MD-90
Topic Author
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Sun May 09, 2004 11:17 am

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
 
Nancy
Posts: 461
Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 1:54 pm

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Sun May 09, 2004 11:26 am

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.
 
MD-90
Topic Author
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Sun May 09, 2004 11:45 am

Of course. But it's the only reason that is remembered.
 
Soku39
Posts: 1731
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2000 7:16 am

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Sun May 09, 2004 11:47 am

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
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Sun May 09, 2004 11:53 am

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.
 
L.1011
Posts: 2163
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2001 7:46 am

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Sun May 09, 2004 12:04 pm

Wow, Alpha. I'm almost considering adding you to my respected users list. That pretty much sums up the truth here.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Sun May 09, 2004 12:06 pm

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.
 
MD-90
Topic Author
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Sun May 09, 2004 12:08 pm

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.

 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Sun May 09, 2004 12:14 pm

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]
 
MD-90
Topic Author
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Sun May 09, 2004 12:22 pm

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)?
 
planespotting
Posts: 3026
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:54 am

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Sun May 09, 2004 12:25 pm

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?
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Sun May 09, 2004 12:28 pm

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.
 
MD-90
Topic Author
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Sun May 09, 2004 12:28 pm

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."
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Sun May 09, 2004 12:33 pm

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?
 
DC10GUY
Posts: 2590
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 5:52 am

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Sun May 09, 2004 12:34 pm

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 !!!
 
IHadAPheo
Posts: 5499
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 3:26 pm

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Sun May 09, 2004 12:37 pm

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
 
MD-90
Topic Author
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Sun May 09, 2004 12:44 pm

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
 
DC10GUY
Posts: 2590
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 5:52 am

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Sun May 09, 2004 12:45 pm

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 !!!
 
MD-90
Topic Author
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Sun May 09, 2004 12:52 pm

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.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Sun May 09, 2004 12:54 pm

The fact betray you, MD-90, which is an appropriate description, seeing you're trying to defend those guilty of treason.
 
IHadAPheo
Posts: 5499
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 3:26 pm

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Sun May 09, 2004 1:05 pm

"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
 
MD-90
Topic Author
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Sun May 09, 2004 1:11 pm

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)
 
MD-90
Topic Author
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Sun May 09, 2004 1:16 pm

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.
 
IHadAPheo
Posts: 5499
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 3:26 pm

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Sun May 09, 2004 1:28 pm

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
 
BN747
Posts: 5344
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Sun May 09, 2004 1:31 pm

.. 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
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Sun May 09, 2004 1:38 pm

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 who don't say so are wide-eyed apologists for the Confederacy and/or for what slavery was back at that time.

Treason? The north invaded the south..

The first shots were fired by the south at Ft. Sumter, SC, by South Carolina militia on April 12, 1861. Ft. Sumter, and Union troops surrendered the next day. THAT was the start of the war, MD90, not a Union invaison.

Again, the Confederate side fired the first shots. That's historical fact, my friend.

In fact, the south didn't even instigate a rebellion.
They instigated it by leaving the union, over the peaceful election of one man as President, Abraham Lincoln-the REAL president of the U.S, not that triator Jeff Davis, MD-90.

You're so far up the Confederacy's butt you can't even get the history straight.

Robert E. Lee didn't even own any slaves!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."


So what? When push came to shove, he spit on his uniform, and stood for all those who believed in that evil system, didn't he? He couldn't raise his hand against dear old Virginia, but he could raise it against the country whose uniform he had worn up to that point. He was a traitor. He'll forever be a traitor.

(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.

Nothing new-the U.S. constitution said that at that point, too. The Confederate was almost identical to the U.S. one. And they didn't get rid of slavery, did they? They left the Union because of it. Traitors to the end.

Again, if you want to lavish praise or look for understanding of those who committed treason against their own country, then so be it. It tells me more of what kind of American you really are, and it's not a flattering picture, MD-90. So next time you question my credentials as a true American, I'll remember what you've said here.
 
LHMark
Posts: 7048
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 2:18 am

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Sun May 09, 2004 1:54 pm

MD90 = David Brent.

Filler



More filler
"Sympathy is something that shouldn't be bestowed on the Yankees. Apparently it angers them." - Bob Feller
 
IMissPiedmont
Posts: 6200
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 12:58 pm

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Sun May 09, 2004 2:23 pm

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 understand what the "civil" war was about. And it sure is not the thread starter.

IT WAS ABOUT THE RIGHT TO OWN ANOTHER HUMAN. Never mind the fact that the yankees also hated the african.
The day you stop learning is the day you should die.
 
BN747
Posts: 5344
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Sun May 09, 2004 2:37 pm

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 place for them was Canada.. where people were to busy fighting off the cold to worry about inferiority vs superiority.

BN747
"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
johnboy
Posts: 2556
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 9:09 pm

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Sun May 09, 2004 4:22 pm

Ann Coulter would be so proud!

