Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Non-Sequitur

The time to settle those issues was before the South left, not after they had walked out on their responsibilities and seized what they wanted. If anything is disengenuous it's the suggestion that the South sincerely intended to pay for anything.

Congress spent the decade of the 1850s in acrimonious debate over whether secession was legal in the first place (throwing around terms like "treason" and "coercion") and you're saying the South should have engaged the North in thoughtful, sincere negotiations over compensation, pre-secession? You are ignoring the realities of the political climate.

Yes, I think the Southern states were prepared to pay. I also think they intended to institute free trade policies. But speaking of disingenuousness, let's not forget U.S. Secretary of State Seward's assurances to those same Confederate commissioners that Ft. Sumter would soon be evacuated.

188 posted on 01/17/2007 7:51:38 PM PST by Texas Mulerider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies ]


To: Texas Mulerider
Congress spent the decade of the 1850s in acrimonious debate over whether secession was legal in the first place (throwing around terms like "treason" and "coercion") and you're saying the South should have engaged the North in thoughtful, sincere negotiations over compensation, pre-secession?

Congress spent the 50's discussing slavery, but I'm not aware that sececssion was such a common topic for discussion. But regardless, you use that as an excuse to justify the actions the South took and that's fine. So long as you drop the sham that the Constitution protected such actions.

Yes, I think the Southern states were prepared to pay.

And I think that the rest of the states would have allowed the south to leave had they only negotiated a settlement beforehand. See? Opinions are fun, and mine are just as likely as yours. But since the South never made a serious offer, and since the North never negotiated before the secession we'll never know for sure.

I also think they intended to institute free trade policies.

Since one of their first acts was the implementation of a tariff that was protectionist in nature I think the evidence shows that to be false. But even if they had, what of it? Had the South set a zero tariff what impact would that have had on the North?

But speaking of disingenuousness, let's not forget U.S. Secretary of State Seward's assurances to those same Confederate commissioners that Ft. Sumter would soon be evacuated.

Seward had no authority to made those assurances. All the rebels needed to do was read Lincoln's speeches up to and including the inauguration to see the administration's position.

189 posted on 01/18/2007 4:13:35 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson