LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteWith regards to slavery at the time, that is the theme.Originally Posted by shek
I'd concur with Confed that the declarations (there isn't a single CSA one like the Declaration of Independence) do provide a strong glimpse into the both the mindset of the reasons for the South wanting to secede and the causes of their secession. After all, perception is reality.
Once you read the declarations for the causes of secession, you'll find that 3 of the 4 state only slavery, and in the fourth, Georgia's, you find that economics plays second fiddle to slavery.
Once you bounce the above findings against the realities, the reason that economics isn't mentioned in 75% of the declarations and that it is secondary in the other is that tariffs were at their lowest levels in almost four decades at the time of secession.
However, don't discount the mistrust that was created in South Carolina specifically and the South in general based on the battle over tariffs during Andrew Jackson's Presidency. There's no doubt that their was lingering resentment from this that played a part in exascerbating the battle over slavery during the 1850s and leading up to the Civil War.
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3
With regards to slavery at the time, that is the theme.
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry
To get technical, slavery and economics were the same thing at the time.
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry
But it's not the theme. He vigorously opposed the expansion of slavery. If he supported slavery in general as a policy, then there would have been no Lincoln-Douglas debates and he would have remained a Whig instead of becoming a Republican, meaning that he would be but a footnote in history, as Stanton would have become the GOP nominee, instead.
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3
For the South, but not the North or the West.
Once again, however you try to explain the causes for Southern secession, it still revolves around slavery as the primary issue.
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3
Expansion is future, "at the time" was indicating what was current. I never said he supported slavery "in general". Taken to it's extreme "in general" could include enslaving anyone weaker than you, as such I doubt many slave owners would support it "in general", because there is always someone stronger.
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry
You realize that you just agreed it was economics right?
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry
No, it's slavery, which is you agreed to.You realize that you just agreed it was economics right?
If it's not slavery, then why does every amendment and resolution proposed speak of slavery instead of economics? Why does every declaration for the causes of secession talk about slavery either exclusively or as the primary cause?
Take slavery out of the equation, is their a civil war?
Also, I would ask where do tariffs fit in? If that's not economics, then what are they?
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3
Then it seems we're in agreement.No, it's slavery, which is you agreed to.
To get personal, I do not agree with the reasons either government gave, both were simply talking out their collective asses. The people, not the governments, of both sides were fighting for one thing, and one thing alone, their freedom. Both sides felt forced into it. The common man in the North couldn't care less if the South stayed in the Union, or even owned slaves. The common man in the South couldn't care less if slaves were owned, because the common man did not have any slaves. The saddest bit about the entire war was that had it been stalled for just a few more years, automation would have replaced slavery, as well as promoted economic growth throughout the USA. There would have been no reasons for war.
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry
Take the Republicans out of the equation, is there a civil war?
Taxes and tarriffs always fit in, you can see it in today's politics just as clearly as they could see it in theirs.
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry
Yes. The anti-slavery Whigs could have elected a President given the fracture of the Democratic party into a Southern and Northern faction, which is what opened the door for the Republicans to win. Not a given, but certainly very plausible.
Well, then we both mispoke that economics = slavery for the South. It should be economics = SLAVERY + tariffs.Taxes and tarriffs always fit in, you can see it in today's politics just as clearly as they could see it in theirs.
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3
But then you cannot truly say "yes".
Plus every other thing the Feds took money for, all tolls, fees and taxes. Plus every incentive and subsidy given out. You know economics, it's impossible to pin it down to any one thing, or even any dozen things.
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry
This thread is growing like mushrooms in rain!
I have always been taught that the 3/5 and missouri compromises reached earlier on would have remained stable, if not for the fact that US expanded rapidly to the west and to the south. The earlier political compromises aimed at creating a balance of power between slave-holding and free states. New terrotories acquired meant that each one had to be fought over by the North or South, and upset that balance...
Well, you never can give a 100% when you play counterfactual history. However, the GOP was the answer to America's evolving political scene, and represents the amalgamation of the anti-slavery Whigs, the Free Soilers, and other small factions. You could take away the name, but it still wouldn't change the underlying demographics of political preferences. The only question that remains is whether the Democrats would split themselves (which I think would still happen - keep in mind that the GOP plank for 1860 was I believe unchanged from before and only spoke of limiting slavery's westward expansion) and how the actual election would play out.
Furthermore, just about every way that the causes of the Civil War are argued by people, slavery plays a major part in each explanation. Economics - slavery. Way of life - slavery. States rights - slavery. Settlement of the West - slavery.
We could play the "what if" game all we'd like - what if we never fought Mexico? what if we never settled the West? what if the cotton gin hadn't been invented? - but the bottom line is that slavery plays a proximate cause in nearly all the explanations.
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3
Well, look at the US-Mexico War, which he opposed "at the time" because he felt it was a land grab by Southern political interests to expand slavery "at the time." Or his opposition to Douglas and his "popular sovereignty" method of deciding slave states "at the time", when he opposed the expansion of slavery "at the time" over Kansas and Nebraska. So, Lincoln opposed slavery both "at the time" and in the "future."
I never said he supported slavery "in general". Taken to it's extreme "in general" could include enslaving anyone weaker than you, as such I doubt many slave owners would support it "in general", because there is always someone stronger.As far as the "in general" comment, you didn't raise opposition to the language here, and regardless of the technical argument over what "in general" could mean, I have already given examples to show that he didn't support slavery in policy as well. So, as stated earlier, an argument pre-1864 that he either supported or didn't support slavery is incomplete and therefore not wholly correct. Starting with policy in 1864 and beyond, an argument that he supported slavery is just wrong.
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: