Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery  
User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8502 posts, RR: 12
Posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5640 times:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/jarvis/jarvis65.html Italics are from the article.

This is the normal story you'll hear about the Civil War in the traditional, big media.

Slavery was a peculiarly Southern institution that Northerners were morally opposed to, so much so that they were willing to risk their lives on the battlefield to end it. Had Southern states seceded and won the war, slavery would have continued and the United States would have crumbled.

But wars are not fought for moral reasons. Typically, nationalism, sectionalism, and imperialism as well as military and economic expansion are the causes.

But, by the mid 1800s, sectional conflicts between the North and South had been festering for decades. The most serious problem was the abnormally high and unfair tariffs assessed on the South. Remarkably, in the decades before the Civil War, the South paid approximately 87% of the nation’s total tariffs. To illustrate how grossly unfair this was consider that the South consisted of 11 states with a population of 5 million, whereas the rest of the nation consisted of 23 states, 7 federal territories and a population of 22 million. Is it any wonder Southern states wanted to secede?

A November 1860 editorial in the Charleston Mercury urged South Carolina to secede, stating: " The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government, from a confederated republic (a voluntary union of states) to a national sectional despotism." In the1830s, tariffs were so high that South Carolina nullified them and only the Compromise of 1833, that lowered tariffs, prevented an invasion of South Carolina that was being prepared by President Andrew Jackson.

Social critic H.L. Mencken, who knows about these things, sincerely believes that held that had the South won the war, slavery would still have been substantially ended by the late 1880s. Also, he pointed out that a Southern victory would have negated the harsh Reconstruction measures that created the Ku Klux Klan. Mencken‘s theories appear reasonable because the practice of slavery in the South was being phased out in the decades before the war. The 1860 U.S. Census indicated that the slave states had 259,078 free Negroes while the "free states" had 222,745. Thousands of property owning free persons of color flourished throughout the South. Charleston, in 1861, had approximately 3,500 free persons of color – almost 8% of the city’s population.


But what about the Great Emancipator? Indeed, what about him? Why did Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation NOT free slaves in Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware (which were Union states), or household slaves in the Northern states, or allow slavery in Southern areas that were loyal to the Union, namely West Virginia and nine counties and cities in Virginia, New Orleans, and 13 parishes in Louisiana – areas that contained large thriving slave plantations.? AND, if any Southern state would voluntarily cease resisting the union, the Proclamation allowed slavery to remain there.

The Civil War was a war primarily of economics, not of the preservation of slavery

92 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineNancy From United States of America, joined May 2004, 467 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5632 times:

Well..... This is a direct quote from the South Carolina Declaration of Secession:

"...The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution..."

While there were other issues the issue of slavery cannot be ignored as a factor.


User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8502 posts, RR: 12
Reply 2, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5617 times:

Of course. But it's the only reason that is remembered.

User currently offlineSoku39 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 1797 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5611 times:

They Seceded, because they wanted states rights over that of the national government to tell them what to do . The most major issue of states rights in the south of course being slavery.


The Ohio Player
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5607 times:

That's a big, fat, bald-faced lie. The South DID Seceed because of slavery. It seceeded because, fundamentally, the northern states did not want slavery in the new territories, especially above the 36th parallel, if I'm not mistaken.

In the 1860 Democratic Party Convention, at Charleston, SC, the "states-rights" win of that party put out a platform 1. would forbade any governing body in the territories in outlawing slavery; 2. It would forbade the Federal government from outlawing slavering in said territories; 3. It would forbade the PEOPLE in those areas from voting to outlaw slavery.

The only time slavery could be outlawed, this platform said, was when a territory became a state. By that time of course, it probably woudn't be voted out.

Since those that supported eventual Democrat nominee Stephen Douglas controlled the DNC, that platform was voted down, and most of the southern delegates left the convention-over the issue of slavery. That was the first move, overtly, that showed the south would seceed over this issue, instead of allowing slavery to be limited only to the south.

I've been reading a great set of books, written around the Centennial of the Civil war, by author Bruce Catton, and in the first book "The Coming Fury" he has a quote from famed Southern secessionist Edmund Ruffin (who was given credit for the first shot on Ft. Sumter, that started the war, and who commited suicide later, as he could not handle being under the Stars and Stripes), wrote a letter, I believe to Jeff Davis, in which he clearly stated he would rather leave the union, than to abandon slavery.

I'm reading the second set of books, entitled "Terrible Swift Sword" as we speak, so I'll have to go back to the library and get the first volume-I had some pages dog-eared, to support my conclusion.

