Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

It was all about slavery, and always had been

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • It was all about slavery, and always had been

    Nobody put it more eloquently than did John Calhoun in 1936



    "We love and cherish the Union; we remember with kindest feelings our common origin, with pride our common achievements, and fondly anticipate the common greatness and glory that seem to await us; but origin, achievements, and anticipation of coming greatness are to us as nothing compared to this question. It is to us a vital question. It involves not only our liberty, but, what is greater (if to freemen anything can be), existence itself. The relation which now exists between the two races in the slaveholding states has existed for two centuries. It has grown with our growth, and strengthened with our strength. It has entered into and modified all our institutions, civil and political. None other can be substituted. We will not, cannot permit it to be destroyed. If we were base enough to do so, we would be traitors to our section, to ourselves, our familes, and to posterity. It is our anxious desire to protect and preserve this relation by the joint action of this government and the confederated states of the Union; but if, instead of closing the door - if, instead of denying all jurisdiction and all interference in this question, the doors of Congress are to be thrown open; and if we are to be exposed here, in the heart of the Union, to an endless attack on our rights, our character, and our institutions; if the other states are to stand and look on without attempting to suppress these attacks, originating within their borders; and, finally, if this is to be our fixed and permanent condition as members of this confederacy, we will then be compelled to turn our eyes on ourselves. Come what will, should it cost every drop of blood and every cent of property, we must defend ourselves; and if compelled, we would stand justified by all laws, human and divine."

    - John C. Calhoun, Senate speech, March 9, 1836

    Source: http://books.google.com/books?id=fjUDAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA207&lpg=PA209
    Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
    Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

  • #2
    Unfortunately, that premise is completely wrong. It was all about two things:

    1. States rights
    2. Money

    Lincoln had no problem at all with slavery and considered salves an inferior race. He said this openly many times in his writings and speeches.

    Post edited to delete reference to current political issues. Those items are not going to be part of the debate in this forum.
    Last edited by D1J1; 09 Sep 19, 04:33.
    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      Unfortunately, that premise is completely wrong. It was all about two things:

      1. States rights
      2. Money

      Lincoln had no problem at all with slavery and considered salves an inferior race. He said this openly many times in his writings and speeches.
      No, that won't wash. Let us start with money. The folks with money in the south relied on slavery for their economic gains. Slavery is the trump card there. The loss of their slaves is the loss of their social, economic and political dominance of the south. They had money because they had slaves.

      As for state's rights, what right were they afraid of losing? The answer is slavery again. It is all about the slaves. Slavery actually gave them disproportionately more political power and rights with the 2/3s clause.

      You discuss what Lincoln though, and that answer is so what. Lincoln's views on would have been relevant if he were a leading secessionist, but as he is holding the Union together they have no meaning as to why the southern states attempted to secede.

      You have put the cart before the horse with money and slavery, and used an invalid argument with Lincoln, nice try.

      Regards,
      Dennis
      Last edited by D1J1; 09 Sep 19, 04:43.
      If stupid was a criminal offense Sea Lion believers would be doing life.

      Shouting out to Half Pint for bringing back the big mugs!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
        Unfortunately, that premise [that the Southern States' secession was motivated by slavery] is completely wrong. It was all about two things:

        1. States rights
        2. Money . . . .
        I've asked this question before, to no avail: if the Southern states' motive to secede was not their leaders' desire to preserve slavery, then how do you explain the overwhelmingly hostile response to Cleburne's Memorial?

        Originally posted by hellboy30 View Post
        I've posted this before, but this hits home when talking about this:
        Craig Symond's "Stonewall of the West: Patrick Cleburne & the Civil War" talks about ole Pat submitting his proposal to have slaves freed from bondage to fight for the South. Here is an interesting exerpt & exchange from pg 190-191 of that book:

        Within the army, secrecy was maintained. Only now & then did rumor of the meeting seep out. After securing a pledge of confidentiality from Colonel James Nisbet, Brigadier General Clement Stevens told him the secret of Cleburne's astonishing proposal. Stevens suggested that although Cleburne was a "skilled army officer, & true to the Southern cause," he did not have a "proper conception of the Negro, he being foreign born & reared." When Nisbet responded that he thought arming slaves was a good idea, Stevens exploded. Slavery, he declared, was the cause of the war & the reason why the South was fighting. "If slavery is to be abolished then I take no more interest in our fight. The justification of slavery in the South is the inferiority of the negro. If we make him a soldier, we concede the whole question." Steven's outburst was evidence of how badly Cleburne had misread the society he called his own. Cleburne's assumption that "every patriot will freely give up......the negro slave rather than be a slave himself" failed to take into consideration the fact that many southerners viewed the loss of slavery as virtually synonymous with the loss of their own liberty.
        - emphasis mine

        I await your response sir.
        I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by D1J1 View Post

          No, that won't wash. Let us start with money. The folks with money in the south relied on slavery for their economic gains. Slavery is the trump card there. The loss of their slaves is the loss of their social, economic and political dominance of the south. They had money because they had slaves.

