Facts and Myths - an examination of McPherson's "Causes of the Civil War" essay

myself

[stand watie]

are you WP in a differnt guise?

the problem with all these so-called "secession articles" is the following: 1. they were written by a handfull of un-elected planters, 2.NOBODY but the authors either read the articles OR cared what they said, 3.the authors were NOT the representives of ANY elected government AND they were NOT READ by the general public. in other words they MEAN/MEANT ZIP!

SERIOUS SCHOLARS dismiss these documents as MEANINGLESS to anyone but the 1% of rich planters;furthermore if the authors had decided to print "mary had a little lamb" it would have been just as important to the mass of southrons.

this is the same bravo sierra that Walt posts = long,boring,silly,off-point, meaningless, poorly researched tirades against nothing. if you want to be taken seriously by the REAL SCHOLARS on FR, of which there are many (i'd bet there are more earned doctorates on the forum than there are at most major universities!), start doing REAL research from primary sources OR join Walt, illbay, N-S & ditto in being the laughingstocks of FR.

to quote the Good Book on these documents, "----it is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying NOTHING".

for dixie,sw

[stand watie]

i had a former professor at Tulane, sadly now gone to glory, who stated that "you couldn't have found 10,000 people in the WHOLE COUNTRY, who cared a damn about the plight of the slaves; almost NOBODY was willing to fight either for or against slavery.

the "free the slaves" mantra/crusade of the lincoln administration was nothing more than an excuse to continue an un-popular war, which the federals were LOSING until mid-1863; nothing more,nothing else."

BTW, Dr. Williams was black and the former history department chair of Grambling University.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

SERIOUS SCHOLARS dismiss these documents as MEANINGLESS to anyone but the 1% of rich planters;furthermore if the authors had decided to print "mary had a little lamb" it would have been just as important to the mass of southrons.

So serious scholars are only those who agree with you.  My my it doesn't even matter to you that these documents were the southern equivalent (in their day) of the federalist papers and the declaration of independence.

[Leper Messiah]

Ill have to read this later

[4CJ]

was their anything left?

"There" probably wasn't.

[stand watie]

the documents were largely un-read by ANYBODY in the 1860s. the ONLY reason they are read NOW, is the most radical of the leftist, revisionists from the poison ivy league want to make slavery the ONLY cause of the WBTS. the documents are NOT the federalist papers of their day. sorry.

free dixie,sw

[Dawgsquat]

I have a question:

If the North thought that the South did not have a legal basis for secession, why didn't they take the seceeded states to court in an effort to bring them back into the union? Why did they instead resort to force of arms?

OK, it's two questions.

[Democratic_Machiavelli]

Although it's interesting reading these statements you've posted, they don't address the point GOPcapitalist orginally made concerning MacPherson's article. They only show the propaganda spouted by the South to rally people to "The Cause". Pointing to a minority within the opposing side and proclaiming it the majority opinion is a classic tactic of those who wish to obfuscate the complexity of the issues in their favor. You'll win more people over if you find something from the North, during a mainstream political event, which backs up your claim.

Too many big words. Tired.

[ml/nj]

to quote the Good Book on these documents, "----it is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying NOTHING".

Shakespeare stole this from the Bible?

ML/NJ

[stand watie]

YEP!

[stand watie]

try the Song of Solomon.

for dixie,sw

[ml/nj]

My my it doesn't even matter to you that these documents were the southern equivalent (in their day) of the federalist papers and the declaration of independence.

Do you think

that wars are always fought for the reasons the leaders profess to be fighting them for?

Remember the Maine!

(And these documents are hardly the equivalents of the Federalist Papers and/or the Declaration of Independance. - Most Freepers capitalize the first letters of the names of these. You should too.)

ML/NJ

[marron]

, "----it is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying NOTHING".

I'm just posting the Articles of Secession. If you say they are meaningless, I really don't know how to respond to that.

start doing REAL research from primary sources

These are the Articles of Secession. I could dig up some more, from the other states, but again, if they are meaningless...