Indeed, the south began to seceed when Lincoln was elected, because of his stance on not allowing slavery into the territories. Lincoln was willing, before the war, to let slavery remain in the south, but that's it. But that wasn't good enough for the south, and they became traitors and bolted the nation.

The Civil War was a war primarily of economics, not of the preservation of slavery.

Yes, you are right, but you fail to tell the reader that the ENTIRE economics of the south hinged on slavery. It was how the southern economy, an agrarian economy, built mostly on cotton trade, was built on slave labor, that was cheap, and those used as labor were not even considered human by those who employed them.

The world was just starting the industrial revolution. The old, aristocratic, slave-driven south, being conservative, saw it's old world start to slip away in the fires of industry that was the Industrial Revolution, and they resisted it. They KNEW, that if slavery was confined only to the south, that their old, traditional ways of economics and of social order would collapse. It would have collapsed anyway, but the south finally felt that, the ONLY way to keep their economic and social tradition of slavery alive-since it would not be allowed into the territories owned by the Union, was to leave the Union, and form their own nation, where slavery could be kept for as long as possible.

Lincoln did not want the war, at first, to be fought over slavery. He wanted it to be a war to only preserve the union. Up until the summer of 1862, he still wanted to keep slavery in the south in a bound-up Union, but he would not permit it beyond where it already was. But he finally, and rightly, came to the conclusion, that the war against the traitors could not be fought and won unless one things-slavery-was destroyed and abolished.

So MD-90 can try to foster this lie, as many southerners, and many southern sympathizers do from time to time. But it's just what I said-a lie. It's a lie to try and hide their own belief that the South was somehow a romantic and noble entity, whcih it wasn't. It was made up of traitors-those who said, like Robert E. Lee, and Jeff Davis, hypocritically, that they could not raise their hand against their native state, but could against the country that fostered them into the military, gave them training and education, and then were rewarded by betraying that nation.

Maybe MD-90 feels these traitors should be honored. I do not. Maybe he can justify this war irregardless of the facts, but he's wrong.

Had slavery not existed, there would not have been a war. It was the over-riding social and economic divider between North and South for 20 years before the war, and secession occurred because the South refused to move into the future, and give up their beasts of burden.

But if you want to believe these lies, go to a website like . MD-90 would feel right at home there, I'm sure.

Once a traitor, always a traitor.


User currently offlineL.1011 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 2209 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5597 times:

Wow, Alpha. I'm almost considering adding you to my respected users list. That pretty much sums up the truth here.

User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5592 times:

L.1011, my dad was an American history teacher for 30 years. I"m just now beginning to seriously study a war that took place 140 years ago, that still affects us today. My dad did teach me a lot about it, and my further reading on it, convinces me that those who say the war was not fought over slavery are just deluding themselves.

User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8502 posts, RR: 12
Reply 7, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5589 times:

At the very end of the interesting South Carolina Secession Declaration, we also find,

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanctions of a more erroneous religious belief.


http://alpha.furman.edu/~benson/docs/decl-sc.htm

Alpha 1, you would do well to read it. South Carolina is only one southern state, but they made the legal case for secession. It was actually Lincoln and the Union that violated the Constitution, not the seceding states.



User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5582 times:

You would do well, MD-90, not to fall in love with traitors.

You're wrong on why the South left the Union. They left over economics-of slavery; they left over social issues-of slavery; they left over the question of expansion-of slavery; they left over the election of a president, who did NOT violate the Constitution, but was willing to let the South keep slavery, but who did not want it expanded.

The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government..

If it wasn't ove slavery, why put "slaveholding States" in that phrase? Slavery is the reason they left.

You're going to lose this war of ideas. The south left to preserve the social, economic, and historical entity that was slavery, and for no other reason.

Read the trilogy by Bruce Catton, the Centennial observation of the Civil War, written in the 1960's. You'll see that SLAVERY was THE REASON for secession.

Should I send you a card on Jeff Davis's birthday, btw? Obviously, you think Lincoln is a traitor of some sort, so maybe that would be appropriate.

[Edited 2004-05-09 05:16:24]

User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8502 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5569 times:

It was made up of traitors-those who said, like Robert E. Lee, and Jeff Davis, hypocritically, that they could not raise their hand against their native state, but could against the country that fostered them into the military, gave them training and education, and then were rewarded by betraying that nation.

And that's why Alpha 1 is a liberal. He believes that the federal government is the ultimate big brother who will take care of you, and that you can't have allegience to anything but the federal government. People in the south, who were much more rural and independent, were loyal to the states, which they considered to be their sovereign governments. Alpha 1 can't get over his ingrained biases, which is why he would make a poor historian.