 Big grin
 
srbmod
Posts: 15446
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 1:32 pm

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Mon May 10, 2004 12:21 am

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 people. Never mind the fact that the Northern states were as guilty of involvement in slavery as their Southern counterparts. The first slaves in America were not from Africa, they were from Europe. And what part of America were the first to be colonized? The Northeastern part of America. When the African slave trade started up in America, people in the North were purchasing slaves as well as those in the South. But the type of tasks that slaves were typically used for were not very economically feasible in the North. The North has a shorter farming season than the South, and as a result, the North over time, became dependent on the South for it's agricultural needs. The North became more industrialized, and uneducated slaves were not able to work in manufacturing jobs because they did not have the skills needed (as in many states, it was illegal to educate slaves), so the trade in slaves moved South on the basis of a higher demand in that region. Like someone mentioned earlier, slavery was the linchpin of the South economy, without it, there was not a Southern economy. What really got the Southern Slave Economy in high gear was the invention of the cotton gin. It allowed more cotton to be sold, and it greatly expanded trade between the South and Europe. In the South, cotton was King, and without slavery, the cotton would have been sitting in the fields or in warehouses. The South was an economic powerhouse compared to the North, which led to the various taxes and tariffs that affected the South much more than it did the North. It really was history repeating itself; remember the Colonies were being taxed and tariffed very heavily by the British government, and this anger led to a bunch of "traitors" rising up against Colonial rule in American Colonies. What the South did in succeeding from the Union, was to take the same steps our forefathers took in declaring their independence from tyranny. The war was about the rights of individual states, and was defintitely an issue of "Taxation Without Representation", a key issue in the American Revolution. Here the South was basically bankrolling the Federal Government, and getting nothing in return but grief from the Northern States. Wouldn't you be pissed off if you paid most of the bills and were still catching hell for how you got the money to pay the bills? That's the way the Southern states felt. Yes, the SC Militia fired the first shots of the war; they had already demanded the surrender of Union forces @ Ft. Sumter, and when those forces refused to surrender, they had no other choice. Ft. Sumter was in the territory of a foreign country, so the State of South Carolina had every right to force those foreign troops out of its' sovereign territory. The Civil War was fought over quite a lot of issues, it's just that historians find the the whole issue of slavery makes it the easiest issue to peg as the root cause of the Civil War. These "traitors" in the South are as much of traitors as Paul Revere, George Washington, John Adams, Ben Franklin, and so many others that fought against Colonial tyranny in the American Revolution; it's just that the victors go on the write the history books, and they cloud it with their own biases. This is why some many people are still fighting the Civil War 140 years later.
 
mbmbos
Posts: 2566
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 4:16 am

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Mon May 10, 2004 12:45 am

...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 American History. This was a war that was fought amongst ourselves; in some cases, brother fought against brother.

And yet when I visit the South, many people, within five minutes of meeting me, will inform me that their family fought for the Confederacy. Is that something to be proud of? It's like saying "My family proudly fought in a self-destructive war that caused death and damage to my own countrymen and left the nation economically devastated."

And then there are these arguments about whether the war was really about slavery or whether it was just some sort of marketing campaign to cover up the real reasons for the war. Then this statement is followed up by how the North was not on any moral high ground either - that their treatment of blacks was pretty bad too.

So, where do you stand on slavery? Are you for it or what? Are you telling me that it wasn't really that bad? Are you arguing that two wrongs make a right?

The irony is that the U.S. National Guard had to invade several Southern states during the fifties and sixties to enforce racial equality. So, many folks still hadn't gotten past the notion that they were somehow superior to blacks.

I really wonder what you're debating here. Are you really trying to delve into the politics of the time, or are you having a hard time acknowledging racism in your family tree? Or are you trying to justify how you feel today?

What's the point in this argument?

 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Mon May 10, 2004 4:04 am

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 people.

I don't recall me or anyone else saying they were evil. But they were traitors. I have no doubt they believed in their cause, but their cause-to keep slavery alive-was wrong. It was wrong then, it is wrong now. Passage of time doesn't diminish their treason.

Never mind the fact that the Northern states were as guilty of involvement in slavery as their Southern counterparts.

Why? Because by 1860, the North, at the most, tolerated slavery in the south, and had gotten rid of the practice in the north. If you think it makes them just as bad because they dared to stand up to the "all or nothing" demands of the South, then so be it. It doesn't change the fact that it was the South, not the North, that walked away from the country.

The North became more industrialized..

THE WORLD was becoming industrialized, but the old, autocratic South, with it's whole being built on the institution of slavery, refused to jump into the modern world-too many people would lose their status if it did. That's one reason why the South left-the denial of the dawning of the Industrial age, and the want to keep things-and blacks-where they thought they belonged.

What the South did in succeeding from the Union, was to take the same steps our forefathers took in declaring their independence from tyranny. The war was about the rights of individual states, and was defintitely an issue of "Taxation Without Representation"

That's just an out and out lie. You read any reputible book on the Civil War-not some sleazepit like pointsouth.com, which tries to apologize for slavery, and you don't even hear the phrase "taxation without representation" as a reason. Indeed, as I said above, the southern delegates to the 1860 DNC in Charleston left BECUASE of language on one issue-SLAVERY!! Go read their plank, and you'll see, that all you're doing is pushing pro-Southern, revisionist history down our throats. Nowhere in the Confederate Constitution, or in any major confederate writings, is what you say even mentioned.

