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

[ScalawagGeorgiaDawg]

"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.

Lincoln was wrong. Slavery existed through a lot of the western territory mostly by 5 "Civilized" native American Tribes.

 

[ScalawagGeorgiaDawg]

No free state seceded

but 4 slave states didnt...ergo the war wasnt over slavery. They wouldnt waste their people over a war to do away with an institution they used until the 13th amendment freed their slaves. If slavery was the sole issue for secession then logic would dictate that their would be zero slave states fighting against the evils of this institution. PERIOD

 

[ScalawagGeorgiaDawg]

the revolutionaries of 1776

They were not revolutionaries ...the were fighters in a war of independence. They fought not to over throw a King (revolution) but for independence. Same as the Confederates. The King stayed in power did he not?

 

[unionblue]

Lincoln was wrong. Slavery existed through a lot of the western territory mostly by 5 "Civilized" native American Tribes.

History has found Lincoln to be right.

 

[unionblue]

You do know that only three of the 11 "slave states" had slavery as a reason for secession in their secession documents. This is Hardly 90-95 percent. Also as someone else mentioned Virginia originally voted to stay in the Union...as did Ark until Lincoln called up 75k troops. More voted to fight/secede after Lincoln determined that a fight would happen than they did over slavery. In fact the South Carolina assembly sent a letter to all slave owning states to ask them to secede...in that letter they mention tariffs/taxes and self rule citing the declaration of independence in the first seven paragraphs BEFORE mentioning slavery

Ah! "The Great Alibi" that the Civil War was not caused by slavery.

As for Virginia and the rest of the Upper South, ever have a chance to read through their secession convention journals? Guess what topic is most mentioned, most discussed and debated? It ain't the tariff, it's slavery.

As for South Carolina and the tariff, then why the comment by "our people have come to this choice on the issue of slavery" It's in the SC Convention record.

 

[unionblue]

They were not revolutionaries ...the were fighters in a war of independence. They fought not to over throw a King (revolution) but for independence. Same as the Confederates. The King stayed in power did he not?

Of course they were revolutionaries, they knew they were conducting a revolution against King and Country and if they lost, they would be hanged for instigating a revolution against the King and England.

Hence that name given to it, The Revolution of 1776.

 

[uaskme]

Of course they were revolutionaries, they knew they were conducting a revolution against King and Country and if they lost, they would be hanged for instigating a revolution against the King and England.

Hence that name given to it, The Revolution of 1776.

Thanks for pointing out the semblance of the Souths Second War for Independence. First one against England. The second against New England and the Agrarian Mercenaries.

 

[unionblue]

Thanks for pointing out the semblance of the Souths Second War for Independence. First one against England. The second against New England and the Agrarian Mercenaries.

View attachment 385904

@uaskme ,

Why do you and others keep trying to twist words of others into something they never said?

As for the propaganda rag you show in the above post, it shows only the desperate means to whip up the boys into committing treason against their country.

There is no "semblance" between the two, except to those who desperately need to ignore the need of slavery for the one and the need for independence in the other.

Unionblue

 

[uaskme]

@uaskme ,

Why do you and others keep trying to twist words of others into something they never said?

As for the propaganda rag you show in the above post, it shows only the desperate means to whip up the boys into committing treason against their country.

There is no "semblance" between the two, except to those who desperately need to ignore the need of slavery for the one and the need for independence in the other.

Unionblue

You compared the two events. Apply So, no less.

Bragg didn’t say anything about rallying the Troops to protect Slavery. No, it was about Independence.

Should be No Surprise that England and New England used Mercenaries. New England had such an affinity with their Mother Country, they should of never left.

 

[DanSBHawk]

You compared the two events. Apply So, no less.

Bragg didn’t say anything about rallying the Troops to protect Slavery. No, it was about Independence.

Should be No Surprise that England and New England used Mercenaries. New England had such an affinity with their Mother Country, they should of never left.

New England used mercenaries? How so?

 

[unionblue]

You compared the two events. Apply So, no less.

Bragg didn’t say anything about rallying the Troops to protect Slavery. No, it was about Independence.

Should be No Surprise that England and New England used Mercenaries. New England had such an affinity with their Mother Country, they should of never left.

No, the constant attempt to cover one bad event with another good event is what I compared and "no less" is the continuance of that slight-of-hand.

I note your personal opinion on New England, but we should both be willing to admit the reality of New England being a part of the United States in our own time, shouldn't we?

 

[WJC]

You do know that only three of the 11 "slave states" had slavery as a reason for secession in their secession documents. This is Hardly 90-95 percent. Also as someone else mentioned Virginia originally voted to stay in the Union...as did Ark until Lincoln called up 75k troops. More voted to fight/secede after Lincoln determined that a fight would happen than they did over slavery. In fact the South Carolina assembly sent a letter to all slave owning states to ask them to secede...in that letter they mention tariffs/taxes and self rule citing the declaration of independence in the first seven paragraphs BEFORE mentioning slavery

What characteristic was the single similarity of all the states that seceded? All of them were 'slave states' intent on protecting, preserving, and expanding the practice of slavery.
Yes, South Carolina sent letters- and agents- to other "slave owning states" to convince them to join in seceding. Regardless of the list of 'grievances' in the 'sales pitch', the fact remains that only "slave owning states" were asked to secede.
Virginia was reluctant to secede until it was asked to provide troops to put down what had become a rebellion. They recognized that the root cause of secesion was slavery and chose to align themselves with other "slave owning states".

