHING to do with it. :smile coffee:
Southerners think so. :wink:

When asked why the South wanted to be an independent nation and why Southerners were willing to resist Northern invasion, General P.G.T. Beauregard answered clearly and simply when he declared: “One came as an invader the other stood as a defender of his home.”
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Southerners think so. :wink:

When asked why the South wanted to be an independent nation and why Southerners were willing to resist Northern invasion, General P.G.T. Beauregard answered clearly and simply when he declared: “One came as an invader the other stood as a defender of his home.”

If only it was that simple.

"One tried to destroy a nation the other to save it from destruction."
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
If only it was that simple.

"One tried to destroy a nation the other to save it from destruction."

You might say they were inspired by the nation destroyers of 1776.

"The South is not ashamed of the Lost Cause, which can never be lost as long as men preach patriotism, glorify valor, and worship sacrifice."
Reverend James S. Vance, 1897
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
You might say they were inspired by the nation destroyers of 1776.

"The South is not ashamed of the Lost Cause, which can never be lost as long as men preach patriotism, glorify valor, and worship sacrifice."
Reverend James S. Vance, 1897

No, I wouldn't.

"In the last third of the nineteenth century Southerners found it easy, or at least expedient, to forget a great deal of what they had known about the Confederacy, to reshape its history, and to remember things that had not occurred."

Charles Royster, The Destructive War, 1991.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
No, I wouldn't.

"In the last third of the nineteenth century Southerners found it easy, or at least expedient, to forget a great deal of what they had known about the Confederacy, to reshape its history, and to remember things that had not occurred."

Charles Royster, The Destructive War, 1991.
Sounds like US history in general.

"Abraham Lincoln is the Christ-figure of the Nationalist Narrative and the Lincoln gospel goes something like this: God led English Puritans to the City Upon the Hill on the Banks of Massachusetts Bay, but these budding Americans ruined paradise by allowing slavery to gain a foothold in North America. After many years of wandering in the Great American Desert and watching slavery flourish among the Southern descendants of Cain, Americans were awakened when John “The Baptist” Brown burst onto the scene, preparing the way for the Lord, who appeared, lying in a log cabin, in the little town of Somewhere, Kentucky."
Stephen M. Klugewicz
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Sounds like US history in general.

"Abraham Lincoln is the Christ-figure of the Nationalist Narrative and the Lincoln gospel goes something like this: God led English Puritans to the City Upon the Hill on the Banks of Massachusetts Bay, but these budding Americans ruined paradise by allowing slavery to gain a foothold in North America. After many years of wandering in the Great American Desert and watching slavery flourish among the Southern descendants of Cain, Americans were awakened when John “The Baptist” Brown burst onto the scene, preparing the way for the Lord, who appeared, lying in a log cabin, in the little town of Somewhere, Kentucky."
Stephen M. Klugewicz

I prefer period reality to present fantasies.

"By your patriotic devotion to your country in the hour of danger and alarm, your magnificent fighting, bravery, and endurance, you have maintained the supremacy of the Union and the Constitution, overthrown all armed opposition to the enforcement of the laws and of the proclamation forever abolishing Slavery--the cause and pretext of the Rebellion--and opened the way to the rightful authorities to restore order and inaugurate peace on a permanent and enduring basis on every foot of American soil...Victory has crowned your patriotic hearts, and, with the gratitude of your countrymen and the return to your homes and families, conscious of having discharge the highest duty of American citizens."

Ulysses S. Grant, Union general, message to the Union army, June 2, 1865.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
I prefer period reality to present fantasies.

"By your patriotic devotion to your country in the hour of danger and alarm, your magnificent fighting, bravery, and endurance, you have maintained the supremacy of the Union and the Constitution, overthrown all armed opposition to the enforcement of the laws and of the proclamation forever abolishing Slavery--the cause and pretext of the Rebellion--and opened the way to the rightful authorities to restore order and inaugurate peace on a permanent and enduring basis on every foot of American soil...Victory has crowned your patriotic hearts, and, with the gratitude of your countrymen and the return to your homes and families, conscious of having discharge the highest duty of American citizens."