Revisionism, to make traitors look acceptable.

Yes, the SC Militia fired the first shots of the war; they had already demanded the surrender of Union forces @ Ft. Sumter, and when those forces refused to surrender, they had no other choice.

AH!! So it's the Northern soldiers fault for doing their duty, and telling these traitors to go fuck themselves, eh? A great revision of history. The South started the war. Period. Again, revisionism may make rednecks flying the Stars and Bars feel better, but it isn't the truth.

The Civil War was fought over quite a lot of issues, it's just that historians find the the whole issue of slavery makes it the easiest issue to peg as the root cause of the Civil War.

ROTFLMAO.  Laugh out loud "Just the historians". Just the people who study the war, and study it, and study it, and study it. Seems to me that "the historians" (sounds like a conservative curse of the word "liberal" to me  Smile ) would, after studying this conflict, and what led up to it-better than an armchair apologist what the war was about. It was about ONE ISSUE-Slavery. That's it. That's why the south left. Obviously, a lot of Southerners haven't come to terms with that real truth.

This is why some many people are still fighting the Civil War 140 years later.

You're fighting it. I'm not. You and guys like MD-90, apoligizing for and revising the history of Secession and the Civil War (The War of Sothern Aggression), are fighting what was lost 139 years ago, in an attempt to change the sullied and traiterous reputation of the Confederate States of America. The war ended-your side lost. Too damn bad for the traitors, but that's life. They took the chance when they turned their backs on the Union, and refused to try peaceful means to solve the problem: they took their chances when they started the war-a war they weren't prepared for, and had no real chance of winning, and they lost.

The sooner the Stars and Bars fads into an inglorious history, the better. Amazing, some people take pride in a banner that stood for the subjugation of an entire people.

And yet when I visit the South, many people, within five minutes of meeting me, will inform me that their family fought for the Confederacy.

I'd half a mind to tell them: "Oh, your family were traitors? I can see where you'd be proud of that."
 
Nancy
Posts: 461
Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 1:54 pm

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Mon May 10, 2004 4:50 am

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 seceded over slavery, the North did not fight to free the slaves, they fought because a group of people were trying to remove a large area of land from their country and claim it for their own. I strongly doubt the North would have ever fought to free slaves; actually riots broke out when New Yorkers were being drafted because they didn't want to fight for that. Also, while the National Guard had to be brought in to integrate southern schools, the white citizenry of Boston also broke out into riots when the courts ordered that their schools be integrated. So, both the North and the South have a long and shameful history of racist oppression. Nobody is innocent by grace of geographic location.
 
BN747
Posts: 5344
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Mon May 10, 2004 6:21 am

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 servant wasn't a slave! Who's crackpipe are you whiffing? They were people who could not afford to pay passage from Europe (and a life of caste) in pursuit of starting a new life. At that time Europe looked at America a lot like many here view Afghanistan today.... a god forbidden unruly land. A 'who on earth would want to go there?' Agreements were made between the poorest to go work for a wealthier person (usually for a period no longer than six or seven years) at which the end of the period, the debt of their passage would be forgiven and they were free to go and start a new life in a new (or stolen) world. No slave ever had that option. To compare indentured servitude to slavery is absurd. One was owned from cradle to grave.. the other wasn't remotely close.

Opportunist like Christopher Columbus clearly saw easy financial gain (though ill gotten) through expansionist views. His idea initially, was to basically capitalize on the spice trade.. but what he came across was more than he expected.. a different kind of indian and a different kind of land. Crops, minerals and materials never seen before by europeans. The abundance of sugar cane and the by-products of it 'sugar/molasses' were the 1st 'king cottons' if you will. Columbus was no fool he saw unending potential..but what he was, without a doubt.. a bad business man! Aside from a few minor plantations in the Indies he never realize the visions of grandeur that fueled him after making his 'discovery'.

The official 1st enslavement of blacks came in 1612 (and possibly earlier) after attempts to enslave the indigenous people failed miserably! The Indians just kept running away.. and no one knew the terrain better than they did. Thus was born the idea to steal a practice from the Arabs, who already perfected stealing Africans from northern Africa for enslavement. This undertaking was going to huge by comparison and required deep thought in setting up an elaborate system of supply, distribution and the market... to someone it was ingenious by design.. and made many wealthy beyond the stretches of the imagination.