But in 1860, the nation was only 73 (or was it 74?) years old (dating from the ratification of the Constitution, not 1776). There were people alive who remembered that the US was a united confederation of individual, sovereign states.


Isn't it ironic that the Union military forces that overran the south had largely been paid for by SOUTHERN taxes (in 1860, at least)?


User currently offlinePlanespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3521 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5566 times:

The south seceded mainly over slavery, but also over economic and political issues (states rights, etc...) that are associated mainly with slaverly.

The north went to war because the south seceded.


bam ~ summary



Do you like movies about gladiators?
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5565 times:

And that's why Alpha 1 is a liberal.

This isn't about being a fucking liberal or a fucking conservative MD-90, so stop the shit already! It was about the fact that these men WERE TRAITORS. They turned their backs on their nation-a nation who gave them their commissions in the military. BOTH went to West Point-which is taxpayer-paid education, even back then. Lee, at the time, had a command in the U.S. Army, when he left. Jeff Davis was U.S. Secretary of War up until around 1857. THEY WERE TRAITORS. It has nothing to do with my view on modern-day liberal/conservative politics.

Stop using your stodgy old 2004 logic for something that took place in 1860/61. It isn't about MY political philosophy. It's about history ,and what it was and wasn't.

I guess you would have been a traitor, too, living in 1860, eh? Good, I will send you a greeting on Traitor Jeff's birthday.

I like the fact you tried to make this an "Alpha 1 liberal" thread, when faced with the facts as I presented. That means one thing-your case is weak.

Traitors once, traitors always. Enjoy their company.


User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8502 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5565 times:

I don't recklessly throw around the word traitor like you do, Alpha 1. I don't think Lincoln is a traitor, just that it's ironic he's the one who "freed the slaves."

User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5558 times:

I don't throw it around recklessly, either MD-90.

Those who left the Union were traitors. History records them as such. I would not "honor" them in any way, if I had my way. You can respect your enemy, but they should not be honored.

The actions of men like Davis, Lee, Ruffin, Yancy, Buauregard, and others, led to the deaths of 600,000 Americans-half of those were traitors, but Americans nevertheless. It lead to 100-plus years of racial strife-the south didn't accept the Emancipation of blacks for that amount of time. It lead to the death of one of the 3 greatest U.S. Presidents of all time. It led to untold misery. And it was the fault of southern traitors.

Honor that? Never. Amazingly, 7 southern states still celebrate Jefferson Davis' birthday. And people tell me the south has changed?


User currently offlineDc10guy From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 2685 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5555 times:

Let me get this straight, The south had 0 labor costs but was pissed they paid 87% of all tariffs ???They should pay tariffs on things they imported ??? Maybe that IS why the North kicked the south's ass, because they where way too greedy. Praise the lord & whip the slaves.


Next time try the old "dirty Sanchez" She'll love it !!!
User currently offlineIHadAPheo From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 6027 posts, RR: 56
Reply 15, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5553 times:

From the link above

http://alpha.furman.edu/~benson/docs/decl-sc.htm

[p24]
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection"

"[p28]
The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy"

Notice.. The works above are over 140 years old and are part of the public domain and not subject to copyright

If the south did not secede over slavery why do that make the specific mention of it in the links above?, revisionist history at it's worst.

While slavery was not the only reason for the south to secede it was a reason since even in the "evidence" provided here there is mention of slave holding states and non slave holding states. The talk of "States rights" is a de facto way of saying "slavery or bust"



Pray hard but pray with care For the tears that you are crying now Are just your answered prayers
User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8502 posts, RR: 12
Reply 16, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5546 times:

By the way, I meant to to title the thread as

The South Did Not Secede Over JUST slavery.

Once I realized my mistake it was too late to edit it.



It was about taxes (on revenue that, of course, did result from slavery):
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/civilwar.html

But why would the South want to secede? If the original American ideal of federalism and constitutionalism had survived to 1860, the South would not have needed to. But one issue loomed larger than any other in that year as in the previous three decades: the Northern tariff. It was imposed to benefit Northern industrial interests by subsidizing their production through public works. But it had the effect of forcing the South to pay more for manufactured goods and disproportionately taxing it to support the central government. It also injured the South’s trading relations with other parts of the world.

In effect, the South was being looted to pay for the North’s early version of industrial policy. The battle over the tariff began in 1828, with the "tariff of abomination." Thirty year later, with the South paying 87 percent of federal tariff revenue while having their livelihoods threatened by protectionist legislation, it became impossible for the two regions to be governed under the same regime. The South as a region was being reduced to a slave status, with the federal government as its master.

But why 1860? Lincoln promised not to interfere with slavery, but he did pledge to "collect the duties and imposts": he was the leading advocate of the tariff and public works policy, which is why his election prompted the South to secede. In pro-Lincoln newspapers, the phrase "free trade" was invoked as the equivalent of industrial suicide. Why fire on Ft. Sumter? It was a customs house, and when the North attempted to strengthen it, the South knew that its purpose was to collect taxes, as newspapers and politicians said at the time.

To gain an understanding of the Southern mission, look no further than the Confederate Constitution. It is a duplicate of the original Constitution, with several improvements. It guarantees free trade, restricts legislative power in crucial ways, abolishes public works, and attempts to rein in the executive. No, it didn’t abolish slavery but neither did the original Constitution (in fact, the original protected property rights in slaves).





And I've got some books for you, Alpha 1. Look up,

The Costs of War - John Denson (1998)
Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men - Jeffrey Rodgers Hummel (1996)
Secession, State, and Liberty - David Gordon (1998)
The Confederate Constitution - Marshall de Rosa (1991)
Was Jefferson Davis Right - James and Walter Kennedy (1998)

And the best of them all (and it's just a short 242 pages), by Charles Adams in 2000:

When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession

In that book, which I have, you also find these nuggets of information:

Adam argues that Northern and Southern leaders were lying when they invoked slavery as a reason for secession and for the war. Northerners were seeking a moral pretext for an aggressive war, while Southern leaders were seeking a threat more concrete than the Northern tariff to justify a drive to political independence. This was political speech meant for mass consumption.

In his book, he has proof such as this pro-Lincoln New York Evening Post, March 2, 1861 edition article:

"That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the port must be closed to importations from abroad, is generally admitted. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe. There will be nothing to furnish means of subsistence to the army; nothing to keep our navy afloat; nothing to pay the salaries of public officers; the present order of things must come to a dead stop.

"What, then, is left for our government? Shall we let the seceding states repeal the revenue laws for the whole Union in this manner? Or will the government choose to consider all foreign commerce destined for those ports where we have no custom-houses and no collectors as contraband, and stop it, when offering to enter the collection districts from which our authorities have been expelled?"



Karl Marx himself wrote, "The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty."



Read it and read it well, Alpha 1


User currently offlineDc10guy From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 2685 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5545 times:

IHadAPheo, Why are you clouding this thread with facts ??? I suggest that you have a Pheo more .... Corona perhaps ???


Next time try the old "dirty Sanchez" She'll love it !!!
User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8502 posts, RR: 12
Reply 18, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5541 times:

If the south did not secede over slavery why do that make the specific mention of it in the links above?, revisionist history at it's worst.

Read my post above, IHadaPheo.


User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5538 times:

The fact betray you, MD-90, which is an appropriate description, seeing you're trying to defend those guilty of treason.

User currently offlineIHadAPheo From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 6027 posts, RR: 56
Reply 20, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5533 times:

"Read my post above"... I did that is where I found the info I posted above. I find it beneficial when debating an issue not to link to information that totally contradicts my point of view.

What's next??

Dreyfus was in fact a traitor?
The Holocaust was not so bad?
The Teapot Dome scandal was just Democratic ploy to oust Pres Harding, and Hardings death was just a way to silence the scandal. (well the last part might be true)





Pray hard but pray with care For the tears that you are crying now Are just your answered prayers
User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8502 posts, RR: 12
Reply 21, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5527 times:

Treason? The north invaded the south, after it had peaceably seceded. Where does treason come into this? In fact, the south didn't even instigate a rebellion.

Here's some interesting history about slavery
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/miller1.html

Up until the 19th century slavery in human societies was considered to be a normal state of affairs. The Old Testament of the Bible affirms that slaves are a form of property and that the children of a slave couple are the property of the slaves’ owner (Exodus 21:4). Abraham and Jacob kept slaves, and the New Testament says nothing against slavery. Slaves built the pyramids of Egypt, the Acropolis of Athens, and the coliseums in the Roman Empire. Africans exported 11,000,000 Black slaves to the New World – 4,000,000 to Brazil, 3,600,000 to the British and French West Indies, and 2,500,000 to Spanish possessions in Central and South America. About 500,000 slaves, 5 per cent of the total number shipped to the New World, came to America. Today slavery still exists in some parts of Africa, notably in Sudan and Mauritania.

Britain heralded the end of slavery, in the Western world at least, with its Bill of Abolition, passed in 1807. This Bill made the African slave trade (but not slaveholding) illegal. Later that year the United States adopted a similar bill, called the Act to Prohibit the Importation of Slaves, which prohibited bringing slaves into any port in the country, including into the southern slaveholding states. Congress strengthened this prohibition in 1819 when it decreed the slave trade to be a form of piracy, punishable by death. In 1833, Britain enacted an Emancipation Law, ending slavery throughout the British Empire, and Parliament allocated twenty million pounds to buy slaves’ freedom from their owners. The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer rightly described this action as one of the greatest acts of collective compassion in the history of humankind. This happened peacefully and without any serious slave uprisings or attacks on their former owners, even in Jamaica where a population of 30,000 whites owned 250,000 slaves.


Another quote from Adams' book, by John C. Calhoun (I should confess that I have 20 hours of credit from Calhoun Community College, I suppose)

"The North had adopted a system of revenue and disbursements in which an undue proportion of the burden of taxation has been imposed upon the South, and an undue proportion of its proceeds appropriated to the North… the South, as the great exporting portion of the Union, has in reality paid vastly more than her due proportion of the revenue."


Robert E. Lee didn't even own any slaves! He emancipated his in the 1850s! He is recorded as writing, "The best men in the South have long desired to do away with the institution [of slavery], and were quite willing to see it abolished. But with them in relation to this subject is a serious question today. Unless some humane course, based on wisdom and Christian principles, is adopted, you do them great injustice in setting them free."

That quote is from the book, Robert E. Lee: Man and Soldier, by Thomas Nelson Page (1911)



AND

From the Confederate Constitution, Article 1, Section 9

(I) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

(2) Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.



Isn't it interesting that the Confederacy's constitution prohibited the introduction of new slaves (of course, Congress had passed a similiar law a few decades before)


User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8502 posts, RR: 12
Reply 22, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5521 times:

IHadaPheo, did you not read this?

Adam argues that Northern and Southern leaders were lying when they invoked slavery as a reason for secession and for the war. Northerners were seeking a moral pretext for an aggressive war, while Southern leaders were seeking a threat more concrete than the Northern tariff to justify a drive to political independence. This was political speech meant for mass consumption.

I will admit that right off the top of my head, I don't remember who Dreyfus was, or what his traitorous situation was. But I do know both the Holocaust and the Teapot Dome Scandal, and this has nothing to do with either and shouldn't be compared to them. This isn't about apologizing, it's about education.

Unfortunately, some people like Alpha 1 and Dc10guy (and 777236ER, when he shows up, which I'm sure he wil) simply cannot discuss certain issues in a rational, clearheaded manner. Unfortunately, this is typical of airliners.net.


User currently offlineIHadAPheo From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 6027 posts, RR: 56
Reply 23, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5517 times:

My reference to Teapot Dome et al were made as a reference to how any historical event can be revised by modern minds, I did not mean to say that they were related to slavery directly, an allegory so to speak.

My Dreyfus reference was a poor attempt at a historical comparison of how a traitor is not always a traitor.

To say the slavery was not a reason for the south to secede is a mistatement as stated in the links you yourself provided. Was it the ONLY reason NO but was it a reason yes.



Pray hard but pray with care For the tears that you are crying now Are just your answered prayers
User currently offlineBN747 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5613 posts, RR: 51
Reply 24, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5516 times:

.. how the southern economy, an agrarian economy, built mostly on cotton trade, was built on slave labor, that was cheap, and those used as labor were not even considered human by those who employed them

'Employed them'??? Don't you mean enslaved them?

Re:Lincoln, But he finally, and rightly, came to the conclusion, that the war against the traitors could not be fought and won unless one things-slavery-was destroyed and abolished.

Lincoln pondered heavily over this.. he even considered a way to return the africans back to Africa because he knew there was no way black and white could exist (free or not) given the extent of racial polarization at the time. His proclamation tactic was simply a way to create havoc within the 'southern domain' when it appeared as if a resurgence in Southern (military) might may very much be able to pull this thing off (esp. after such great breaches into northern territory such as Gettysburg, PA).

Had slavery not existed, there would not have been a war. It was the over-riding social and economic divider between North and South for 20 years before the war, and secession occurred because the South refused to move into the future, and give up their beasts of burden.

20 years??? Try more like a 100+ years as to win the dividing lines began to take shape.

Slavery was like oil and gold.... vitually like free money. Like oil today.. we can't do without it (well we could.. but we seem to be dragging our feet in doing so). Slavery created sugar-cane fields (creating a sugar craving-sweet tooth- like nothing seen before. Slavery made cotton king... a fabric that had a million uses and demand was (like sugar) through the roof. The money was rolling like water over the Niagra rock cliffs. Do you think these people would give that up without a fight? Morals or no morals...which brings up my next point, the biggest kindling issue to launch the war.. Politics.

Politically this was more of a dividing issue than an economic or social one. Every Southern congressional member was a slaveholder. Every person who lived in the South was not a slave holder. But the southern congressional voting block -- who basically representing themselves and others like like them (but gave rats ass about their lesser constituients) -- over the years fiercely enforced stronger and more stringent pro-slave laws in northern territories! They had their own areas covered... but to deter escaping slaves they needed an iron-claded enforcement of their lifestyles even into the heart of the north.

Northern Congressmen saw this as an intrusion and a enforcing of slave-environment mentality onto their lives across the board. Meaning you had a duty (whether you be rich or poor) to report/turn in any runaway slave(s) or you could be jailed for aiding and abetting. People of the north took great offense to southern laws being drafted nationally and forced upon them on an issue they had nothing to do with. And what made the northern contigent of congressmen more pissed was the laws kept coming and were literally being beaten into them (thus the physically beating over the issue by the South Carolina congressional Representative Preston Brooks stormed into the Senate chambers and beat anti-slavery Senator Charles Sumner as he was speaking to the senate). But even more offensive to the northern congressional block was the fact that by it's very nature the southern congressmen were frauds. They were not beholden to the people of the South.. but doing the will of a smaller number of powerful slave-holders/traders like themselves. Whereas the northern congressmen were accountable to every single citizen of the state they represented. In others words.. the northern guys had to go back home and fight to be re-elected every two & four years vs the southerners where it was pretty much done in a smokey backroom over a card game. The northern guys knew it.. and got tired of having to fight for election and continuously get healthy dosages of new pro-slavery legislation stuffed down their throats. Bottomline.. the slave-holding southerners got way too greedy and pushed their luck way too far. Had they left it alone.. they may have faired better. But there were outside forces pushing and shoving for a way Britain, France and the vatican. Each standing to make a mountain of money off either side!

Before the war, the Slave Trade was brought to an end offically, but many southern states esp. ones outside the cotton/rice/sugar cane zone.. like Kentucky... went underground and set up breeding farms for the sole purpose breeding slaves to keep it going. More africans were smuggled into southern ports such as New Orleans. Texas/Oklahoma slaves weren't freed until a full year after the Civil War was over.

You would do well, MD-90, not to fall in love with traitors.

You're wrong on why the South left the Union. They left over economics-of slavery; they left over social issues-of slavery; they left over the question of expansion-of slavery; they left over the election of a president, who did NOT violate the Constitution, but was willing to let the South keep slavery, but who did not want it expanded.

The south left to preserve the social, economic, and historical entity that was slavery, and for no other reason.


This is very true... and MD90 and his southern revisionists.. no matter how hard they try they can't cajole and change the facts. He needs to take a break on trying to re-fight the civil war and take a crack at re-writing the Holocaust.. perhaps he can gain some ideas from that sewer-brain trust.