Ulysses S. Grant, Union general, message to the Union army, June 2, 1865.

Unfortunately, there came a time when people like Grant and the hypocrite Lincoln betrayed the vision the original secessionist Founding Fathers sought.

"If we lose this war, these people will be telling us how to live for the next 500 years."
Gen. Patrick Ronayne Cleburne
 
Last edited:

John S. Carter

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
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.
I do agree that the main culprit in the South's actions was slavery. The issue can be resolved by study to the "debates" between the two sections .The war started with Union but as the struggle became more destructive and the defeat of the Confederacy more certain ,then the issue for the administration became ,what to do with the black man in the center of the room? Slavery had to be removed or all the deaths on both sides would be for naught .In one way, the Southern slave owners realized that the North was developing politically and economically more influentially than the South. Question; A wealthy plantation owner who believes in this system ,his comrades also are dedicated to this as their families have for generations has reasoned that eventually the system which has been under attach by a North of Moral truths starting with the Constitutional convention and now the North has a President who will not submit to being forced into compromise over moral rights. What do they do ,accept this new world or in a heroic death to be immortalized as had their decedents of 1776,the North being the suppressive British government .The struggle would be long as was their was with there ,but we believe that as with that struggle, will victory and freedom come .The only piece missing would be a Leader of our forces to guide them ,Lee as a George Washington .There is a song from the ''Man of La Macha '' about Don Quixote ,the goes like "To defeat the undefeatable foe". That would be a good theme song for the South in 1861.
 

Hag

Private
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Location
bluegrass state is
I prefer period reality to present fantasies.

"By your patriotic devotion to your country in the hour of danger and alarm, your magnificent fighting, bravery, and endurance, you have maintained the supremacy of the Union and the Constitution, overthrown all armed opposition to the enforcement of the laws and of the proclamation forever abolishing Slavery--the cause and pretext of the Rebellion--and opened the way to the rightful authorities to restore order and inaugurate peace on a permanent and enduring basis on every foot of American soil...Victory has crowned your patriotic hearts, and, with the gratitude of your countrymen and the return to your homes and families, conscious of having discharge the highest duty of American citizens."

Ulysses S. Grant, Union general, message to the Union army, June 2, 1865.
Was there "freedom on a permanent and enduring basis on every foot of American soil" shortly after he made this speech, became president and sent Custer, Sheridan, etc... west and persecuted and corralled the native Americans onto reservations to free up land rich for agriculture or mining? It's always about the money and the hypocrisy shown just a few years after this speech proves that
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Unfortunately, there came a time when people like Grant and the hypocrite Lincoln betrayed the vision the original secessionist Founding Fathers sought.

"If we lose this war, these people will be telling us how to live for the next 500 years."
Gen. Patrick Ronayne Cleburne
Was there "freedom on a permanent and enduring basis on every foot of American soil" shortly after he made this speech, became president and sent Custer, Sheridan, etc... west and persecuted and corralled the native Americans onto reservations to free up land rich for agriculture or mining? It's always about the money and the hypocrisy shown just a few years after this speech proves that

@CSA Today ,

You keep using that tired old slight-of-hand, calling the revolutionaries of 1776, secessionists, which they were not nor did they ever identify themselves as such. This continued mislabeling of those men of 1776 is understandable, as almost all of us identify with our founding fathers efforts to seek independence.

Problem is, instigating a rebellion for the purpose of maintaining, even expanding slavery, doesn't even come close to what 1776 was all about.

As for poor Cleburne and his saying, maybe it should be revised to read, "If we lose this war, we will be denying it's central cause for the next 500 years."

Hence the reason "these people" keep bringing it all up.

@Hag ,

It never fails to amaze me that a forum concerning the American Civil War and it's cause, must be shifted to how this country, North and South, treated the American Indians. From the Trail of Tears and Andy Jackson, to Custer, Sherman, Sheridan, etc., white men contributed to the destruction of the tribes and their reduction, it's historical fact. But it's pretty hard to stop and turn a nation, fresh out of a bloody, four year civil war, on a dime and put everything front and center with sweetness and light for all.

Heck, here it is the 21st century and we still don't have it all right.

Unionblue
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
@CSA Today ,

You keep using that tired old slight-of-hand, calling the revolutionaries of 1776, secessionists, which they were not nor did they ever identify themselves as such. This continued mislabeling of those men of 1776 is understandable, as almost all of us identify with our founding fathers efforts to seek independence.

Problem is, instigating a rebellion for the purpose of maintaining, even expanding slavery, doesn't even come close to what 1776 was all about.

As for poor Cleburne and his saying, maybe it should be revised to read, "If we lose this war, we will be denying it's central cause for the next 500 years."

Hence the reason "these people" keep bringing it all up.

@Hag ,

It never fails to amaze me that a forum concerning the American Civil War and it's cause, must be shifted to how this country, North and South, treated the American Indians. From the Trail of Tears and Andy Jackson, to Custer, Sherman, Sheridan, etc., white men contributed to the destruction of the tribes and their reduction, it's historical fact. But it's pretty hard to stop and turn a nation, fresh out of a bloody, four year civil war, on a dime and put everything front and center with sweetness and light for all.

Heck, here it is the 21st century and we still don't have it all right.

Unionblue


Nobody went to war over what a rebellious people called themselves. Whatever the causes of wars of independence semantics weren't one of them.

The nation created in 1776 didn't spend on a dime and become sweetness and light either. Perhaps it was the frequent wars of aggression especially against people of color that caused all the bitterness and gall.

“Slavery is no more the cause of this war than gold is the cause of robbery.”
Joel Parker, anti-Lincoln Governor of New Jersey

 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Nobody went to war over what a rebellious people called themselves. Whatever the causes of wars of independence semantics weren't one of them.

The nation created in 1776 didn't spend on a dime and become sweetness and light either. Perhaps it was the frequent wars of aggression especially against people of color that caused all the bitterness and gall.

“Slavery is no more the cause of this war than gold is the cause of robbery.”
Joel Parker, anti-Lincoln Governor of New Jersey

"Nobody went to war over what a rebellious people called themselves."

AGREED.

So we should stop all attempts to label the people of one time with the calling card of another and just accept the fact the two rebellions were no where alike.

"...One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war..."

Abraham Lincoln, Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1865.
 

John S. Carter

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Was there "freedom on a permanent and enduring basis on every foot of American soil" shortly after he made this speech, became president and sent Custer, Sheridan, etc... west and persecuted and corralled the native Americans onto reservations to free up land rich for agriculture or mining? It's always about the money and the hypocrisy shown just a few years after this speech proves that
This was not hypocrisy. This was two different issues, one dealing with the moral issue of slavery and freedom ,the other one with a people who were occupants of land which the country needed for the expansion of its own people. The history of the country from its founding to that present time was one of removal of those people who hindered our progress. Another difficulty was that Grant was military minded person and viewed this though as military operations with the Natives being a obstacle that was preventing the expansion of this country to the West and the only method to remove it was militarily. As a political man ,Grant had those that had desire to remove these Savage people in order for their own reasons, land for the rail and towns ,land investors,land for the people who were moving West ,and for the security of those who settlers. ,What is the difference of this and the colonial movement of the 1890s?Once they were the Nobel Savage by the 1870s they were savages that stood in our progression to the West. Hypocrisy ,no. Grant was no different in his actions or speech than any other politician ,he was carrying out the people's wishes as he did with the Confederate army.The North and the administration wanted the war to be brought a end and slavery to cease as a issue ,that he did.
 
Top