FF to the pre-Civil War era.. it's beyond me how anyone can defend the actions of the South. Sure the north was no paradise either blacks. But the south's actions were born out of the north drawing a line at where the slave laws (enforced on them) and beyond to new territories would end. And the 'South's '...you can't tell us what to do' state of mind is that of only the wealthy slaveholders.. who also just happened to be the South's representatives in government. These same legistators managed to manipulate the non-slave holding whites of the south to believe ' this was their fight too'... which was a lie because it wasn't! So the 'I own slaves and am entitled to own more and expand if I want to' became... this is our part of the US and we'll do what we damn please'.. and of course the uneducated fell for it lock, stock and barrel. As for General Lee and his love for Virginia crap... I don't know, perhaps he saw the US as another europe. Where states would break off and become independent country/states.. who knows? But how he could not see the northern manufacturing capabilities as a huge advantage over the south... and take on such odds is beyond me. The best source for gauging the times is to read any text, newspapers of the day.. not take the words of any historian today hwo can only offer his own spin. And certainly no direction from someone like MD90...look at where that's gotten him...

BN747
"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
MD-90
Topic Author
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Mon May 10, 2004 6:27 am

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 versa. Fort Sumter was being reinforced to further collect onerous taxes. That's why it was the first skirmish of the war. T-A-X-E-S.

And please note, I stated that the north invaded the south, which is true. I was not stating who fired the first shot.

BN747, slaves were expensive to keep, though. Even if they did reproduce themselves, horrible as being born a slave was.

North did not fight to free the slaves, they fought because a group of people were trying to remove a large area of land from their country and claim it for their own.

But the states were each their own sovereign, independent nations. They VOLUNTARILY entered into a compact that formed the united STATES. And when the burdern of taxation became too onerous, and no relief was in sight, they left the union. Note that before the civil war (which I will not refer to as the War for Southern Independence, even though that's a more accurate name), the states were commonly considered to be a union. Only after the civil war did the term nation become popular.

Because by 1860, the North, at the most, tolerated slavery in the south, and had gotten rid of the practice in the north.

No they didn't. Slavery was still legal in almost every single northern state (with the possible exception of one or two like Massachusetts, I think). Lincoln had to promise that he would not free any northern slaves in order to be elected.

So next time you question my credentials as a true American, I'll remember what you've said here.

I've never questioned your intentions as a "true" American. Your mind is obviously so clouded that you can't possibly trust someone who isn't liberal.

And Jefferson Davis never claimed to be the president of the United States.
 
MD-90
Topic Author
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Mon May 10, 2004 6:50 am

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 public school history textbooks (not even in Alabama History, in 4th grade).

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, and that they were intended to be a subservient race who on average were physically stronger than whites. And the people of the day thought it was normal (slavery, at that time, was practiced all over the world, everywhere but in Britain and the British colonies (not officially, at least).

But the burden of taxation is something that I had never heard about. And I have tried to start a discussion about it. As is typical, though, Alpha 1 just can't wait to expound upon the civil war. Big grin


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 ones throwing around treason and traitor, in the hopes that some of it will stick, I guess.

The real conservatives and especially libertarians (not fake conservatives like Bush, though), realize that the South had history on its side in the civil war. The states were sovereign, independent nations in and of themselves. Robert E. Lee was not a traitor to the union of states, he was loyal to his home state (his nation) of Virginia.



BN747, I think your posts have been the most lucid and thoughtful posts I've ever seen you make. I appreciate not letting your base emotions rule your responses, unlike others. But I have to remind you that not all slaves were black. There were white slaves (like the Irish) imported from Europe, as well.

In fact, I remember an account in one of my history books where a plantation owner hired a group of Irish men to fix the roof on his home. He had slaves, who could've done the work for just the cost of supplies, but he wrote that he would never have used them for such a purpose. Why? Because they were valuable, that's why! So he hired Irish, not caring in the least if any of them were injured or killed while working on his roof.


The sooner the Stars and Bars fads into an inglorious history, the better. Amazing, some people take pride in a banner that stood for the subjugation of an entire people.

But this is revsionism on Alpha 1's part. The Confederate Battle flag (which was not the official flag of the Confederacy, by the way) represents the right of states to determine their own future and not be beholden to oppressing powers. 87% of the taxes were paid in southern states. Yet which states got the public works, do you imagine? The industrializing north, of course.



If the only issue was slavery, why did the southern states not leave the union in 1841? Or 1851? Why did it take the new tax measures in 1861 to prompt the withdrawal, voluntary, as it had voluntarily been entered into?


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.

And the south, which paid 87% of the taxes (of course, the exact ratio was surely slightly different during their actual years of attendance), paid for the vast majority of their educations, didn't it?  Big grin



Libertarians and true conservatives on the side of states' rights, and the concept that state and local government does a better job than

versus

Liberals, who are on the side of big government, and believe that the federal government is usually the answer.



This thread has taken an interesting turn along those lines.
 
BN747
Posts: 5344
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Mon May 10, 2004 7:49 am

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, and that they were intended to be a subservient race who on average were physically stronger than whites.

Not true, that broad generalizing indictment holds no water, this superior vs inferior perspective only emerged at the point of a gun. All whites were NOT followers of this line of thought. Many educated whites knew better and didn't buy into this horsecrap but those with something gain from propagating such nonsense did the best they could to further such false beliefs (and have been extremely successful for it to have lasted as long as it has today).

Physically stronger.. more bullshit, this from their ability to endure in warmer climates (their natural environment) whereas whether in Africa or in the US south, whites could perform in such climates in which they were not acclimated. A simply 'out of ones elements' observation.

And the people of the day thought it was normal (slavery, at that time, was practiced all over the world, everywhere but in Britain and the British colonies (not officially, at least).

This is entirely false, sure there were caste-like societies, warlords, landlords and war captives from Europe to China to the 'undiscovered Americas'. But slavery as you appear to define it was strictly limited the arab world.. no where else. There was no firmly entrenched and organized system like what was to come for the Americas.

The real conservatives and especially libertarians (not fake conservatives like Bush, though), realize that the South had history on its side in the civil war.
They did? How?

The states were sovereign, independent nations in and of themselves. Robert E. Lee was not a traitor to the union of states, he was loyal to his home state (his nation) of Virginia.

Yes he was. As graduate of West Point, he had sworn to defend and uphold the Constitution of the US. That made his obligations to the nation sacrosanct to to those of Virginia.

But I have to remind you that not all slaves were black. There were white slaves (like the Irish) imported from Europe, as well.

You apparently over looked my 'indentured servants' comments above.

In fact, I remember an account in one of my history books where a plantation owner hired a group of Irish men to fix the roof on his home. He had slaves, who could've done the work for just the cost of supplies, but he wrote that he would never have used them for such a purpose. Why? Because they were valuable, that's why! So he hired Irish, not caring in the least if any of them were injured or killed while working on his roof.

You contradict yourself in the above statement and the penultimate one... you state 'slaves' in the first and 'hired' in the second. They two are not even close.

As far as Taxation goes.. you have to look at a number of things.

Sure the goal was the same as cigarettes today.. tax it so high that people will refrain from doing it. That didn't work, so the Feds stopped the importation of Slaves.. ending the kidnapping of Africans. And ceasing Slave ships at sea. The British Navy did the same.

So Slave-traders kept it up..but were now forced to go underground and smuggle their human cargo into the US.

Slave-holders who saw legislation coming to end the 'official Slave Ship' trade moved to counter it by creating slave farms and breeding them to be 'Sold down the river' .. the Mississippi to be exact.

So every step of the way, taxes on the slave holders would increase exponentially. But they were still making a killing on the trade no matter how high the taxes. It's not like there was a county assessor going around counting how many slaves were on a plantation. The old 'high taxes' was the same as 'cry poverty' argument while you're sitting on a mountain of cash (a worthy tactic old predates Moses).

So the high taxes argument doesn't hold water.

As for southern sovereignty goes.. if states rights is so important, then how did the South get Northern states to co-operate in Fugitive slaves laws? If you're a northerner you could be jailed for assisting a slave from the south. Doesn't southern state rights end at the border? Not according to the South, and the south sent many slave hunters into the north (and many kidnapped non-slave blacks in the process) in search of escapees. So forcing Non-Slave states to aid in the Slavery system, by your own definition is, states rights and sovereignty is moot when came to getting back property .. backed with the threat of imprisonment.

You gotta hand it to the South, if they could...

Cajole the North into returning run away slaves.
Have Northern citizens jailed for non-compliance.
Allow southern agents to exact their wishes in northern territories..

This is politically mastery at it's best.
But the south also managed to draw poor whites into doing their bidding by disguising and selling 'the Slave Trade' argument into a war based on 'The rights of the South are being trampled upon by those northern damned Yankees'. The white non-slaveholder needs to come to terms that he was duped and misled to give his life for an unjust cause..end of story.

That same process of getting the ignorant to do your fighting is as vibrant today!

BN747
"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Mon May 10, 2004 10:37 am

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 Southern states to seceed. Again, look at SC's articles of secession, where they mention over and over "the slaveholding states", and that is used as the justification. Not taxes; not state's right, but, specifically, slavery.

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 ones throwing around treason and traitor, in the hopes that some of it will stick, I guess.

Your problem, MD-90, and it's wholly pervasive in everything you do, is your belief that EVERYTHING I say has to do with modern liberalism or modern conservatism. You just make yourself look like a slave apologist and a southern sympathizer when you say that. I say what I say, because it's the truth-a historic, undeniable fact: those who turned thair back on their nation, were traitors to that nation, and were guilty of treason. What part of that don't you understand. It has NOTHING to do with me being liberal or conservative. It has everything to do with history, which you, in your infinite hypicrisy, try to re-write here.

The real conservatives and especially libertarians (not fake conservatives like Bush, though), realize that the South had history on its side in the civil war.

ROTFL. More revisionism. They had nothing on their side: they left the nation; they fired the first shot; they couldn't raise munitions and soldiers in a way the Union could; the thrust of their whole being was built on an evil, degrading institution. They had nothing on their side. What they do have on their side are modern, neo-Confederates like yourself, who, a century and a half after their deserved defeat, try to rehabilite and rejuvinate their image, as somehow a noble place, when it was nothing of the sort.

Robert E. Lee was not a traitor to the union of states, he was loyal to his home state (his nation) of Virginia.

