Posted on 07/06/2013 7:37:16 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Take it up with 0.E.O.
In other words you’ve been talking out your....kazoo ;-)
“So how does that become justification for secession?”
From my point of view it doesn’t.
But I do understand human nature.
Dred Scott enraged the North and Harper’s Ferry enraged the South. They were the final straws so to speak.
I was just pointing out the Truth.
But since there was no interest in it on the part of the slave holders then there was no solution at all.
The problem wasn’t that it was rejected, the problem is that market compensation of the owners was not even tried. Because that was never the point. The point was to crush the South.
So what you are saying is that you would jump at the chance to sell all your guns to the government and forgo any future gun ownership if they offered market price? If so then you would be a complete idiot and I suspect that you are not.
Market price is not the issue. If so then the everyone in the country would gladly disarm themselves at the right price. People don't want to give up their guns, for any number of reasons. Likewise, in 1860 there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that slave owners were willing to give up their chattel, even if offered market price. Slave owners were not interested in giving up their property. So half your equation is missing.
Again, it was tried in the UK and it worked. It meant that those who were involved in the slave trade were not crushed. They were able to ‘cash out’, so to speak. This is why the UK was able to eliminate slavery and avoid a bitterly divided civil war and why black folks in the UK did better than they ever did in America.
You're overlooking one thing, well two things really. The first is that the slave owners in Britain did not have a choice. The Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 mandated the terms of emancipation and the compensation. There was nothing voluntary about it.
The second thing you're overlooking is that Britain did not have a large part of their population willing to launch a bloody rebellion to protect their right to own slaves. The U.S. did.
I'm really sorry, but whenever you see words like those, it should be proof-positive that the person saying them is a complete idiot, who has not the least idea of what he/she is talking about, and has been guzzling down pro-Confederate moon-shine-grade Kool-Aid by the gallons!
There were never any taxes on exports of anything from the United States.
FRiend, you just have to get stuff like that straight in your mind before you go around posting gibberish on these threads.
exit82: "Abraham Lincoln did not really care about the slaves, only about what the solution might be to what everyone realized would be a huge dislocation in the fabric of the nation and how it would operate going forward, should the institution of slavery be abolished."
Oh, dear, where ever did you learn such nonsense?
Of course Lincoln caaaaaaaaaared about slaves -- that's why he opposed slavery, duh.
But before 1861 Lincoln never ever proposed abolishing slavery in the South, he only hoped to prevent its expansion to the North and western territories.
So freedom for slaves came strictly as a result of the Slave Power's declarations of secession followed by starting and declaring war on the United States.
Yes, Lincoln favored freedom for slaves, plus some resolution of claims (40 acres and mule comes to mind, as does voluntary transportation to Africa), but none of that was even possible until after the Confederacy had started and declared war on the United States.
exit82: "The states in the South saw an overreaching and interfering Federal government and reasoned they should be able to leave the Union the same way they came into it."
All states admitted after 1790 were admitted only with approval from Congress.
Had secessionists sought and received Congress' approval for secession -- and negotiated resolutions for various issues -- there would be no war.
Indeed, as Lincoln said in his First Inaugural Address (March 4, 1861) there could be no Civil War unless secessionists started it.
exit82: "Now as far as Jeff Davis goes, it appears that before the start of the Civil War, there attempts to peacefully negotiate the separation of the Confederacy from the Union, including the payment for Federally owned facilities.
Lincoln did refuse that offer, which was made directly by Davis, a former US Senator from Mississippi."
"Jeff" Davis? Jeffy baby? Your friend you call "Jeff"?
What is that?
Confederate President Jefferson Davis made no such offers -- zero, zip, nada -- to President Lincoln, directly or indirectly.
Nor could Lincoln have considered any such "offer", since that was beyond his Constitutional powers.
Any such offer would have to be made to Congress for negotiations and approval -- a fact which Davis as a recently resigned Senator well knew.
Which is precisely why Davis never did that.
exit82: "Davis did not what Beauregard to fire upon Sumter, but only agreed when Lincoln moved to resupply the fort against the express wishes of the Confederacy for him not to do so."
In fact, Davis ordered Beauregard to prepare for military assault on Fort Sumter before Lincoln had even been inaugurated.
All such actions and threats by the Confederacy were acts of war against the United States, a fact of which Davis was fully aware.
Of course, Davis hoped and expected that Lincoln would immediately surrender Sumter.
When it became clear Lincoln did not intend to surrender, Davis immediately ordered military action against it.
exit82: "When it is said not to push the US around, it can argued that the folks in the South WERE the US, just as much as those in the North."
Except there was no "push" from the Union -- only Lincoln's decision to resupply Federal troops in Federal forts, including Sumter and Pickens.
So Lincoln committed no acts of war before Sumter, but the Confederacy committed a long list of provocations, culminating in its formal Declaration of War on May 6, 1861.
exit82: "And of course, war was extremely profitable to those engaged in the supply of weaponry and supplies, on both sides.
So there were less than idealistic reasons for some to beat the drums in 1861."
I'd call that socialist rubbish which you doubtless picked up from some Communist professor somewhere.
Whatever else you might say about most Unionist and Confederates, they certainly fought for what in their own minds were the highest of ideals.
Why slime either one with a bunch of Communist-style propaganda?
exit82: "As far as the military defeat of slavery, the ultimate defeat of slavery would have come with mechanization of the agricultural processes starting in the mid 1870s.
The economics of the situation would have settled the issue with far less bloodshed than a war."
More rubbish, but certainly essential to pro-Confederate Kool-Aid drinkers.
In fact, the Confederacy made certain that slavery was the cornerstone of its new Constitution, and would eagerly have made every political and military effort necessary to keep slavery strong and profitable.
Under such conditions, there is no reason to think that even late 19th century mechanization would overthrow slavery.
Indeed, just the opposite: there is every reason to believe that slaves would quickly learn to build in factories, operate in fields and maintain in shops every machine of the 19th century -- or of today for that matter.
Any suggestion differently is just racism trying to disguise itself under false assumptions.
exit82: "The victor writes the history, and history tells us that Lincoln was a saint."
I'll start believing that when you can quote me even one reputable history book which says "Lincoln was a saint."
That's rubbish like so much else of your posting here.
exit82: "He was a decent fellow, but how was keeping States that already expressed a desire to part, worth a four year war that killed 600,000 men out of a population of 30 million a reasonable trade, for the hundred years that followed?"
If you absolutely must assign moral blame for those deaths, then all of them, every one, should be blamed on the Deep South Slave Power secessionist leaders, who started and declared war on the United States.
Blaming Lincoln for that war is like blaming Franklin Roosevelt for World War II, or George W for the War on Terror.
At some point you need to put down your Kool-Aid and look at real facts, FRiend.
Nor do northerners understand what reconstruction did to the South and we still feel the effects. You have to live and breath our air to understand it.
I’m not the one stating that there was a settlement offered. :)
You gonna answer my question since I answered yours?
“Market price is not the issue.”
Market price is and was the issue. Had they been offered market value many would have taken it and it would have taken the wind out of the sails of those who stuck with it. That’s how it was done in the UK. Successfully, I might add and years before the States got around to doing it.
“Slave owners were not interested in giving up their property.”
Not for a dime on a dollar.
“You’re overlooking one thing, well two things really. The first is that the slave owners in Britain did not have a choice. The Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 mandated the terms of emancipation and the compensation. There was nothing voluntary about it.”
Compensation was negotiated over a period of years and they found a compromise that was acceptable to both parties. They agreed to shut things down and received payment which was acceptable to them. They were not left with nothing. They were not crushed by the power of the almighty state and Lincoln. They did not lose half a million good men and women.
That is because in the UK - the issue *was* slavery. The issue wasn’t nullification and the conflict between states and the federal government.
“The second thing you’re overlooking is that Britain did not have a large part of their population willing to launch a bloody rebellion to protect their right to own slaves. The U.S. did.”
They also didn’t have a large part of their population willing to vote to crush the economic livelihood of southerners. Again - if it were about slavery why wasn’t it until the 60s that black folks were actually allowed to vote?
Free persons, including free servants, plus three-fifths of “other persons,” excluding indians. For purposes of representation in the house and direct taxation. A direct tax is imposed directly upon property according to its value. A property or ad valorem tax. Of course, the Slave States gained an advantage because no such tax was ever imposed on property by Congress. After the Civil War, the category of “other persons” disappeared.
There is no mention of a Bank of the United States in any secessionist document, period.
You're just making cr*p up, FRiend.
JCBreckenridge: "As for compensation - it was closer to confiscation than compensation, the offer was nowhere near what had been paid.
It would have meant their ruin - and that was the point."
Sorry, but there was never any serious negation over the price of slaves to be freed, because slave-holders never agreed that slaves should be freed at any price.
JCBreckenridge: "The point was never to free the slaves - the point was to finally destroy the South.
