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.
“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.