He was a traitor. He was an Officer in the United States Armed Forces, and, as surely as an officer today, if he turned in his colors to serve a foreign power, would be guilty of treason and being called a traitor, so is Lee. Again, your revisionism for someone who should have been hung after the war is comforting, but it doesn't change what is the truth.

Because they were valuable, that's why!

They were property-he didn't even think them human. Now, you try to justify slavery. You're really losing it, MD-90.

But this is revsionism on Alpha 1's part. The Confederate Battle flag (which was not the official flag of the Confederacy, by the way) represents the right of states to determine their own future and not be beholden to oppressing powers.

To most Americans, who have no desire to see the Confederacy rise again, as you obviously do, it's symbol of hate; a symbol of brutality; a symbol of traitors. It's used by the Klan, Aryan Nation, and other racist groups, to show what THEY think the Confederacy was about. It isn't an honorable symbol-it's a shameful one, and should be gone forever from this country. We shouldn't be honoring those guilty of treason.

If the only issue was slavery, why did the southern states not leave the union in 1841? Or 1851? Why did it take the new tax measures in 1861 to prompt the withdrawal, voluntary, as it had voluntarily been entered into?

Tax measures had not a fucking thing to do with it, MD-90. Go read South Carolina's article of secession, and you tell ME where the hell they complain about taxes, as an excuse to leave the Union. You go show me.

And why didn't they leave? Easy, because at those times, they were still willing to compromise with the north. By 1860-and read again the Southern Amendment to the DNC Platform that I mentioned-they wanted every one of their demands met, or they would walk-be it out of a political convention, or out of the nation. By 1860, moderates, that had won the day in the 1840's and 1850's-on both sides, were gone, replaced with radicals like Yancy in the South and Seward in the North.

But taxation had not a think to do with it. Typical conservative-using taxation as a crutch. Good boy.

So, as far as I'm concerned, MD-90, you are, in spirit, at least, every much of a turncoat to what this nation is as those traitors you try to raise to lofty levels. So next time, you tell me how much better an American you are than me, pardon me if I laugh in your face and don't buy it.
 
MD-90
Topic Author
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Mon May 10, 2004 11:14 am

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 referring to indentured servants.

Not true, that broad generalizing indictment holds no water, this superior vs inferior perspective only emerged at the point of a gun.

That was an overly broad statement, you're right about that. But a lot of people did believe it. Even up north. Of course, there were abolitionists too who didn't feel that way. And there are physical differences, such as the fact that blacks tend to be able to run faster than whites because they have more flexible achilles tendons (more flexible or longer, I forget). The Kenyans dominance in running is an example of this.

Sure the goal was the same as cigarettes today.. tax it so high that people will refrain from doing it. That didn't work, so the Feds stopped the importation of Slaves.. ending the kidnapping of Africans. And ceasing Slave ships at sea. The British Navy did the same.

The taxes were not meant to end slavery, they were meant to raise revenue for the union. I guess it was just a coincidence that the preponderence of the taxes were paid by trade in southern ports, who did a lot of exporting and importing, as opposed to the north, which was trying to build up their fledgling industries, and didn't have hardly any viable exports. And if the punitive taxes could prevent southerners from buying a better product from England that they could buy from yankee merchants, well...

So the high taxes argument doesn't hold water.

The high taxes affected EVERYBODY in the south, not just the relatively very few slaveowners. The taxes weren't on slaves anyway, they were on imports and exports like cotton going out and manufactured goods from Europe coming in.

if states rights is so important, then how did the South get Northern states to co-operate in Fugitive slaves laws?

By and large, those laws weren't enforced. Which is another reason why the southerners were upset with the north.

Cajole the North into returning run away slaves.
Have Northern citizens jailed for non-compliance.
Allow southern agents to exact their wishes in northern territories..


Why do you think that during Reconstruction, so many southern senators and congressmen were denied their seats in Congress by yankee politicians? Because they were very politically astute, that's why! Citizens of course were never jailed, and the fugitive slave laws that were passed were passed by Congress, which meant that the northern states were obligated to follow them, as well. That's how "southern agents" could "exact their wishes" in northern states.


they left the nation

And because you're a liberal, you fail to see that they had the RIGHT to leave. Libertarians and conservatives that haven't sold out to big government understand that. You don't.

No one who was involved with the Confederacy was ever charged with treason. And I'll bet there were plenty of northerners who would've loved to have brought up charges. In fact, only ONE Confederate was ever charged with anything, and that was the commandant of the Andersonville prison who was charged with war crimes.


I'd also like to point out that calling the battle flag the 'Stars and Bars' is inaccurate.

This is the Stars and Bars,the flag of the Confederacy (with 7 stars, representing the original states in the Confederacy)


This is the Southern Cross, the battle flag of the Confederacy (the Stars and Bars looked too much like Old Glory in battle, which is why a separate flag was made with 13 stars to represent all the states of the Confederacy)
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Mon May 10, 2004 11:21 am

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 BEING A LIBERAL!!! GOT IT! It has to do with studying the war, on and off, since I was a kid-that happens when your dad teaches American history.

Drop the "liberal" shit. You sound like Sean Hannity PMS-ing.