And it worked perfectly well, the South still isn’t as strong as she was prior to 1865, more than 150 years later."
Nobody but nobody in 1860 wanted to "destroy the South", that's just ludicrous fantasy.
What most Northerners wanted was to prevent slavery from becoming legal in their own states and in western territories.
That's it!
But that was enough -- to make Fire Eaters amongst Southern white Slave Power demand secession and war against the United States and -- after Lincoln was elected President in November 1860 -- to get it.
“Confederacy had started and declared war on the United States.”
So, you’re saying the South invaded the North and attempted to capture Washington?
That’s not what the history books say, btw.
Last I checked Sumpter is in South Carolina, not DC.
And you can cite some documentation -- anything -- to show that is something other than a pro-Confederate's wet dream?
That’s right.
When the 3/5th’s rule was implemented for the purposes of taxation the south squealed. They didn’t want their blacks to be a part of the count (and thus the apportioned tax). For the purposes of taxation the south didn’t want the blacks to hold any value at all.
But for the purposes of representation they were again angry because this time they wanted their blacks to be counted as a whole person - but without a single human right of course.
It’s funny how the slavers managed to run their hypocrisy both ways.
“There is no mention of a Bank of the United States in any secessionist document, period.”
“Traditionally, the bank had been run by a board of directors with ties to industry and manufacturing, and therefore was biased toward the urban and industrial northern states. Jackson, the epitome of the frontiersman, resented the bank’s lack of funding for expansion into the unsettled Western territories. Jackson also objected to the bank’s unusual political and economic power and to the lack of congressional oversight over its business dealings.”
Sound familiar?
You need to read:
Osborn v. Bank of the United States.
Then you have Calhoun’s exposition in 1828.
This was all going on at the same time in Jackson’s second term. The two issues are related, and Calhoun + Jackson refer to both.
“You’re just making cr*p up, FRiend.”
Nullification 1828. Elimination of the Bank of the United States, 4 years later, on grounds cited by Jackson who removed the funds to various state banks.
Yes, the bank of the United States was an issue, among many that were aggravating the South. Long before the Civil War some 40 years later.
Arguing that the conflict sprung naturally out of the 60s is false. There were conflicts for 30 some years before the Civil War settled the supremacy of the federal government as enacted in the 14th and 15th amendments.
“Sorry, but there was never any serious negation over the price of slaves to be freed, because slave-holders never agreed that slaves should be freed at any price.”
Again - this is the only peaceful alternative to war that would have worked.
“Nobody but nobody in 1860 wanted to “destroy the South”,”
Heh, you haven’t even seen what they did during reconstruction. Heck, we still have laws that say the south are second-class citizens - the federal government can still apportion their districts if they aren’t ‘diverse’ enough.
“What most Northerners wanted was to prevent slavery from becoming legal in their own states and in western territories.”
Then why did they invade the South?
“But that was enough — to make Fire Eaters amongst Southern white Slave Power demand secession and war against the United States and — after Lincoln was elected President in November 1860 — to get it.”
As opposed to the carpetbaggers that wanted to ‘destroy the slave power’ once and for all, and damn the folks that got in their way.
Again - the Confederacy did not invade the North. The Confederacy was invaded, and they fought to protect themselves.
This is why you imprisoned the legislatures in Kentucky, Missouri, and in Maryland so that you wouldn’t see a repeat of what happened in Virginia when they refused to take arms against their brothers and sisters.
I like that, especially the capital "T" part. ;-)
Of course, they were far from either first or "final straws".
So Dred Scott (1857) helped destroy the Northern pro-slavery Whig party, and John Brown (1859) convinced many Southerners that abolitionists were both serious and dangerous.
But decisions of secede and start war on the United States were taken by Deep South leaders, for reasons which today defy rational explanation.
That's why we see our pro-Confederate FRiends posting so much nonsense here.
The real Truth for them, and for us, makes no sense.
I am saying that it would have worked if it had been offered. It was not.
You are asserting that it was refused - when it was never offered. I am saying that there was a peaceful way out of war and it was not taken. Other countries did do it in this fashion and did succeed in freeing the slaves long before the US ever did.
Again - had the US followed the same model as the UK - things would have been much better and different. But that road was not taken.
Instead, we have invasion followed by the devastation of the South.
“for reasons which today defy rational explanation.”
So you find state’s rights irrational I see.
Did you make sure to vote for King Obama like the rest of the folks in PA? Thanks for that, btw.
Really appreciated all that you did to keep the South ‘free’.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.