 

[19thGeorgia]

What that war was about...

"The North is fighting for self-preservation as much as for Southern subjugation, the latter of which is now chiefly desired, because it involves the former. The time when, possessed of devils, it sought to exterminate the South in a fit of foaming, diabolic frenzy, has long since passed, and, in spite of Lincoln's proclamation, the clear, distinct object of the great mass of that nation in the further prosecution of this war is to save themselves from the overhanging avalanche of ruin which the success of the Southern cause must precipitate upon their heads."
Richmond Dispatch, Feb 17, 1863 (reprinted in Cincinnati Commercial Tribune, Feb 26, 1863)

"The army of the North fights for national ambition, fanatical hate and the profits of Southern trade. The army of the South fights to avert from the Southern people a tyranny most hideous and most abhorred. We must nerve ourselves to hear of a day of carnage. The attack has probably been made by our troops. They must carry the enemy's earthworks with the bayonet. The loss may, and probably will, be fearful. But, if we triumph, the victory will be worth the cost. Never was cause more just and holy than ours. The patriot owes his life to his country in the hour of her extremity; and, while we strike for independence, we must be willing, ungrudgingly, to pay the price."
Charleston Mercury, June 27, 1862

 

[DanSBHawk]

What that war was about...

"The North is fighting for self-preservation as much as for Southern subjugation, the latter of which is now chiefly desired, because it involves the former. The time when, possessed of devils, it sought to exterminate the South in a fit of foaming, diabolic frenzy, has long since passed, and, in spite of Lincoln's proclamation, the clear, distinct object of the great mass of that nation in the further prosecution of this war is to save themselves from the overhanging avalanche of ruin which the success of the Southern cause must precipitate upon their heads."
Richmond Dispatch, Feb 17, 1863 (reprinted in Cincinnati Commercial Tribune, Feb 26, 1863)

"The army of the North fights for national ambition, fanatical hate and the profits of Southern trade. The army of the South fights to avert from the Southern people a tyranny most hideous and most abhorred. We must nerve ourselves to hear of a day of carnage. The attack has probably been made by our troops. They must carry the enemy's earthworks with the bayonet. The loss may, and probably will, be fearful. But, if we triumph, the victory will be worth the cost. Never was cause more just and holy than ours. The patriot owes his life to his country in the hour of her extremity; and, while we strike for independence, we must be willing, ungrudgingly, to pay the price."
Charleston Mercury, June 27, 1862

Such hyperbole. Considering that it came from the side that started the shooting, it seems a bit unhinged.

Propaganda aside, people at the time knew that the sectional crisis was all about slavery.

 

[unionblue]

What that war was about...

"The North is fighting for self-preservation as much as for Southern subjugation, the latter of which is now chiefly desired, because it involves the former. The time when, possessed of devils, it sought to exterminate the South in a fit of foaming, diabolic frenzy, has long since passed, and, in spite of Lincoln's proclamation, the clear, distinct object of the great mass of that nation in the further prosecution of this war is to save themselves from the overhanging avalanche of ruin which the success of the Southern cause must precipitate upon their heads."
Richmond Dispatch, Feb 17, 1863 (reprinted in Cincinnati Commercial Tribune, Feb 26, 1863)

"The army of the North fights for national ambition, fanatical hate and the profits of Southern trade. The army of the South fights to avert from the Southern people a tyranny most hideous and most abhorred. We must nerve ourselves to hear of a day of carnage. The attack has probably been made by our troops. They must carry the enemy's earthworks with the bayonet. The loss may, and probably will, be fearful. But, if we triumph, the victory will be worth the cost. Never was cause more just and holy than ours. The patriot owes his life to his country in the hour of her extremity; and, while we strike for independence, we must be willing, ungrudgingly, to pay the price."
Charleston Mercury, June 27, 1862

@19thGeorgia ,

What is your source for the above two articles?

 

[Cycom]

Couldn’t there be a duality present here? That the South fought primarily to maintain its independence & way of life while also acknowledging that that particular way of life contained a big reliance on slavery.

 

[unionblue]

Couldn’t there be a duality present here? That the South fought primarily to maintain its independence & way of life while also acknowledging that that particular way of life contained a big reliance on slavery.

Not a 'big reliance', but the very foundation for it's social and economic way of life. Slavery is at the core and cannot be dismissed or reduced in it's importance to the slaveholding South and is at the very center of the Confederacy's creation.

 

[wausaubob]

Not a 'big reliance', but the very foundation for it's social and economic way of life. Slavery is at the core and cannot be dismissed or reduced in it's importance to the slaveholding South and is at the very center of the Confederacy's creation.

This is Roger Ransom's table 1:

https://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-economics-of-the-civil-war/

 

[wausaubob]

Slavery was a regional interest and the slaves may have been worth $3.5B. But they may have been worth less since many owners did not consider their slaves saleable. At any rate, the value of slaves depended on the political support the institution had in Washington, D.C. and the prospects for its expansion. International events also influenced the value of slaves. By 1852 the British had made substantial progress in isolating Cuba, Brazil and the southern US from Africa. Very little additional cheating on the prohibition against importing slaves was going to occur.

 

[wausaubob]

The railroad interest had nearly tripled between 1850 and 1860. By 1860 already $1.1B had been invested in railroads. No valuation based on their earnings is available, but as the economy grew and cities grew, the value of their lines could only grow, not diminish, until the internal combustion engine took over.

https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1860/statistics/1860d-13.pdf