Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

It was all about slavery, and always had been

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

  • #46
    Presidential confusion:
    Under Monroe's presidency, the country functions as a simple political unit, called the Democratic-Republican Party. At the end of Monroe's second term, four candidates will compete in 1824 (John Q. Adams / North, Crawford / Deep South, Clay / Midwest and Jackson / West). The result of the vote is presented to the House of Representatives, where Adams concludes "a corruption case" with Clay to be elected.
    In 1836, Van Buren became president, but because of the Panic of 1837; he loses the support of his electorate and will not be re-elected in 1840. Harrison, who succeeded him, dies of a pneumonia after a month of office. As the Constitution does not say what should be done in the event of death, Tyler, then Vice President, proclaims himself President.
    The same thing happens to Fillmore, who replaces in 1850 Taylor (elected in 1848). Fillmore, having signed the Compromise of 1850, will be disavowed during his candidacy to the Presidential elections of 1852. That year, Pierce easily defeated Whig Scott whose party will weaken.
    In 1856 Pierce, in turn, was considered ineligible because of his support for the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the ensuing war in Kansas, and for his support of the Lecompton pro-slavery Constitution. This is how the Democrats elect Buchanan, the minority president. Prior to Lincoln's election in 1860, the South saw 9 presidents in 24 years. At the end of each administration, voters are less happy than four years ago, and the candidates have been forced to bypass the essential issues that divide the country.

    Comment


    • #47
      Political Confusion:
      James Monroe's "Era of Good Feelings" ends with the 1824 election and the accession of John Quincy Adams to the presidency. In response to anti-Jacksonian sentiments of 1828, the Whig Party was formed to oppose both Jackson and the modern Democratic Party. While the power of the Whig Party will weaken in the early 1850s, the Whigs will be divided into several factions, with most parties having only one subject in their political platform.
      The Free-Soil Party is based on a strong belief in abolition.
      The "Know-nothing Party" thinks that America's problems come from its acceptance of foreigners.
      By combining northern Whigs with Free-Soilers, the Republican Party flourishes, and its main subject is abolition.

      Comment


      • #48
        Regional conflicts:
        ……….The Mexican American War. The Polk War against Mexico is a seizure of land, cleverly disguised. The Democrats were interested in an expansion of the Nation, under the concept of "Manifest Destiny". Two things come from this war and are causes of the Civil War. The United States won California, which enters the Union as a free state, according to the Compromise of 1850. The first of many attempts to restrict slavery in the Territories, come from the Mexican War. The "Wilmot Proviso" will be presented to the House of Representatives (who votes for) but it will be rejected by the Senate.
        ……….Border quarrel between New Mexico and Texas. Texas in 1850 claimed a large part of the New Mexico Territory. When the Constitutional Convention of New Mexico drafted a document excluding slavery in that Territory, this posed serious problems for Texans. The latter begin to support their claims on the eastern third of the Territory. President Taylor receives a delegation of Southern Whigs. When Alexander Stephens brandishes the threat of "impeachment", Taylor responds that he will hang the rebels as he did hang "spies and deserters in Mexico." Tensions will subside with the Compromise of 1850. At the very beginning of the Civil War, the Texan rebels will try to recover land in New Mexico.
        ……….Bloody Kansas. Some historians perceive the Civil War as a conflict created by the "boiling" caused by the fighting in Kansas. Established as Territory by the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Law, this is a life-size test of the Democrats' "People's Sovereignty" program, and it is a dismal failure. Proposed by Stephen Douglas, it gives the Territory the power to choose to enter the Union either as a slave state or as a free state. Pro-slavery voters, mostly from Missouri, flock to Kansas. Their number is compensated by "Free-Soilers" of New England. The result is a total confusion, with four different Constitutions, one of which will fracture the relations between Buchanan and Douglas. This will be the omen of the 1860 Democratic Convention Division. In 1859, the "Bloody Kansas" is transported to the East, by the abolitionist John Brown, who seizes the Arsenal of Harper's Ferry, Virginia . The news spreads quickly, not only from the raid, but also from Brown's hope of fomenting a slave revolt.
        ……….Utah War. Mormons who have tried to settle in various states in the West, finally reach lands that nobody wants, Utah. Brigham Young uses an intriguing argument, combining religious freedom and his own opinion of the federal government, to justify the formation of an independent nation and to raise his own army. Fearing that the southern states might not interpret this as a warning for secession, Buchanan sends Johnston with troops to quell the rebellion in the Utah Territory.

