Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

It was all about slavery, and always had been

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

  • D1J1
    replied
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
    If I recall correctly, Georgia's declaration was very similar, with respect to the necessity and the rightness of slavery.
    Even Virginia, allegedly seceding because of Lincoln's call for troops, shows her true colors with her ordinance.

    "The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention, on the 25th day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eight-eight, having declared that the powers granted them under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression, and the Federal Government having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slaveholding States.

    Now, therefore, we, the people of Virginia, do declare and ordain that the Ordinance adopted by the people of this State in Convention, on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and all acts of the General Assembly of this State, ratifying or adopting amendments to said Constitution, are hereby repealed and abrogated; that the union between the State of Virginia and the other States under the Constitution aforesaid, is hereby dissolved, and that the State of Virginia is in the full possession and exercise of all the rights of sovereignty which belong to a free and independent State. And they do further declare that the said Constitution of the United State of America is no longer binding on any of the citizens of this State.

    This Ordinance shall take effect and be an act of this day when ratified by a majority of the votes of the people of this State, cast at a poll to be taken thereon on the fourth Thursday in May next, in pursuance of a schedule hereafter to be enacted."


    http://www.wvculture.org/history/sta...secession.html

    Regards,
    Dennis

    Leave a comment:


  • Urban hermit
    replied
    Originally posted by Rutger View Post
    Nah, Lincoln single handedly led the US into the civil war in wicked ways.
    He's to blame for the 600.000 dead.
    He was an unbelievably shrewd opportunist who manipulated thousands from the north and the south into a war.
    Prove me wrong.
    You can lead a horse to water, but they are he// to baptize.

    The killing has begun before the Republican party was established, in Kansas territory and in Missouri. Buchanan failed miserably to take control of the situation, allowing both sides to escalate the hostilities then stepping away to let the next president clean it up.

    Leave a comment:


  • Schmart
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparlingo View Post

    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.
    You're right about the question, I had forgotten about that. So yeah, it's an even more convoluted process. I've read a little more on it to catch up lately, and it seems the Federal Government wasn't going to be all that keen on entering into 'new partnership' negotiations. Their strategy was more on the appeasement side. Keep Quebec just happy enough that they won't feel the need to go deeper down the separation rabbit-hole.

    I personally have always disagreed with the 50% +1 = separation philosophy. I think it should need a little more solid support than literally one extra person who happens to cast their vote that day (maybe the No side lost votes due to a family stuck in traffic, or a couple returning from vacation and their flight was delayed that day ). Nor did I agree with the "Quebec is indivisible" line, in reference to what the First Nations would want. If Canada is divisible, then so is Quebec!

    I don't envy the powers that be, had Quebec voted 55 or 60% in favour...

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    If I recall correctly, Georgia's declaration was very similar, with respect to the necessity and the rightness of slavery.

    Leave a comment:


  • D1J1
    replied
    Originally posted by Rutger View Post
    Nah, Lincoln single handedly led the US into the civil war in wicked ways.
    He's to blame for the 600.000 dead.
    He was an unbelievably shrewd opportunist who manipulated thousands from the north and the south into a war.
    Prove me wrong.
    Proving you wrong is easy beyond belief. The fact is that secession took place before Lincoln was inaugurated. The statements of the states that provided additional rationale for their act indicates that it was indeed the perpetuation of slavery that led to those decisions. The Lincoln did it approach plays well at UDC and SCV conventions. Lost Cause revisionism will not play here.

    Here is Mississippi's rationale, for just one exampleThe exact same document can be found in the Mississippi state archives. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp


    Leave a comment:


  • Rutger
    replied
    Nah, Lincoln single handedly led the US into the civil war in wicked ways.
    He's to blame for the 600.000 dead.
    He was an unbelievably shrewd opportunist who manipulated thousands from the north and the south into a war.
    Prove me wrong.

    Leave a comment:


  • marktwain
    replied
    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, 11:44.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparlingo
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    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, 13:10.

    Leave a comment:


  • D1J1
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Urban hermit
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • D1J1
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Schmart
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    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, 11:04.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X