Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

To inflame a beaten dead horse...State secession and slavery, circa 1860...

JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior MemberPosts: 6,531 Senior Member
I've been researching more and more about the Civil War since last year and even more with this whole Confederate flag nonsense.

I hear the argument ad nauseum that secession was the result of tariff and taxation..., yet the taxes in place had been in place for more than 50 years and most of the tariffs were legislated by the southern states, as far as I can find, so I doubt that assertion.

Reading the secession documents from the first several states to secede with SC being the first the immediate and underlying issue was refusal to abide by the antiquated fugitive slave act and fear of eventual abolition of slavery...

Furthermore, Lincoln had been championing in legislation that would help to eventually extinct slavery and prevent newly unionized states from allowing slavery. The southern states feared this.

Personally, I'm finding less and less validity to the argument that taxation and tariffs were the root cause of secession.

I guess we all have to form our own opinions, but even IF taxation was the reason for secessions, why so feverishly defend and champion the slave owning southern democrats regardless?
“There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
«13

Replies

  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,787 Senior Member
    It was about slavery to slave holders, but the individual state's right to decide for itself was probably what made the peons fight. It's very hard for me to believe that thousands of sharecroppers would charge the cannons to help some rich guy hold onto his slaves.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,787 Senior Member
    True enough, but that was a factor in the North, as well. Their peons didn't give a damn about slavery either.

    Part of it was just that a Yankee president was telling the states that he could make them bend to his will.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,105 Senior Member
    Here's a few links with embedded links that might help you understand the causes. The Morrill Tariff figured prominently.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Tariff
    http://history1800s.about.com/od/civilwar/f/morill-tariff-civil-war.htm
    http://ashevilletribune.com/archives/censored-truths/Morrill%20Tariff.html
    http://civilwarsaga.com/the-causes-of-the-civil-war/
    http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/cause_civil_war.htm
    http://history1800s.about.com/od/civilwar/f/morill-tariff-civil-war.htm

    And here's one for the history challenged, like Alpha. Prior to the invention of the cotton gin, cotton fiber had to be separated from the cotton seeds by hand. This was a time and labor intensive job. The cotton gin solved that problem. Advances in agricultural implements, and the steam engine just being seen as a workhorse for agriculture were making many hands less and less desirable.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_gin

    And lincoln didn't give a rat's crusty butt about the slaves. His own words damn him on that fact. He was worried about the revenue that would be lost if the Southern States were successful in the secession.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,531 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    And lincoln didn't give a rat's crusty butt about the slaves. His own words damn him on that fact. He was worried about the revenue that would be lost if the Southern States were successful in the secession.

    No citations here?

    That's because he didn't habe much open opinion for the slaves, but stated many times he believed no man should be owned by another.

    He knew outright opposition to slavery would repel northern states like Delaware that were slave owning, but wanted abolitionist support from. He thought negroes were sub-class to whites, but did not endorse their slavery.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,105 Senior Member
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    No citations here?

    That's because he didn't habe much open opinion for the slaves, but stated many times he believed no man should be owned by another.

    He knew outright opposition to slavery would repel northern states like Delaware that were slave owning, but wanted abolitionist support from. He thought negroes were sub-class to whites, but did not endorse their slavery.

    I guess you've either picked up the Liberal habit of being unable to find information yourself, or were born tired and ain't got rested yet enough to use Google. (sigh)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_and_slavery

    If all earthly power were given to me [...] my first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia,—to their own native land. But a moment’s reflection would convince me that whatever of high hope (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible.

    He wanted them OUT of the U.S.

    I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

    Some more on Lincoln:
    http://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation
    (These are the headings for each point and explained at the link)

    1. Lincoln wasn’t an abolitionist.
    2. Lincoln didn’t believe blacks should have the same rights as whites.
    3. Lincoln thought colonization could resolve the issue of slavery.
    4. Emancipation was a military policy.
    5. The Emancipation Proclamation didn’t actually free all of the slaves.

    Another link:

    http://www.npr.org/2010/10/11/130489804/lincolns-evolving-thoughts-on-slavery-and-freedom

    And one final point. If the Civil War had been about slavery, the North would have revolted. The draft riots in New York City would have appeared to be a Sunday picnic in comparison.

    I'll just cover you up with links because you're too tired to type:

    https://waltercoffey.wordpress.com/2012/08/08/the-northern-secession/
    http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/secession
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83856.html
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_of_1832
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,350 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    True enough, but that was a factor in the North, as well. Their peons didn't give a damn about slavery either.

    Part of it was just that a Yankee president was telling the states that he could make them bend to his will.

    Remind you of another Yankee Prez we all know and don't love?
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    Quiet, Mike! The south had such a good propaganda organization we convinced those damyankees they really won. Don't let the secret that they lost slip out at this late date! Why would anybody want to live up nawth if they didn't have to? It certainly can't be because all those folks are such nice, polite, friendly people!
    :roll:
    Jerry
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,531 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    Here's a few links with embedded links that might help you understand the causes. The Morrill Tariff figured prominently.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Tariff
    http://history1800s.about.com/od/civilwar/f/morill-tariff-civil-war.htm
    http://ashevilletribune.com/archives/censored-truths/Morrill%20Tariff.html
    http://civilwarsaga.com/the-causes-of-the-civil-war/
    http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/cause_civil_war.htm
    http://history1800s.about.com/od/civilwar/f/morill-tariff-civil-war.htm

    And here's one for the history challenged, like Alpha. Prior to the invention of the cotton gin, cotton fiber had to be separated from the cotton seeds by hand. This was a time and labor intensive job. The cotton gin solved that problem. Advances in agricultural implements, and the steam engine just being seen as a workhorse for agriculture were making many hands less and less desirable.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_gin

    And lincoln didn't give a rat's crusty butt about the slaves. His own words damn him on that fact. He was worried about the revenue that would be lost if the Southern States were successful in the secession.

    From the same article:
    The passage of the tariff was possible because many tariff-averse Southerners had resigned from Congress after their states declared their secession.

    Sounds like b they left Congress too soon. Stay and vote or just walk away pouting?

    And additional to that, the tariff was on goods imported from other countries like England. What was the south receiving, other than slaves, as an import? The south was exporting a ton of goods...more so than imports I would imagine. Hell, England had ridiculous tariffs on our stuff. Why not try a measure.to protect our economic interests...

    In the early 1800s tariffs topped 50% at times, but in 1861 it was roughly 36%. Yes, up from the 21-ish percent between about 1830 to 1860, but way less than the up to 50% of circa 1825. South Carolina made a stink of it then, but the Congress snuffed them out and no more was mentioned.

    It wasn't until whigs-come-republicans started coming about and founding a good bit of their platform on Constitutionally arguing slavery and other socioeconomic issues of the time.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,531 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    I guess you've either picked up the Liberal habit of being unable to find information yourself, or were born tired and ain't got rested yet enough to use Google. (sigh)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_and_slavery

    If all earthly power were given to me [...] my first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia,—to their own native land. But a moment’s reflection would convince me that whatever of high hope (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible.

    He wanted them OUT of the U.S.

    I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

    Some more on Lincoln:
    http://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation
    (These are the headings for each point and explained at the link)

    1. Lincoln wasn’t an abolitionist.
    2. Lincoln didn’t believe blacks should have the same rights as whites.
    3. Lincoln thought colonization could resolve the issue of slavery.
    4. Emancipation was a military policy.
    5. The Emancipation Proclamation didn’t actually free all of the slaves.

    Another link:

    http://www.npr.org/2010/10/11/130489804/lincolns-evolving-thoughts-on-slavery-and-freedom

    And one final point. If the Civil War had been about slavery, the North would have revolted. The draft riots in New York City would have appeared to be a Sunday picnic in comparison.

    I'll just cover you up with links because you're too tired to type:

    https://waltercoffey.wordpress.com/2012/08/08/the-northern-secession/
    http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/secession
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83856.html
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_of_1832

    I was waiting for you to chime in so I could skim through your post and ignore it in its entirety because you can't help but be rhetorically condescending and snarky rather than providing me simply with stuff to read.

    I am debating on the topic WITHIN my evolution of the research on the topic and I am OPEN TO ALL VIEWPOINTS AND REFERENCES if you'd just not be a damn arrogant butt about it.

