Posted on 06/09/2009 8:47:35 AM PDT by Davy Buck
My oh my, what would the critics, the Civil War publications, publishers, and bloggers do if it weren't for the bad boys of the Confederacy and those who study them and also those who wish to honor their ancestors who fought for the Confederacy?
(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...
further, you are MORALLY UNFIT imVho to be a FReeper.
free dixie,sw
Again, coming from a degenerate piece~of~shiite like you, I’ll take that as a compliment.
No, of course not, we've discussed it many times on ACW threads here in FR.
Here's my question: Which part of South Carolina's Declaration does NOT relate to slavery?
The part which points to the elaboration in Robert Rhett's documentary and closely contemporary call to the other Southern States, of the reasons why Rhett thought the other States ought to come to South Carolina's side in a new federal republic called the Confederacy.
People on your side of the debate also point to Mississippi's cause declaration, which is very similar to South Carolina's; but for comprehension and contextualization they should be read together with Rhett's call, with the records of the Georgia secession convention and the great debate between Georgia's Alexander Stephens and the secessionist Carolinians, as well as Stephens's "Cornerstone Speech" in which he distilled the sense of that convention -- and how people (other people) had voted (i.e. for secession; he didn't) -- into a declaration similar to South Carolina's and Mississippi's. The Texas Declaration ought also to be looked at, and it is a wider declaration of cause, like Rhett's call and Robert Toombs's speech in the Georgia convention, than the Mississippian and Carolinian ones.
I submit that the narrower cause declarations are 19th-century exercises in political simplification, and the older equivalent of "it's the economy, stupid!"
The broader documents and speeches all occur in the context of discussion within a more sophisticated political audience of educated, reflective, forward-looking people. I submit that they reflect more accurately the real reasons the Southern States left the Union.
Factually incorrect, and provably so.
The complaints laid out by Texas included the complaint that the Congress had failed to protect the citizens of Texas with an adequate provision against Comanche raids and Mexican incursions across the Rio Grande. Frontier defense was a sore issue.
"It was all about slavery" is a lying Marxist mantra that has been picked up and used by Bill Clinton himself. Get the picture, quit helping the 'Rats.
From its founding, the Republican Party was the party of anti-slavery. After all, Republicans had replaced the old Whig party, which they considered too wishy-washy and compromising. Even back then, true Republicans didn't like "moderates"!
I think you're too comfortable with the terrible implications of these statements. What kind of people start a vast war like that, with their own countrymen, over money and policy?
Also, much has been made about Lincoln's supposedly "unconstitutional" actions.....
Legalistic gamesmanship aside, the moral burden remains, and it is unrelieved by any appeal to nonexistent insurrections and rebellions.
The Southern States did not rebel. They used their rightful authority to dissolve the bonds of Union between themselves and the other States. They did not, by the way, dissolve the Union among the remaining States. South Carolina seceded from Mississippi as much as she did from Oregon; but she did nothing to impair the other States' continued bonds among themselves. This "destroying the Union" stuff is just propagandistic claptrap, then and now.
Never having given up the right and power to secede, the States possessed it still, in fullness and perfection.
And yes, I've read the Constitution. Repeatedly. No cession overt or implied of the secession right anywhere in it. The Union, as somebody pointed out later, was not a suicide pact.
So our Founders never intended to let everyone just "do their own thing."
Oh, you mean, like that "freedom" thing? You might want to reexamine that incredibly authoritarian and dictatorial statement.
This may be one of the more important contributions to the discussion about the origins of the Civil War in the last several years.
We know John Quincy Adams is a Yankee hero, and that he fought for -- and for 10 years succeeded almost single-handedly -- exclusion of Texas from the Union.
He is also the last of the Federalist Presidents and the bridge to the Whigs who opposed the Mexican War.
If we could find a letter, a note, or a reminiscence, or if McCullough found one, that would show the outlines of this idea in John Quincy Adams's words and document its transmission to Lincoln or other Illinois Whigs, that would be a very big piece in the Chinese puzzle of the origins of the Civil War.
I’m assuming he’s referring to “John Adams” by David McCullough. The biography that came out a couple of years ago, and which is an outstanding work, like all of McCullough books are.
By 1804 all northern states had outlawed slavery, but gradually, so there were still a dozen "permanent apprentices" in the north in the 1860 census.
Possibly these dozen are the "human chattels" you refer to?
"the facts are that NOBODY's hands were CLEAN on the "peculiar institution"."
Of course, under the Brits slavery was legal in all colonies, so you could say that no one's hands were "clean." But northern states clearly confessed that slavery was not acceptable in a country where "all men are created equal." So the North outlawed and gradually eliminated slavery.
Southern states made no such confession, and chose instead to secede from the Union, then attack the Union Fort Sumter. So the North fought first to preserve the Union, and while we're at it, to abolish slavery.
Those were the main ideas, everything else side issues.
Correction: Ft. Sumter was no longer “Union” after South Carolina’s Declaration of Secession. The South attacked to evict tenants whose “lease” had expired. (After they had been given due notice to vacate).....
Pal, you're chasing a red herring here. The issue is not Wikipedia's particular interpretations of historical facts. The issue is, what reasons did the South Carolina legislature give for seceding?
You can read those reasons yourself! You don't need Wikipedia to interpret them for you. Go look. Find us even one reason for secession which has nothing to do with slavery.
The official death toll for the Civil War is about 600,000 total. The numbers of innocent civilians in that total is in the range of dozens, or a few hundreds.
I've seen no numbers for how many died after the war, during Reconstruction, but considering that blacks were allowed to vote, and elected Reconstruction governments, it's hard to believe that you could blame the northern army for large numbers of black deaths.
As to the South eliminating slavery on its own in "perhaps as few as 5-10 years," well, I've seen no evidence of that. If the South was fixing to abolish slavery anyway, why bother to secede?
Here's the real truth of the matter: the South was determined to keep its slaves, at all costs. That's why they fought to the bitter end.
There was no lease. Fort Sumter was federal property and was built on land deeded to it free and clear by the South Carolina legislature. The state had no more legal claim to the property than I have to your house, and no more right to order the army out of it than I have to order you to vacate your home.
BJK: "All of the alleged violations of the rights of Southern states were related to slavery."
lentulusgracchus: "Factually incorrect, and provably so."
OK pal, you're on. Prove it. Quote for us even a single section of the South Carolina Declaration which has nothing to do with slavery.
"The Southern States did not rebel."
I note how eager you are to forget that the first shots of war were fired not by the North against the South, but by the South against the Northern Fort Sumter. A South eager for peace could easily have waited and negotiated this problem. But the South was obviously eager for a fight, so they started one.
I note also your plea to end "legalistic gamesmanship." All well and good. But when you eliminate all the "legalistic gamesmanship," here's what the whole thing comes down to:
It's all pretty simple when you eliminate "legalistic gamesmanship," isn't it?
What about now? What excuse would you blood thirsty neo-Yankees use now to "preserve the Union"? If a state(s) does secede, no slavery issue to conveniently hide behind. What justification? Huh, WHAT?
I'm away from home, in South Dakota this week. The McCullough book is at home. Next week will look it up and see if I remembered correctly. If so, will provide you with quotes. If not, will apologize for confusing the issue. ;-)
My point here is, the need to abolish slavery was recognized by our Founding Fathers, even those from the South, such as Jefferson, Madison and Washington. This necessity was passed down from father to son -- literally in the case of John Adams to his son John Quincy Adams -- and eventually to the new generation represented by young Whig Congressman Abraham Lincoln.
The the issue was never "whether" to abolish slavery, but rather "how" and "when." And, as I spelled out, there were at least three theoretically possible ways, but tragically, only one of them practical enough to actually happen -- a War of Southern Rebellion.
lentulusgracchus: "Oh, you mean, like that "freedom" thing? You might want to reexamine that incredibly authoritarian and dictatorial statement."
No, pal, I meant exactly what I said: the US Constitution provides for extraordinary actions (i.e., denial of habeas corpus) in the event of invasions, insurrections, rebellions and domestic violence.
So we can say, when the South attacked the Union Fort Sumter, they added "invasion" to their previous list of insurrection, rebellion and domestic violence.
But, we don't want to get too deep into "legalistic gamesmanship," now do we?
Bull cr*p.
Fort Sumter was property of the Union Army, manned by Union forces. And the South could easily have negotiated an amicable settlement had they wanted to -- sure it might take some time, but remember there were British forces in the United States long after the Revolutionary War was over, took years of negotiations to get them withdrawn.
. But the South didn't want to negotiate peacefully, they wanted a fight, and for the obvious reason they believed they could win, and win easily against those "candy-*ssed" Northerners.
You asked before, and I answered it then. My answer is the same now as last time: imho, the issues of secession and slavery were both resolved in the Civil War.
Let me add now: you'd be hard pressed to convince most Americans that slavery and secession are actually two distinct issues, and that secession somehow now remains a viable legal Constitutional option.
I'd say that secession still falls under the Constitutional categories of "rebellion," "insurrection" and "domestic violence."
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.