          As for state's rights, what right were they afraid of losing? The answer is slavery again. It is all about the slaves. Slavery actually gave them disproportionately more political power and rights with the 2/3s clause.

          You discuss what Lincoln though, and that answer is so what. Lincoln's views on would have been relevant if he were a leading secessionist, but as he is holding the Union together they have no meaning as to why the southern states attempted to secede.

          You have put the cart before the horse with money and slavery, and used an invalid argument with Lincoln, nice try.

          Regards,
          Dennis
          Not at all. First of all, money. The government of America at this time had only one source of revenue - taxes and tarrifs on exported goods sold overseas. 60% of the Federal income came from the southern states, heavily invested in agriculture and especially cotton. Had the South been allowed to secede, the government would have collapsed within a year. However, according to the laws at the time, the South had the legal right to secede, just as we still have the legal right to revolt. Read the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

          IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
          The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
          hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

          We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
          Secondly, the government of America at the time was based on States' Rights. The Federal government was limited to negotiating treaties and trade agreements and maintaining a small army to defend the nation. Everything not specifically granted to the federal government in writing was the absolute domain of their individual states, and this was the government that Lincoln was sworn to defend and maintain. He refused to do so, preferring a bloody civil war to maintain his presidency, and in doing so he betrayed his office and the nation according to the laws and principles in effect at the time. The right to secede belonged to the states ta that time.
          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

          Comment


          • #6
            And Calhoun's statement?
            Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
            Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
              And Calhoun's statement?
              Alexander Stephenson's Cornerstone Speech?
              I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

              Comment


              • #8
                No slavery no Civil War. You can't separate the economic issues from slavery.
                We hunt the hunters

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                  Not at all. First of all, money. The government of America at this time had only one source of revenue - taxes and tarrifs on exported goods sold overseas. 60% of the Federal income came from the southern states, heavily invested in agriculture and especially cotton. Had the South been allowed to secede, the government would have collapsed within a year. However, according to the laws at the time, the South had the legal right to secede, just as we still have the legal right to revolt. Read the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.


                  Secondly, the government of America at the time was based on States' Rights. The Federal government was limited to negotiating treaties and trade agreements and maintaining a small army to defend the nation. Everything not specifically granted to the federal government in writing was the absolute domain of their individual states, and this was the government that Lincoln was sworn to defend and maintain. He refused to do so, preferring a bloody civil war to maintain his presidency, and in doing so he betrayed his office and the nation according to the laws and principles in effect at the time. The right to secede belonged to the states ta that time.
                  Nope, nice try again though. On the tariff first. If the southern states felt more effects from tariffs it is precisely because the movers and shakers there chose to make their money on an agriculture based economy wholly dependent on slavery. They were riding a losing horse, marketing cheap raw materials in exchange for expensive foreign goods. Absent slavery, who knows what they might have done.

                  States rights? If secession was a right of the states they chose to have that determination made by force of arms by bringing on the Civil War. If they felt so strongly, why not test it in the courts? Could it be that they knew they were losers there? Lincoln's duty was to defend the nation against all enemies foreign and domestic. Those who would seek to destroy the nation as it existed are enemies and Lincoln did what he had to do to those who chose to wage war against their own government.

                  Regards,
                  Dennis
                  If stupid was a criminal offense Sea Lion believers would be doing life.

                  Shouting out to Half Pint for bringing back the big mugs!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Of course slavery impacted the economy of the entire nation, not just the south. King Cotton accounted for @ 58% of the national economy.
                    There were many issues that spun off from slavery, one major point of contention was the balance of representation in the senate as states were admitted to the union either free or slave.
                    Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
                    Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by D1J1 View Post

                      Nope, nice try again though. On the tariff first. If the southern states felt more effects from tariffs it is precisely because the movers and shakers there chose to make their money on an agriculture based economy wholly dependent on slavery. They were riding a losing horse, marketing cheap raw materials in exchange for expensive foreign goods. Absent slavery, who knows what they might have done.

                      States rights? If secession was a right of the states they chose to have that determination made by force of arms by bringing on the Civil War. If they felt so strongly, why not test it in the courts? Could it be that they knew they were losers there? Lincoln's duty was to defend the nation against all enemies foreign and domestic. Those who would seek to destroy the nation as it existed are enemies and Lincoln did what he had to do to those who chose to wage war against their own government.

                      Regards,
                      Dennis
                      Lincoln committed treason when he waged war on the Southern states.

                      The Southerners didn't seek to destroy the country either, they went their separate way and created their own country. Which they had every constitutional right to do.

                      Furthermore, it wasn't their government at that point either.

                      Nice try thou.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by walle View Post

                        Lincoln committed treason when he waged war on the Southern states.

                        The Southerners didn't seek to destroy the country either, they went their separate way and created their own country. Which they had every constitutional right to do.

                        Furthermore, it wasn't their government at that point either.

                        Nice try thou.
                        Actually, IIRC,North Carolina voted in a referendum to stay in the Union, and the tidewater planters, who dominated a Gerrymandered legislature, staged a 'coup d'état.'


                        The Piedmont country was industrialising, and had a family farm base. - pro Union
                        The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by walle View Post

                          Lincoln committed treason when he waged war on the Southern states.

                          The Southerners didn't seek to destroy the country either, they went their separate way and created their own country. Which they had every constitutional right to do.

                          Furthermore, it wasn't their government at that point either.

                          Nice try thou.
                          This is a pedestrian opinion, The "south" was never a nation, it was never recognized as one, the confederacy was a rebellion that failed. But this is not the point of the OP, slavery was the underlying cause of the divide between free and slave states. Lincoln did not commit treason. He was suppressing one.
                          Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
                          Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post

                            This is a pedestrian opinion, The "south" was never a nation, it was never recognized as one, the confederacy was a rebellion that failed. But this is not the point of the OP, slavery was the underlying cause of the divide between free and slave states. Lincoln did not commit treason. He was suppressing one.
                            First off, Lincoln committed treason when he waged war on the Southern states, the states had the constitutional right to secede.

                            Secondly, it wasn't a rebellion, the South seceded.

                            Thirdly, the pedestrian opinion here is to deny it was ever a country, it becomes even more pedestrian when the argument put forward is the reason for it not being one, was because it wasn't recognized as such.

                            It was not for England, France etc to deny the Southerners that recognition in the first place, in fact, it wasn't for the Union to deny the recognition either.

                            It had all the things in place making it a country.
                            It's own people, it's own culture (even it's own language) it's on laws, it's own military, it's own navy, it's own national anthem, it's own currency, etc.

                            They should have been allowed to go their separate way.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by marktwain View Post

                              Actually, IIRC,North Carolina voted in a referendum to stay in the Union, and the tidewater planters, who dominated a Gerrymandered legislature, staged a 'coup d'état.'


                              The Piedmont country was industrialising, and had a family farm base. - pro Union


                              Have you a source for that sir? Thank you in advance.

                              Originally posted by walle View Post

                              LLincoln committed treason when he waged war on the Southern states.
                              Here's a logic test for you: Abraham Lincoln was less of a traitor to the United States than Donald Trump.

                              Originally posted by walle View Post
                              The Southerners didn't seek to destroy the country either
                              Yeah, the shot and shell that bombarded the US installation at Fort Sumter was merely moonlight and magnolia love notes.

                              Originally posted by walle View Post
                              they went their separate way and created their own country. Which they had every constitutional right to do.
                              Perhaps the Southern states did indeed have a right to secede, but they did not have the right to take up arms against the United States. What the Southern states did have was a right to petition the US Congress for their secession, sort of a reverse procedure to their original applications to join the Union. They chose instead to effect their secession through force of arms, rather than political means. Wm Tecumseh Sherman was absolutely correct when he observed that "war is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want."

                              Originally posted by walle View Post
                              Furthermore, it wasn't their government at that point either.
                              The 36th Congress remained in session until 3 Mar 1861: more than ample time for the Southern states to apply for secession.

                              Originally posted by walle View Post
                              Nice try thou.
                              Praise from Caesar . . . .
                              Last edited by slick_miester; 11 Sep 19, 08:33.
                              I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X