BN747









"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
25 Alpha 1 : It was THE reason, not A reason, IHadAPheo. That's an historical fact. It was the overwhemling reason. It was the historical reason. The only one's wh
26 LHMark : MD90 = David Brent. Filler More filler
27 IMissPiedmont : I never thought I'd see such apologetic driver as this post. It appears to my old feeble mind that there is one, maybe two, educated persons above who
28 BN747 : IT WAS ABOUT THE RIGHT TO OWN ANOTHER HUMAN. Never mind the fact that the yankees also hated the african Very True IMPiedmont... the only truly safe p
29 Post contains images Johnboy : Ann Coulter would be so proud!
30 Srbmod : I'm sick and tired of all these revisionist liberal damnyankees who want to characterize the entire South of the Civil War era as a bunch of evil peop
31 MBMBOS : ...and you lost - get over it! It ceases to amaze me that some people continue to "fight" the Civil War, the single most shameful event in all of Amer
32 Post contains images Alpha 1 : I'm sick and tired of all these revisionist liberal damnyankees who want to characterize the entire South of the Civil War era as a bunch of evil peop
33 Nancy : As for the traitor issue: Yes the leaders of the Southern Confederacy were guilty of treason as were George Washington et al. And while the South sece
34 BN747 : The first slaves in America were not from Africa, they were from Europe. And what part of America were the first to be colonized? An indentured servan
35 MD-90 : Okay, I admit I wasn't thinking about Fort Sumter when I wrote that. But it is clearly true that the north did invade the south, initially, not vice v
36 Post contains images MD-90 : As I stated before, I misstitled this thread. My intent upon starting it was to shed light on something that I have never seen mentioned in any of my
37 BN747 : Slavery was of course a big issue. The biggest, even. Because people back then, even yankees, thought that negroes were the mental inferiors of whites
38 Alpha 1 : But the burden of taxation is something that I had never heard about. You had never heard about it, because it played no role in the decision of the S
39 Post contains images MD-90 : You apparently over looked my 'indentured servants' comments above. There were white slaves, too. Why don't you want to admit that? I'm am NOT referri
40 Alpha 1 : And because you're a liberal, you fail to see that they had the RIGHT to leave. Jesus, but you're dense: THIS HAS NOT A FUCKING THING TO DO WITH ME BE
41 IHadAPheo : "What I have found to be extremely interesting is how the people who are liberals who believe in big government, such as Alpha 1 and BN747, are the on
42 MD-90 : So, do you believe that the states had the right to leave? Because if they didn't, then they were in effect, 'slaves.' Robert E. Lee resigned his comm
43 Alpha 1 : So, do you believe that the states had the right to leave? The "right"? It's in the Constitution. Were they right to leave-over an issue of a brutal s
44 BN747 : There were white slaves, too. Why don't you want to admit that? I'm am NOT referring to indentured servants. Like who? And where? Cite your sources (a
45 MD-90 : You don't know that? Have you seriously never realized that not just blacks were slaves? There were a fair number of poor whites who were enslaved as
46 Alpha 1 : No, he didn't. Family and home came before the union. He can move family and home. His first duty was to the nation he was sworn to serve. He's a trai
47 IHadAPheo : "No, he didn't. Family and home came before the union."... So by this reasoning the next time my neighbor disturbs my home and family by mowing his la
48 Post contains links MD-90 : IHadaPheo, the Southern Cross was the name of the flag. It's not something I made up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stars_and_Bars I'm a Republican and
49 IHadAPheo : " would normally be inclined to agree, but the truth is, the south hoped to secede peacefully. The shots fired at Ft. Sumter were to evict a northern
50 Dc10guy : MD-90 America has almost always taken the war to the Enemy. That's what we did in the civil war too. Grant, Sherman, Great Americans for sure. Didn't
51 MD-90 : Didn't this thread start because of my comment about slavery & losing manufacturing jobs here ??? No, it assuredly did NOT. You physically attack a in
52 Alpha 1 : I would normally be inclined to agree, but the truth is, the south hoped to secede peacefully. The shots fired at Ft. Sumter were to evict a northern
53 MD-90 : Unfortunately, much of the South remains a hotbed for those wanting the Confederacy to rise again. No, it doesn't. But people like you obviously enjoy
54 Tbar220 : MD-90, I think your biggest logical mistake in your argument is that you fail to acknowledge that slavery was the root for the problems the south was
55 Pendrilsaint : A lot of people seem to want to come down on the South awfully harshly. Let's not forget that the VAST majority of Southerners did not hold slaves. Th
56 BN747 : Pendrilsaint, it appears you haven't read much of or many of the post here... in different post by myself alone, there are mentions that the majority
57 Alpha 1 : But if you've left that country and formed a new one, then what? When you LEAVE, and WAR on the country you've been in, YOU ARE A TRAITOR. Remember, t
58 Greg : It appears your entire opinions are based on the basis of a single website. You either have a link...quote...or paraphrase from it on practically ever
59 Pendrilsaint : Alpha, I believe you and MD-90 are simply making the same error, just in different extremes. Of course slavery was part of the cause for the civil war
60 Tbar220 : Pendrilsant, Actually, Sherman's acts during the civil was are pretty well documented in textbooks, at least I learned about it in my history classes
61 Garnetpalmetto : Yes it needed to be stopped, but I don't think the North went about it in the right way. So how, precisely, would you have done that? Trust me, there
62 BN747 : Alpha, you trying to say that it was the only reason is just silly. And to think that the North wanted to go to war for some altruistic purpose is eve
63 Post contains images Superfly : MD-90: I don't know what you point is and what your trying to prove by brinking up this topic. I do have some questions for you. Can you explain the l
64 Pendrilsaint : Lol, What is Southern Pride? It is the same as pride in any culture out there. It is the same as pride in black culture, as pride in Jewish culture, a
65 Garnetpalmetto : Again, who was the sponsor of the tariff of abominations? A Southerner. As for your claim that slavery would have been over in the 1870s anyway, could
66 Nancy : The Southern states were not sovereign nations. Read the Constitution: "Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States No State shall enter into any Treaty,
67 Superfly : Garnetpalmetto & Pendrilsaint: Yes the South does have a lot of things to be proud of too. The South has some of the best cooking on the entire face o
68 MD-90 : Henry Clay also wanted to be president, Garnetpalmetto. Greg, lewrockwell.com is a libertarian website with many, many different authors with varying
69 Post contains images Superfly : MD-90: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery There's no need to discuss slavery Huh!
70 BN747 : What on this earth makes you think that conditions would have changed in 10 years so that Southern leaders would have instantly released thousands of
71 Superfly : MD-90: You can complain about those carpetbagers and them damn Union soldiers all you want but look at the South today. It looks as those the South ha
72 BN747 : But a slave with a broken arm can't pick cotton very well, now can he? That's why they did get medical attention. It's logic. Of course, I'm sure ther
73 MD-90 : Nancy, you have a good point. While a state is in the United States, it is not its own nation. But before the Constitution was ratified, and after the
74 Superfly : MD-90: Well aware of all of that. You're not telling me anything new here. Yes the Stars and Strips flew over the slave trade in Boston but the Stars
75 MD-90 : You can complain about those carpetbagers and them damn Union soldiers all you want but look at the South today. I haven't complained about carpetbagg
76 Post contains images Superfly : MD-90: I think you're trying to dismiss a lot of flaws about the South. The North was far from perfect too. About the taxes. Southerners today hardly
77 MD-90 : It's y'all, buddy. I know. I don't mean to gloss over slavery or anything, but people like Alpha 1...geez And the income tax makes things different, n
78 Superfly : MD-90: What has Alpha1 said that was so bad in this thread? I understand the cost of living is lower in the South. I am just confused as to why they v
79 BN747 : Is it possible that we just got played like a used DVD from Blockbuster, by MD90, he's probably working on a thesis.. and we just did all his footwork
80 IHadAPheo : And I thought "All men are created equal", but picking and choosing which historical US documents you want to remember is so mch easier... random thou
81 MD-90 : IHadaPheo, I realized my mistake on my very first post after I started the thread. Wow I never knew how much fun some people think it was being a slav
82 BN747 : I am surprised we have not heard the "Africans held other Africans in Africa as slaves so why are you condemning the South?" excuse. If he would have
83 MD-90 : One of the best and accurate slave-theme movies ever... I thought that was Roots. Clarence Thomas is the cowardly prototype of a black man who would b
84 Post contains images Lehpron : Reparation/justice is just a pay-off to those people right? I think anyone who was coerced to believe that they were victims shouldn't hesitate to dem
85 UALPHLCS : MD-90 needs to be careful throwing around arguments like " the war was caused by economics" while acusing others of being liberal. Those who believe t
86 Alpha 1 : Alpha, you trying to say that it was the only reason is just silly. And to think that the North wanted to go to war for some altruistic purpose is eve
87 BN747 : One of the best and accurate slave-theme movies ever... I thought that was Roots. I didn't say the 'best'.. I said one of the best.. look again. By th
88 BN747 : GarnetPalmetto, I think slavery would've ended because even George Wallace, Mr. Segretation now, segregation forever! became a born-again Christian, r
89 Post contains links Alpha 1 : Well, I went back to the library, and took back out Bruce Catton's marvelous book, the first in his Centennial History of the Civil War, called "The C
90 Delta767300ER : Think you made the evil flag big enough on here? I totally disagree with the stuff you posted. -Delta767300ER
91 Alpha 1 : Who are you referring to, Delta767300ER?
92 Delta767300ER : I was referring to MD-90. Sorry for the confusion. -Delta767300ER
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
The South Is Not Going To Take This Well posted Wed Jun 23 2004 05:18:54 by MD-90
Nostradamus Did Not Predict The Tsunami posted Fri Dec 31 2004 12:28:12 by HAWK21M
The Stupidest Reason Not To Vote For X In '08 posted Sun Oct 1 2006 04:47:12 by TedTAce
That Enron CEO Did Not Die! posted Sun Jul 16 2006 21:36:57 by Derico
UK Troops Found Not Guilty Over Iraq Drowning posted Tue Jun 6 2006 22:47:41 by Gkirk
The "I Did Something Stupid.." Thread posted Wed Feb 15 2006 19:46:02 by Jap
How The Hell Did TheCoz Get 1380 Posts In 1 Week? posted Sat Jan 21 2006 11:01:23 by N1120A
Has God Punished The US For Not Supporting Israel? posted Wed Aug 31 2005 21:27:33 by Clickhappy
Brazilian Tube Victim Did Not Run From Police posted Wed Aug 17 2005 08:17:12 by N229NW
Further Proof The Low-Carb Craze Is Over... posted Mon Aug 1 2005 03:31:51 by Srbmod