[marron]

They only show the propaganda spouted by the South to rally people to "The Cause".

According to Stand Watie, they are meaningless because no one read them.

[ml/nj]

try the Song of Solomon.

I guess I know that as Shir hashirim, or the Song of Songs, but I wasn't sure. I found this text on the 'net, but I didn't find what you might be referring to. Can you help?

ML/NJ

[Democratic_Machiavelli]

The point is that what you've posted still doesn't refute what GOPcapitalist is saying.

[marron]

I posted long portions of the Articles because I, at least, found them interesting. After reading at length that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery, it is interesting to read what the southerners themselves said.

If you re-read them, they state rather clearly that what pushed them over the edge, after years of increasing hostility by the northern states toward the slave issue, the North had elected the hated abolitionists to office, lead by the most outspoken of abolitionists. They knew then that they had no chance of getting fair treatment.

I am seeing here responses that the Articles are meaningless because they represent the opinion of only the rich planters, and I am also seeing that they are meaningless because they were only propaganda to ralley the masses.

I am seeing that the North didn't really care about the slave issue, and that Lincoln's anti-slavery rhetoric was only to ralley the masses.

But the South was sufficiently convinced that it pushed them over the edge.

Tariffs were certainly an issue. But only the Articles of Secession of Georgia mentions it, but makes it clear, again, that while that is an irritant, it is the intractability of the slave issue that is pushing them over the edge. None of the other states mention that as a cause.

The blockade of the South was not about collecting tariffs. Up until the war started, tariffs matter, and you patrol for smugglers. That is not a blockade, unless the present day Customs Service and Coast Guard are presently blockading the US. Once the shooting started, though, you had a real blockade, as you would expect in wartime. It made Texas a major player, in that the blockade forced the arms traders to use Mexico. A lot of Texans, maybe some of my relatives, made good money trucking goods to and from Mexico.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Texas ordinance of secession

[P4]
WHEREAS, the recent developments in Federal affairs make if evident that the power of the Federal Government is sought to be made a weapon with which to strike down the interests and property of the people of Texas, and her sister slave-holding States, instead of permitting it to be, as was intended, our shield against outrage and aggression; THEREFORE,...

Virginia ordinance of secession

[P2]
The people of Virginia in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eigthy eight, having declared that the powers granted under said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression, and the Federal Government having perverted said powers not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slave-holding states:

So we see from these two examples that slavery is specifically mentioned.  In point of fact tariffs are never mentioned in the documents voted on by the people.

The state declarations of causes for secession of South Carolina, Missippi, Georgia and Texas focus on slavery as the overriding issue for secession.  In fact, while texas does mention obliquely that there are other issues, only Georgia mentions some of these other issues (and only in passing).  But even Georgia says that Slavery is the cause of secession.

Robert Barnwell Rhett of S. Carolina did indeed touch upon what was termed "unfair taxes" at some length in his address to the confederate convention, but by far his talk dealt mostly with southern rights to slavery.  The address of Louisiana's George Williamson to the Texas Secession Convention had only slavery as the issue.  E. S. Dargan was (in a speech to the Alabama Secession Convention) motivated by the problems involved with freeing slaves.  In February of 1860, the Alabama legislature passed a law that forced the governor to call a constitutional convention in the event that a Republican was elected president.

But beyond that, the Crittendon Compromise, the committee of 13 and the Washington Peace Conference consisted exclusively of slavery issues.  In fact, many of the demands made by slave states infringed more on states rights than the northern states did later on.

[Rebelo3]

Concerns about slavery was a cause for SECCESSION, but Linclon's unlawful effort to hold property which was clearly the Southern States share of the federal pie, and his unlawful, unconstitutional, and immoral invasion of the Southern States to "save the union", mostly for economic reasons, was the cause of THE WAR.
But simple minds want simple answers so we get "the war was about freeing the slaves" BS.
DEO VINDICE!

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

the documents were largely un-read by ANYBODY in the 1860s.

I suppose that you are getting your info on this from DiLorenzo or Williams...