No one who was involved with the Confederacy was ever charged with treason.

Robert E. Lee was going to be charged, but General Grant got in the face of President Johnson, and told him not to go through with it. Johnson agreed. Pity, really.

As for those flags, burn 'em for all I care. The flags of traitors.
 
IHadAPheo
Posts: 5499
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 3:26 pm

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Mon May 10, 2004 11:32 am

"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 ones throwing around treason and traitor, in the hopes that some of it will stick, I guess"

"The real conservatives and especially libertarians (not fake conservatives like Bush, though), realize that the South had history on its side in the civil war. The states were sovereign, independent nations in and of themselves. Robert E. Lee was not a traitor to the union of states, he was loyal to his home state (his nation) of Virginia."

Comment on he first bit, it is not only "liberals" who want to "throw around treason and traitor" I'm a Republican and have been for 23 years and I believe that if you take up arms against your Country you are a traitor and have committed treason. This is especially true if you are a West Point Graduate in the US armed forces. If during the Gulf War or the latest US action in Iraq I were to have joined the Iraqi army and fought against the US I would have been a traitor as well.


As to the second bit "the South had history on its side in the civil war. The states were sovereign, independent nations in and of themselves" this makes as much sense as saying that the Nazi's had history on their side as well (heck a few thousand years of persecuting the Jewish faith and Germany was also a sovereign state) and that this "history gave them the right to do what they pleased with the "Jews"

The true revisionist is one who tries to justify the crimes of a group by picking and choosing what historical data both real and fabricated they bring to the debate and ignoring facts that disprove their agenda.

I am unable to put into words as well as Alpha does above but he does say quite well what I am struggling to say and trust me politically speaking Alpha and I are quite a bit apart.

Is it any wonder why a good part of the rest of the world looks at us as being provincial and backwards when we are still debating slavery as being a matter of states rights and "having history on their side". I find it hard to believe that these kind of thoughts are being debated in 2004.

This is not in any way a debate of Liberals vs "True Conservatives" but a matter of historical fact, since by using the "having history on their side " reasoning I doubt if anyone living in the 1860 would no a Liberal from a "True Conservative"

And calling the "Stars and Bars" "the Southern Cross" is akin to calling Slavery "life time guaranteed employment with free housing"


Pray hard but pray with care For the tears that you are crying now Are just your answered prayers
 
MD-90
Topic Author
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Mon May 10, 2004 11:36 am

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 commission, by the way.

Here's an interesting letter that Lee wrote,

Robert E. Lee letter dated December 27, 1856:

I was much pleased the with President's message. His views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people at the North to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South are truthfully and faithfully expressed. The consequences of their plans and purposes are also clearly set forth. These people must be aware that their object is both unlawful and foreign to them and to their duty, and that this institution, for which they are irresponsible and non-accountable, can only be changed by them through the agency of a civil and servile war. There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?

 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Mon May 10, 2004 11:46 am

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 system of slavery? No, they were not. And they deserved, as far as I'm concerned, the fate that befell them in 1865, which was utter defeat.

Robert E. Lee resigned his commission, by the way.

Yes, to take up arms against the nation whom he had served. Ergo, he was, is, and always will be a traitor. Resigning one's commission doesn't make one any less of a traitor.

There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race.

Nice words, but when push came to shove, he stood with those who supported that institution of "moral and political evil." And if it was "a greater evil to the white than to the colored race", then why fight to preserve it.

Not only was he a traitor, but a hypcrite to his beliefs as well. Even worse.

Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy.

But that wasn't true, was it? It came from "the strom and tempest of fiery controversy", namely the Civil War, which he helped to prosecute against the nation whom gave him a free education at West Point, a commission in it's Army. Again, he betrayed what he believed. Is that NOT the true indicator of being a traitor.

So, using his words, to make your point, you show this man to be a hypocrite and a triator. He didn't believe in the evil institution, and wanted it to end, but he fought and sent men to their deaths to defend it. How much more proof do you need.

You can't win this one, MD-90. If you want to continue your crusade, start a website like , so other good rednecks can feel better about being traitors, and supporting the institution of slavery, post-facto.
 
BN747
Posts: 5344
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Mon May 10, 2004 11:59 am

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 mainstream source)

And there are physical differences, such as the fact that blacks tend to be able to run faster than whites..

You have completely lost it. Just because a kenyan always wins a every NY/Boston marathon.. then why is the female winner always a white one? What's with you? It seems all you ever need is 'one example' of something to be convinced of an entire theory. Scary.

The taxes were not meant to end slavery, they were meant to raise revenue for the union. I guess it was just a coincidence that the preponderence of the taxes were paid by trade in southern ports, who did a lot of exporting and importing, as opposed to the north, which was trying to build up their fledgling industries,

Sure it was, it was a moral wrong and the lawmakers knew it. Therefore taxing it as such was a feeble attempt to temper or deter it... yet in the process of doing so it yielded incredible income for the US Treasury. It was bad enough the south was getting away with free labor (while the north had pay for labor).. plus you're gonna let them gain all the windfalls from such enormous labor pool?
I don't think so. Don't even reach to play the 'cost card'.

The high taxes affected EVERYBODY

Like who? And back that up.. show how a smithy or goods merchant in Charleston paid more than one Trenton in taxes?

By and large, those laws weren't enforced. Which is another reason why the southerners were upset with the north.

Now I know you're making shit up.. there are too many documented cases of incidents linled to the Fugitive slave laws where actaully riots broke out and the jailing of white ministers who challenged the law with their actions.

Who gives a rats ass about the flags? I made no refernce about that one way or the other.

BN747

"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
MD-90
Topic Author
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Mon May 10, 2004 12:20 pm

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 well.

Therefore taxing it as such was a feeble attempt to temper or deter it... yet in the process of doing so it yielded incredible income for the US Treasury.

I don't know if slaves were ever taxed or not (I doubt it), but the taxes that caused the south to be paying 87% of the entire nation's tax burden were simple duties and tariffs on things like the exportation of cotton. Not slaves.

Like who? And back that up.. show how a smithy or goods merchant in Charleston paid more than one Trenton in taxes?


Let's compare a self sufficient southern farmer who owns no slaves (the vast, vast majority never owned a single slave) and a northerner who was skilled at a trade (such as a cobbler; you know, they make shoes).

The farmer pays taxes on the food he exports (a lot of which went to Europe). He also pays taxes if he buys something from outside the US, such as import shoes from England (which, if he lived in Alabama, could be cheaper and better made than buying shoes made in Connecticut).

Now, you have the northern cobbler. He pays hardly no tax, since he doesn't export anything (the fledgling US shoe industry couldn't compete with established European manufacturers). He would pay tax on things he also imported, like paper or tea. But, being up there in the much more heavily populated north, it was less likely that he would need to buy something from outside the US. Rural farmers in the south didn't have the advantage of cities (generally).

Southerners sold more exports, like tobacco and cotton (upon which a duty was levied), and imported more things (upon which a tariff was levied), than northerners. They imported more things not because they were rich, but because even the early railroads weren't very fast and travel in the US was slow.

THAT'S how it came to be that southerners were shouldering 87% of the nation's tax burdern.


It was bad enough the south was getting away with free labor (while the north had pay for labor).. plus you're gonna let them gain all the windfalls from such enormous labor pool?

Don't you understand that slaves have to be fed, and it is well documented that they often got better medical care than the slaveowner's own family? But you could, in Massachusetts, hire cheap European immigrant labor. I'll bet that owning slaves didn't actually come out to be all that much cheaper. It had to be cheaper, though, because cotton in particular was a very labor intensive crop.

With that thought, new technology, if nothing else, would've made slaves obsolete.

Now I know you're making shit up.. there are too many documented cases of incidents linled to the Fugitive slave laws where actaully riots broke out and the jailing of white ministers who challenged the law with their actions.

I know, but the fugitive slave laws were still often ignored.

Again, he betrayed what he believed. Is that NOT the true indicator of being a traitor.

No, he didn't. Family and home came before the union.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Mon May 10, 2004 12:23 pm

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 traitor, and I guess you're one in spirit.

Amazing, that a conservative, someone who professes so much loyalty and devotion to his nation, has this soft spot for those who took up arms against that nation. Truely ironic.
 
IHadAPheo
Posts: 5499
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 3:26 pm

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Mon May 10, 2004 12:33 pm

"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 lawn at a time I would consider to be a violation of the rights of my state I would thereby have the right to disregard the laws of land and start tossing a brick or two at him. I would be defending the rights of my family and home so what if I were to break other laws in doing so, I have MY rights.
Pray hard but pray with care For the tears that you are crying now Are just your answered prayers
 
MD-90
Topic Author
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Mon May 10, 2004 12:41 pm

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 have been for 23 years and I believe that if you take up arms against your Country you are a traitor and have committed treason.

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 fort (put there to facilitate taxation of the major port of Charleston) that was on what was then a different union of states. And yet the attack resulted in no casualties on either side.

But until the north actually invaded the south, there was hope for peace. So, while the confederacy did fire the infamous first shot, it was the union that invaded the south, not vice versa (until later in the war, of course, when D.C. was almost overrun).

And there's still the fundamental issue that each state was it's own country. And after secession, the US Constitution did not apply to citizens of the seceded states.

Naturally, there's a lot of contention about that.
 
IHadAPheo
Posts: 5499
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 3:26 pm

RE: The South Did Not Secede Over Slavery

Mon May 10, 2004 12:54 pm

" 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 fort (put there to facilitate taxation of the major port of Charleston"

until the "war" there was no such thing as a "northern fort" a US fort, outpost whatever you want to call was a US Gov' institution and an attack on such by US citizens would therefore be an act of treason, it would be the same if I were to drive to South Dakota and shoot up an Air Force base for South Dakota's alledged mistreatment/taxation of by beloved Bison.

You physically attack a institution of your own government and kill the troops of said then you are a traitor
Pray hard but pray with care For the tears that you are crying now Are just your answered prayers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], lewis, PacificBeach88 and 38 guests