    I have not concluded my opinion on anything. But I'll take your point of view and references with almost complete disregard.

    Regardless, you defend unapologetic slave owners. That fact remains. That's the one constant that will always be so with any argument FOR the south.

    And name-calling isn't becoming of your age. AND on top of that defending your position with insults prefacing the point is a very liberal tactic.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,531 Senior Member
    I want a discussion / debate. Not name calling.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,787 Senior Member
    None of us are history scholars, and even if we were, there is no hard evidence that can't be cancelled out or diluted by other hard evidence. Bullying is required for anyone to feel like they have won, and nobody's opinion is changed in the least. That's really kind of funny, in a way, because it was the precise way that the debate on slavery and states rights was carried on from the Constitutional convention until the firing on Fort Sumter. In the end, it was a situation that the radicals on each side finally whipped up enough emotional self-righteousness among enough people to get the revolution that they all thought they wanted.

    In the end, the greatest industrial power won with their ability to manufacture war materiel without completely bankrupting themselves and starving their constituents. They were able to win the argument by force of arms, and write the history for the public record. It always goes that way, and we are probably still centuries away from being able to avoid such divisions.
  • RugerFanRugerFan Senior Member Posts: 2,193 Senior Member
    "And additional to that, the tariff was on goods imported from other countries like England. What was the south receiving, other than slaves, as an import? The south was exporting a ton of goods...more so than imports I would imagine."


    IIRC from early U.S. history in college, the South sold a lot of cotton to England and in turn purchased a lot of goods from England. I also believe slave importation was outlawed in the early 1800's.

    As to Lincoln the Great Emancipator: Lincoln had wanted to free the slaves early in the war but he was afraid of the backlash from the Northern states. He waited until the Union Army had a few victories. Another reason he waited until he did was it was beginning to look like Britain and/or France might aid the CSA. The issuing of the Emancipation Proclamation immediately made the war about slavery which Britain and France could not support. However, Lincoln's proclamation only freed the slaves in those areas in rebellion against the Union. It did not free the slaves in the 4 border states that did not secede: Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri. And who was in control of those areas in rebellion? It was not the Union.

    In my opinion, I think race relations would be different today if Lincoln had not been assassinated. I don't think his reconstruction plan would have been as harsh resulting in better assimilation of the former slaves.
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,531 Senior Member
    IIRC from early U.S. history in college, the South sold a lot of cotton to England and in turn purchased a lot of goods from England. I also believe slave importation was outlawed in the early 1800's

    You are correct sir. 1803 I believe--or thereabouts. The internal slave trade continued past that time.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,531 Senior Member
    Honestly, Mike (with others) asserts that Lincoln "was this", "wasn't that", well...I don't care. No one then held the negro in high regard--no one. Even some established abolitionists would admit that while they wanted them freed of bonds, they still did not regard them as fit to own property or vote or hold office. But, there position was morally superior to any southern slave owner of advocate/apologist for the south. Even Lincoln felt he could not abolish slavery in one fell swoop, but projected the beginning framework could be built to eradicate it over time.

    Slavery was so economically crucial to southern agricultural economics that even if they had gripe about tax or tariff the simple and undeniable fact remains that a great portion of reasons for secession was to maintain slavery's status quo in those secession states. That is fundamental and undeniable. I don't care how you spin it. Read their secession proclamations and ordinances for Christ sake.

    Defending Southern state secession is defending pro-slavery by default.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • RugerFanRugerFan Senior Member Posts: 2,193 Senior Member
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    Honestly, Mike (with others) asserts that Lincoln "was this", "wasn't that", well...I don't care. No one then held the negro in high regard--no one. Even some established abolitionists would admit that while they wanted them freed of bonds, they still did not regard them as fit to own property or vote or hold office. But, there position was morally superior to any southern slave owner of advocate/apologist for the south. Even Lincoln felt he could not abolish slavery in one fell swoop, but projected the beginning framework could be built to eradicate it over time.

    Slavery was so economically crucial to southern agricultural economics that even if they had gripe about tax or tariff the simple and undeniable fact remains that a great portion of reasons for secession was to maintain slavery's status quo in those secession states. That is fundamental and undeniable. I don't care how you spin it. Read their secession proclamations and ordinances for Christ sake.

    Defending Southern state secession is defending pro-slavery by default.

    While slavery was a VERY, VERY important part of secession, there was also the fundamental difference between the North and the South in the role of the federal gov't. The southern states DID believe that the states held the power not the federal gov't. The North believed the opposite. So while slavery was probably the overriding factor of secession it was not the ONLY reason.
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,531 Senior Member
    RugerFan wrote: »
    While slavery was a VERY, VERY important part of secession, there was also the fundamental difference between the North and the South in the role of the federal gov't. The southern states DID believe that the states held the power not the federal gov't. The North believed the opposite. So while slavery was probably the overriding factor of secession it was not the ONLY reason.

    It's not the singular dividing factor. But bear in mind there is an arbitration process for such things as states divided on a matter of Constitutional matters. That Avenue wasn't pursued, it seems they just went straight to secession.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • DoctorWhoDoctorWho Senior Member Posts: 9,496 Senior Member
    Simply put, agriculture of the era before mechanization required more bodies to complete tasks, plowing and planting and processing grain or cotton into finished products.
    So when industrialized farming began to be a reality, how long would it have remained economically viable to support slaves, that require everything living humans require as compared to machines, and as businesses still remain economically viable ?

    Would not slavery have been phased out eventually, for economical reasons ?
    "There is some evil in all of us, Doctor, even you, the Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation, and I may say, you do not improve with age. Founding member of the G&A forum since 1996
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    Jason, your viewpoint is predictable, and is definitely the product of the agenda you have been spoon-fed by the liberals who have undertaken to rewrite history to support their ideology. I would hazard a guess that few, if any of your ancestors have passed on any firsthand knowledge of the life and times of the late 19th. century, either during or after the war, from either side. Your condescention and closed-mindedness shows that you have no interest whatsoever in any kind of search for the true facts- - - -your mind is made up, and you don't want to be confused by reality. By refusing to consider any negative information about Abraham Lincoln, you have tipped your hand and shown that you don't want a discussion- - - -you just want to preach. Lincoln was as close to a military dictator as this country has ever experienced. His policies and opinions were far from accepted by at least a large minority of the people he governed, and even though wartime demanded some pretty high-handed abuses of his power, he was prone to go overboard to the point of alienating a lot of his constituency. When Andrew Johnson succeeded him, things really got bad. Johnson was corrupt and incompetent, to the point of getting himself impeached, but not convicted, just like Bill Clinton.

    "Reconstruction" did more to cement southern solidarity against the north than losing the military campaign ever did, but that ugly blot on history has been all but erased by the revisionists. My great-grandparents who survived it passed on enough firsthand knowledge to counter the lies we were told about that time in the early 1950's, in what passed for American History in the public school system. Since then, no effort whatsoever has been made to present a truthful version of the subject, and the rainbow coalition that has controlled public education for the past three decades isn't about to allow anything to challenge their version of the "truth". The assimilation is just about complete now, as most of us oldtimers either die off, or give up on educating the compliant little drones who ignore and ridicule us. Too bad!
    Jerry
  • RugerFanRugerFan Senior Member Posts: 2,193 Senior Member
    Teach wrote: »
    Jason, your viewpoint is predictable, and is definitely the product of the agenda you have been spoon-fed by the liberals who have undertaken to rewrite history to support their ideology. I would hazard a guess that few, if any of your ancestors have passed on any firsthand knowledge of the life and times of the late 19th. century, either during or after the war, from either side. Your condescention and closed-mindedness shows that you have no interest whatsoever in any kind of search for the true facts- - - -your mind is made up, and you don't want to be confused by reality. By refusing to consider any negative information about Abraham Lincoln, you have tipped your hand and shown that you don't want a discussion- - - -you just want to preach. Lincoln was as close to a military dictator as this country has ever experienced. His policies and opinions were far from accepted by at least a large minority of the people he governed, and even though wartime demanded some pretty high-handed abuses of his power, he was prone to go overboard to the point of alienating a lot of his constituency. When Andrew Johnson succeeded him, things really got bad. Johnson was corrupt and incompetent, to the point of getting himself impeached, but not convicted, just like Bill Clinton.