        Comment


        • #49
          Rise of Abolitionism:
          The concept of abolition was introduced by the Quakers around 1760. Vermont is the first state to abolish slavery in its 1777 Constitution, then follow Massachusetts and Pennsylvania in 1780, New Hampshire in 1783, Rhode Island and Connecticut in 1784, the Northwest Territories in 1787, New York in 1799 and New Jersey in 1804.
          Gradual emancipation and colonization are the most popular plans to end slavery. In 1830, immediate emancipation began to gain popularity. It is fueled by abolitionist journals such as William L. Garrison's "The Liberator" or Frederick Douglass’ “North Star and is also adopted by gradual "emancipators" and "colonizationists". Societies, first in New England, then swarming across the country, support the ideas of the abolitionists.
          The vote of the "Wilmot Proviso" in the House of Representatives is the first sign of the ruin of the Union. In 1849, calls were made from Mississippi for a secessionist convention in Nashville. During the winter of 1849-50, the "Deep South" agreed to send delegates to the Convention to discuss options for California to reverse the balance between slave states and free states. It is this threat that brings the Compromise of 1850, but it appears as a kind of bumpy road. The Southerners seem calmed, at least until the fighting in Kansas. This "sectionalist" war strengthens the abolitionists who will form the Republican Party. In the 1856 Presidential elections, their candidate, John C Fremont, is close to winning the election. If this is not yet clear to the Southerners, the mid-term elections are in favor of the Republicans and prove that they are strong enough to end slavery.
          During the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Abraham Lincoln led Douglas to admit that part of the idea of "Popular Sovereignty" is illegal. This will cause most of the South to leave the Democratic Convention, while Douglas appeared to be the Party candidate. While the Whig Party is out of the running, the Southern Democrats are trying to rally behind John Breckinridge, while the Constitutional Unionists support John Bell of Tennessee. Lincoln, an abolitionist candidate under a moderate program, won the Presidential elections of 1860, with about 40% of the popular vote. South Carolina, not wishing to wait for another meeting of the other southern states, secedes in December.
          Last edited by daddut roger; 21 Sep 19, 06:39.

          Comment


          • #50
            There is what the war was about and then there is why men fought and these two things don't always align. I will go out on a limb and say I believe these two things seldom align.

            I believe the ACW was about states' rights and money, to be sure, but that's still a round about way of saying it was about slavery.

            Much of the Southern aristocracy admitted it was a fight for slavery. There were other concerns to be sure. But without slavery would all of the other concerns taken together add up to a cause? I doubt it. Take slavery off the table and I doubt there would have been a war.

            But Confederate Soldiers by and large did not fight for slavery. The Southern Aristocracy was successful in selling the war to the Southern common man as a fight for States' Rights, a Second American Revolution, a stand against Northern Aggression, etc.



            "Shoot for the epaulets, boys! Shoot for the epaulets!" - Daniel Morgan

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by KRJ View Post
              There is what the war was about and then there is why men fought and these two things don't always align. I will go out on a limb and say I believe these two things seldom align.

              I believe the ACW was about states' rights and money, to be sure, but that's still a round about way of saying it was about slavery.

              Much of the Southern aristocracy admitted it was a fight for slavery. There were other concerns to be sure. But without slavery would all of the other concerns taken together add up to a cause? I doubt it. Take slavery off the table and I doubt there would have been a war.

              But Confederate Soldiers by and large did not fight for slavery. The Southern Aristocracy was successful in selling the war to the Southern common man as a fight for States' Rights, a Second American Revolution, a stand against Northern Aggression, etc.


              To quote you, "Take slavery off the table and I doubt there would have been a war" And there it is.
              The fighting began long before 1860, long before Lincoln was elected.
              In Missouri and Kansas blood spilled and the federal forces were ordered not to intervene, only to arrest offenders and turn them over to partisan sheriffs for trials and hanging.
              Had Buchanan tried to stop "Bloody Kansas" by force perhaps that spark would not have spread into a all consuming fire.
              Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
              Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by KRJ View Post
                There is what the war was about and then there is why men fought and these two things don't always align. I will go out on a limb and say I believe these two things seldom align.

                I believe the ACW was about states' rights and money, to be sure, but that's still a round about way of saying it was about slavery.

                Much of the Southern aristocracy admitted it was a fight for slavery. There were other concerns to be sure. But without slavery would all of the other concerns taken together add up to a cause? I doubt it. Take slavery off the table and I doubt there would have been a war.

                But Confederate Soldiers by and large did not fight for slavery. The Southern Aristocracy was successful in selling the war to the Southern common man as a fight for States' Rights, a Second American Revolution, a stand against Northern Aggression, etc.


                Actually, saying it was abut States Rights and money is not another way of saying anything, unless, of course, saying it was about slavery is actually another way of admitting that it was about States Rights and money. The South brought in 60% of the money.

                Read Lincoln's letters and speeches - he did not care one way or he other about slavery, and he felt that blacks were inferior to whites. and needed to be led by them and governed by them. Just type in Lincoln and slavery and you will be surprised what the Great Emancipator actually said.

                By violating his sworn oath and overthrowing States Rights, he started a bloody Civil War, killed over 600,000 Americans and accomplished nothing else. The Great Emancipation never happened because the Proclamation was not enforceable in the South and the North still returned captured runaway slaves to the South.

                As for the Reconstruction Period that followed the War, it was literally the Rape of the South and a stain on American honor. If blacks want to pull down statues, they should start with the Lincoln Memorial.
                Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                  Actually, saying it was abut States Rights and money is not another way of saying anything, unless, of course, saying it was about slavery is actually another way of admitting that it was about States Rights and money. The South brought in 60% of the money.

                  Read Lincoln's letters and speeches - he did not care one way or he other about slavery, and he felt that blacks were inferior to whites. and needed to be led by them and governed by them. Just type in Lincoln and slavery and you will be surprised what the Great Emancipator actually said.

                  By violating his sworn oath and overthrowing States Rights, he started a bloody Civil War, killed over 600,000 Americans and accomplished nothing else. The Great Emancipation never happened because the Proclamation was not enforceable in the South and the North still returned captured runaway slaves to the South.

                  As for the Reconstruction Period that followed the War, it was literally the Rape of the South and a stain on American honor. If blacks want to pull down statues, they should start with the Lincoln Memorial.
                  One of these days you'll answer this question: if secession was NOT motivated by the planters' desire to keep their slaves free-n-clear, then how do explain the public statements of the CSA's vice-president, or the private statements of her general officers, like Clement Stevens' response to Patrick Cleburne's Memorial?

                  "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."



                  Last edited by slick_miester; 21 Dec 19, 10:04.
                  I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                    they declared secession, without given thought to applying for secession to the same body to which they applied for statehood when they first sought to join the Union. Had they gone that route, then their legal claim for secession might have some merit, but since they chose to pursue secession through force of arms instead, they invalidated any legal claims they may have had.
                    Is there a constitutional process by which a state or group of states COULD legally separate? Here in Canada, Quebec has had two referendums and both times voted against separation (in 1995, just barely, with 49.4% in favour). That's part 1. Part 2 would have been what comes next? What would the federal government and/or other provinces have done had Quebec voted in favour of separation? My memory and constitutional knowledge has faded since the last referendum in 95, so I don't recall the discussion at the time. I'd like to think the rest of the country would haven entered into mutually constructive negotiations (as is supposed to be our Canadian nature ), but I'd also imagine there would be strong resistance to 'breaking up the country'. If a final settlement could not be reached or if the federal government refused, then what?

                    Another element in all this, are the First Nations. IIRC, those in Quebec held their own informal votes in 1995, and voted something like +90% to remain in Canada. Their (mostly) recognized territories would have made a major dent in Quebec's post-separation territory and resources.

                    If the southern states had gone a more political and constitutional route, how would that have transpired?

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                      One of these days you'll answer [colo=red]this question:[/color] if secession was NOT motivated by the planters' desire to keep their slaves free-n-clear, then how do explain the public statements of the CSA's vice-president, or the private statements of her general officers, like Clement Stevens' response to Patrick Cleburne's Memorial?

                      "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."



                      Spot on and the same to KRJ! Also see the justification to the slavery ordinances that a handful of the rebel states produced. Even Virginia's stated that when push came to shove they had no choice but to join their sister slave states. Not anti-tariff or states rights, but slave states.

                      Any other view is merely Lost Cause rhetoric developed after the conflict to attempt to whitewash (no pun intended) the motivations of the southern movers and shakers who brought about the conflict to satisfy a continuation of their own economic, political and social position in the slave holding states.

                      Urban hermits statements about Kansas, while factual, become what ifs when predicting beyond the actual events. The Civil War began after secession, not before.

                      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


                      • #56
                        The tariff argument is moot, there was no federal income tax, the only way the federal government could function was by tariffs and the sale of lands.
                        This was at a time when the senate was in control of the state's legislature. If you are not aware of the influence of the state at the time consider that the state legislature of each state appointed two members from the legislature to go the DC to represent the state. Senators were not elected by direct ballots until 1915. Before that, all senators answered to the state legislatures who appointed them to serve in DC. If you didn't do what your state legislature told you to do, your appointment would end after your two year term.
                        Therefore the federal senate was in effect lobbyist for the state from which they came.
                        The southern states had for many years controlled the federal government by using the power of the senate to create a stalemate. Therefore those tariffs could not have been enacted without the approval of the senate. And slavery could never have been abolished without the approval of the southern block in the senate until and unless that balance would swing to non slave states.
                        That was what the great fear of the plantation class was....If future states where no longer allowed to enter the Union as a slave state, the balance of power they had used to tamp down the abolition movement would swing to free states.
                        Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
                        Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
                          The tariff argument is moot, there was no federal income tax, the only way the federal government could function was by tariffs and the sale of lands.
                          This was at a time when the senate was in control of the state's legislature. If you are not aware of the influence of the state at the time consider that the state legislature of each state appointed two members from the legislature to go the DC to represent the state. Senators were not elected by direct ballots until 1915. Before that, all senators answered to the state legislatures who appointed them to serve in DC. If you didn't do what your state legislature told you to do, your appointment would end after your two year term.
                          Therefore the federal senate was in effect lobbyist for the state from which they came.
                          The southern states had for many years controlled the federal government by using the power of the senate to create a stalemate. Therefore those tariffs could not have been enacted without the approval of the senate. And slavery could never have been abolished without the approval of the southern block in the senate until and unless that balance would swing to non slave states.
                          That was what the great fear of the plantation class was....If future states where no longer allowed to enter the Union as a slave state, the balance of power they had used to tamp down the abolition movement would swing to free states.
                          Don't omit the House of Representatives. The 3/5ths clause as originally in the Constitution gave the slave states disproportionate representation in the House. Counting those otherwise not seen as human or possessing rights to be partially so allowed that half of Congress to help sustain the "Peculiar Institution."

                          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


                          • #58
                            During his famous debates with Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln explained to the crowd: “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races … I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
                            One should also keep in mind that Lincoln was a lawyer for the railroads prior to becoming president; that is, he made his living representing the interests of the rich few against those of the common citizen.

                            Lincoln first appeared for the Illinois Central Railroad, probably the largest business corporation in the state, in May 1853. He was handsomely rewarded for his successful advocacy for the company. By October of that year, Illinois Central placed him on retainer and gave him the special bonus of a free annual pass on the line.
                            And that "the Union" that he wanted to "preserve" did not exist at the time. He was in the process of overthrowing the existing form of government in favor of his own form of government under the guise of "preserving" that which wasn't even legal at the time. The slavery issue was simply a highly emotional issue that was useful to sell his coup. Hitler had the Jews and the untermensch - madmen like Mao and Pol Pot had the educated "bourgiouse enemies of the state" and Lincoln had slavery as his sales pitch.

                            Lincoln was the founder of the government-in-charge-of-everything that we are burdened with today.

                            He also had a wife who spent her life telling everyone that they did not appreciate or respect him enough- Michelle Obama in crinoline skirts.

                            The Great Emancipator? No...never. The Film Flam Man.

                            The Emancipation Proclamation wasn't law in the South; therefore it freed no one, while under Lincoln the Norther states continued to round up runaway lavs and send them back to their Southern masters. Very peculiar behavior for an "emancipator" who could have made them legal refugees but chose not to.

                            The legal term for establishing cause is cui bono...who benefits? Only Lincoln. Certainly not the 600,000 dead and their shattered families and lives, nor the once prosperous South with its completely destroyed economy and army of pillaging lawyers, shills and "Reconstructionists" stealing what little was left. Real leaders have a plan for what happens after the war. Lincoln never thought beyond his grab for power. Hundreds of thousands more suffered after the war, under the guise of "Mr. Lincoln's victory", and his overriding central government went on to plunder the entire nation from coast to coast. Ask the Indians how emancipation worked for them. Or ask any American today how that all-powerful, all-invasive, all-controlling central government is working out for them.
                            Last edited by Mountain Man; 21 Dec 19, 12:10.
                            Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Schmart View Post

                              Is there a constitutional process by which a state or group of states COULD legally separate? Here in Canada, Quebec has had two referendums and both times voted against separation (in 1995, just barely, with 49.4% in favour). That's part 1. Part 2 would have been what comes next? What would the federal government and/or other provinces have done had Quebec voted in favour of separation? My memory and constitutional knowledge has faded since the last referendum in 95, so I don't recall the discussion at the time. I'd like to think the rest of the country would haven entered into mutually constructive negotiations (as is supposed to be our Canadian nature ), but I'd also imagine there would be strong resistance to 'breaking up the country'. If a final settlement could not be reached or if the federal government refused, then what?

                              Another element in all this, are the First Nations. IIRC, those in Quebec held their own informal votes in 1995, and voted something like +90% to remain in Canada. Their (mostly) recognized territories would have made a major dent in Quebec's post-separation territory and resources.

                              If the southern states had gone a more political and constitutional route, how would that have transpired?
                              Good post but the 1995 Quebec referendum was not technically on separation, the question was as follows:

                              "Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign, after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership, within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?"

                              Had the referendum voted +50 Yes then the first step probably would have been for the Federal Government to hold a referendum with a clearer question.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by D1J1 View Post

                                Spot on and the same to KRJ! Also see the justification to the slavery ordinances that a handful of the rebel states produced. Even Virginia's stated that when push came to shove they had no choice but to join their sister slave states. Not anti-tariff or states rights, but slave states.

                                Any other view is merely Lost Cause rhetoric developed after the conflict to attempt to whitewash (no pun intended) the motivations of the southern movers and shakers who brought about the conflict to satisfy a continuation of their own economic, political and social position in the slave holding states.

                                Urban hermits statements about Kansas, while factual, become what ifs when predicting beyond the actual events. The Civil War began after secession, not before.

                                Regards,
                                Dennis
                                Very goodpoint Dennis! ''''what gets overlooked in the debate is the newness of cotton slavery to the south. The invention of the cotton gin turned cotton from a sea isle long staple, expensive. luxury crop to a short staple uplands boom mass market crop.

                                The entire United states spent a lot of money on breaking the cherokee, and the creek confederacies before the plaNTERS MOVED IN- AT A TIME WHEN the debts of the war of 1812 had to also be paid. Government borrowing was expensive, and also paid for the expansion of services and navigation into the southern cotton lands.
                                Last edited by marktwain; 22 Dec 19, 10:44.
                                The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X