    "Reconstruction" did more to cement southern solidarity against the north than losing the military campaign ever did, but that ugly blot on history has been all but erased by the revisionists. My great-grandparents who survived it passed on enough firsthand knowledge to counter the lies we were told about that time in the early 1950's, in what passed for American History in the public school system. Since then, no effort whatsoever has been made to present a truthful version of the subject, and the rainbow coalition that has controlled public education for the past three decades isn't about to allow anything to challenge their version of the "truth". The assimilation is just about complete now, as most of us oldtimers either die off, or give up on educating the compliant little drones who ignore and ridicule us. Too bad!
    Jerry


    Yes Teach, this period has been forgotten. It was a difficult time. Southerners were subjegated and carpetbaggers took advantage of the situation. And don't forget the years AFTER Reconstruction. After 1876, the North/federal gov't abandoned the South and the freed slaves. Former confederates were able to regain power and the former slaves were once again under attack. While the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments gave full rights of citizenship to the former slaves, the North/Federal gov't did nothing to make sure those rights were protected. Poll taxes and literacy tests made sure that blacks could not vote(and poor whites were affected also). It took 90 yrs for the federal gov't to finally do something. 90 years....... yeah those Yankees were really concerned about their fellow man.
  • woodsrunnerwoodsrunner Senior Member Posts: 2,725 Senior Member
    Few will truthfully understand what I am saying because you didn't grow up in the rural, farming South as I did 60+ years ago! All phases of Reconstruction did not end until WWII forced it to end, and we can thank President Roosevelt and Adolph Hitler for finally bringing it to a close. Example: Freight rates for raw products shipped by rail to the north were 3-4 times higher than rates for finished products coming South for the marketplace. Keep the Southerner poor and make him continue to pay for loosing the War! FDR ordered that freight rates be equalized across the board in the spring of 1942!

    Officially slavery ended after the War, but all forms of slavery did not end until President Johnson's Great Society came into existence in the 1960's.....the national welfare program! You can believe it or simply think I'm running my mouth with imagination, but I'm not: In the late 1950's and early 1960's, before Johnson's Great Society Program, I have on several occasions seen blacks bought and sold, against their will, in the South Georgia--north Florida turpentine and shade tobacco industries. Typically almost all black labor in the rural farming/woods industry South owed several hundred dollars to the farmer/sawmill-turpentine still owner. This was a form of slavery because a laborer could not leave his employer until the debt was paid off. Local sheriffs enforced this! I have seen turpentine operators buy and sell this "account", and move the laborer from one place to another, frequently against the laborer's desires which extended not much further than where his next quart of white likker and women were coming from.

    There's probably enough blame to go around to both sides, but don't think for a second that the north didn't continuously punish the South well into my lifetime, and I was born 73 years after the War ended.
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    Rich, we're wasting our breath- - - -these closet liberals have been brainwashed to the point they don't have a "noddin' acquaintance with the truth- - - -let alone a speakin' one!"
    Jerry
  • RugerFanRugerFan Senior Member Posts: 2,193 Senior Member
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    It's not the singular dividing factor. But bear in mind there is an arbitration process for such things as states divided on a matter of Constitutional matters. That Avenue wasn't pursued, it seems they just went straight to secession.
    http://history1800s.about.com/od/civilwar/a/james-buchanan-and-secession.htm

    The Peace Convention Was Held in February 1861

    On February 4, 1861, the Peace Convention began at the Willard Hotel in Washington. Delegates from 21 of the nation's 33 states attended, and former president John Tyler, a native of Virginia, was elected its presiding officer.

    The Peace Convention held sessions until mid-February, when it delivered a set of proposals to Congress. The compromises hammered out at the convention would have taken the form of new amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

    The proposals from the Peace Convention quickly died in Congress, and the gathering in Washington proved to be a pointless exercise.


    There's more at this link:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_Conference_of_1861
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,531 Senior Member
    Closed-minded? Preaching? Look at yourselves you blind hypocrites. I began a discussion and I am asserting my position. OFFER A COUNTERPOINT and I'll read it. How do you know I HAVEN'T read them? I HAVE.

    Second, Lincoln. I don't suppose for ONE SECOND that he is a great man or wasn't a liar about things. He's a freakin politician. He said many times be didn't hold blacks in very high regard. I've READ those things and even the links Mike offered after berating me.

    So if I posit my opinion it's wrong because you posit yours? What the hell kind of discussion is this? I'm not preaching, I'm asserting a LOGICAL POSITION:

    If you defend the Southern slave-owning states for ANY REASON you are by default defending the ownership of slaves. Period. I never said anyone was a racist for this distinction.

    Let's assume for one second that secession was made PURELY for reasons of tax and tariff. Slavery was a social and economical norm that was not going anywhere anytime soon--even after the cotton gin. It was invented almost 70 years BEFORE the Civil War. They didn't need slaves to separate seeds anymore, they needed them to plow bigger fields!

    Whatever delusions you've fed yourself for so long that you can see that regardless of the argument, support of secession or support of political decisions of the Confederate States of America, is supporting slavery as a viable economic norm.

    Deal with it. Read the secession documents from each state and THEN tell me is "absolutely wasn't slavery". Why is this such a hard fact for Confederate apologists to get in their heads. Either take the position of holding the CSA in reverence and ACCEPT you are ok with slavery as a social norm, or reject slavery and realize their position that the US Constitution AND Declaration of Independence either allowed for or was indifferent on the matter of slavery was a ridiculous position to hold!

    I argue AGAINST slavery but you look at me cross-eyed and call me a closet liberal? How ironic.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,797 Senior Member
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    Closed-minded? Preaching? I'm not preaching, I'm asserting a LOGICAL POSITION:

    If you defend the Southern slave-owning states for ANY REASON you are by default defending the ownership of slaves. Period.


    Wow, just wow. I don't see too many folks agreeing with this statement.
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • DoctorWhoDoctorWho Senior Member Posts: 9,496 Senior Member
    I sure don't agree with that illogical statement.
    "There is some evil in all of us, Doctor, even you, the Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation, and I may say, you do not improve with age. Founding member of the G&A forum since 1996
  • shushshush Senior Member Posts: 6,259 Senior Member
    Few will truthfully understand what I am saying because you didn't grow up in the rural, farming South as I did 60+ years ago!......


    Woodsrunner you are living history, my friend. :up:

    I raise my glass to you. :beer:

    Please tell me you have written down, made oral tapes or in some way kept record of you experiences.



    My No.1 son faces a multitude ( A LOT ) of different races ( parents ) in his job, in greater London.

    The two he has the most problems with?

    White and black.


    Very good post JasonMPD.

    If we could all just keep back from the edge a little bit,( I know, it is just like Cricket to you lot.) that would be nice.
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    If you defend the Southern slave-owning states for ANY REASON you are by default defending the ownership of slaves. Period.

    Missed that.

    A Bridge Too Far.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,105 Senior Member
    So Jason.....................what do you know about indentured servitude?

    http://immigrationinamerica.org/605-indentured-servitude.html?newsid=605

    Irish sold into slavery:

    http://republican-news.org/current/news/2008/05/irish_slaves_in_the_caribbean.html#.VZMAJUbCZ8E

    To leave out a whole people sent into slavery in your diatribe smells of lack of knowledge of that fact.

    A couple of related links to the Civil War and the Irish:

    http://www.immigrationinamerica.org/634-irish-immigrants-irish-immigrants-during-the-us-civil-war.html

    http://clevelandcivilwarroundtable.com/articles/society/irish.htm
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • shushshush Senior Member Posts: 6,259 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    So Jason.....................what do you know about indentured servitude?

    The Irish.................. I knew you would. :wink:

    Don't bring the Bog Sniffers into it.

    This makes us Brits look awfully bad. :whip2:
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,105 Senior Member
    shush wrote: »
    The Irish.................. I knew you would. :wink:

    Don't bring the Bog Sniffers into it.

    This makes us Brits look awfully bad. :whip2:

    :spittingcoffee: History, warts and all, or not at all! History is a messy business; when turning over rocks, there's no telling what you'll uncover and watch with horror as it slithers into the light. It is what is, and you can make nothing else of it. But if you learn to avoid it in the future, then all is not lost.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    [IMG][/img]southernthang_zpslvjzivmd.jpg




    :rotflmao::rotflmao:
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement