Civil War and some Myths.

[Publius1787]

As long as you're going to take the lazy way out and do a cheap cut and paste from some idiot dude with a web page who knows diddly squat about Civil War history ...and proceeds to use cherry picked quotes to completely deny the root cause - and the decades long events which led up to it - which was the defense of slavery, I may as well take the cheap route too.



Let's pray to god you have an original thought in your head, should you decide to follow up. Otherwise, not worth my time.

Hisw quotes come from Charles Adams who is the worlds leading scholor on the history of taxation. He is also born and raised in the North. No matter which way you toss it THE SOUTH DID NOT FIGHT FOR THE PROTECTION OF SLAVERY ANY MORE THAN THE NORTH FOUGHT TO ABOLISH IT.

I've decided to give you one more shingle to dingle with (though ignorance at such a level is hard to overcome):

In order to give Adams any quarter, you have to ignore all that led up to the war, including
the decades long increasingly embittered debate that took place in Congress, in states houses, in pulpits, on soapboxes, and in practically every newspaper and journal in the country.
It was THE topic.

You'd also have to ignore
The Compromise of 1850
the Kansas-Nebraska Act
Bleeding Kansas
The Dred Scott decision
The John Brown Affair
and the myriad other intensities growing wildfire by 1860 to reach his convoluted conclusions.

You also have to ignore:

- the declarations of the causes of secession that gave slavery as the reason for the rebellion,
-the secession commissioners that gave slavery as the reason for the rebellion
-the newspaper editorials that gave slavery as the reason for the rebellion

I guess they were all lying.

You'd have to make a case virtually all of the southern leadership was lying in order to get their people to fight for them

Just think about that.

Before all this mess. Well more accuratly in the midsts of it. Why did South Carolina want to seceed the first time it made such threats? I will tell you it wasent over slavery. Is there a history your leaving out? If slavery was the only issue then there would have been no secession and no war.

 

[paperview]

Hisw quotes come from Charles Adams who is the worlds leading scholor on the history of taxation. He is also born and raised in the North. No matter which way you toss it THE SOUTH DID NOT FIGHT FOR THE PROTECTION OF SLAVERY ANY MORE THAN THE NORTH FOUGHT TO ABOLISH IT.

I've decided to give you one more shingle to dingle with (though ignorance at such a level is hard to overcome):

In order to give Adams any quarter, you have to ignore all that led up to the war, including
the decades long increasingly embittered debate that took place in Congress, in states houses, in pulpits, on soapboxes, and in practically every newspaper and journal in the country.
It was THE topic.

You'd also have to ignore
The Compromise of 1850
the Kansas-Nebraska Act
Bleeding Kansas
The Dred Scott decision
The John Brown Affair
and the myriad other intensities growing wildfire by 1860 to reach his convoluted conclusions.

You also have to ignore:

- the declarations of the causes of secession that gave slavery as the reason for the rebellion,
-the secession commissioners that gave slavery as the reason for the rebellion
-the newspaper editorials that gave slavery as the reason for the rebellion

I guess they were all lying.

You'd have to make a case virtually all of the southern leadership was lying in order to get their people to fight for them

Just think about that.

Before all this mess. Well more accuratly in the midsts of it. Why did South Carolina want to seceed the first time it made such threats? I will tell you it wasent over slavery. Is there a history your leaving out? If slavery was the only issue then there would have been no secession and no war.

If you want to compare the tariff issue some 40 years earlier to the tariffs in 1860, be my guest. It just makes you look stupid.

The tariffs had been historically low for decades preceding the war.

 

[paperview]

But don't listen to me. Listen to the man who would become the Vice President of the Confederacy:

Alexander Stephens, November 14, 1860 speech to the Georgia Legislature:

The next evil that my friend complained of, was the Tariff. Well, let us look at that for a moment.

About the time I commenced noticing public matters, this question was agitating the country almost as fearfully as the Slave question now is.

In 1832, when I was in college, South Carolina was ready to nullify or secede from the Union on this account. And what have we seen? The tariff no longer distracts the public councils.

Reason has triumphed.
The present tariff was voted for by Massachusetts and South Carolina. The lion and the lamb lay down together-- every man in the Senate and House from Massachusetts and South Carolina, I think, voted for it, as did my honorable friend himself.

And if it be true, to use the figure of speech of my honorable friend, that every man in the North, that works in iron and brass and wood, has his muscle strengthened by the protection of the government, that stimulant was given by his vote, and I believe every other Southern man. So we ought not to complain of that.

Alec Stephen's Speech to the Georgia Legislature

 

[Toro]

1. Why would someone fight so that others can own slaves?.

Because much of the capital stock, the wealth, of the South was capitalized in slaves. Would you fight if someone, say communists, was going to take away your wealth? It would also have raised the specter of revolution by freed black slaves, like in Haiti 60 years prior, given that in many counties, blacks significantly outnumbered whites.

 

[paperview]

I've often put it another way:

Never underestimate the power of wealthy men to get you to do their bidding for them.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I fucking laugh at this bull shit thread. After reading some of the other 5 myth bullshit and the pussy who posted it can kiss my fucking southern ass.

What a fucking crock of shit.
1. American Muslims are foreigners
Islam was in America even before there was a United States. But Muslims didn’t peaceably emigrate — slave-traders brought them here.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...ims-in-america/2011/03/30/AFePWOIC_story.html

Talk about being a revisionist.

 

[paperview]

Oh goody. Too stupid to breath is here.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It required a 75 percent vote to create the Union and it is reasonable to assume that it requires a 75 percent vote to leave it.

You "assume" too much.

The southern states were following the Constitution.

Lincoln and the Union trashed it.

Nonsense. The Supremacy Clause bound the individual states to the dictates of federal and Constitutional law.

To have legally seceded, the states would have had to have done so without breaking any federal law,

which is effectively impossible.

 

[Polk]

I've always wondrered what would have happened had the South left successfully. Would there be two separate countries today? What would the continent look like? Would America be as powerful of a global power? It's pretty fascinating.

I think Harry Turtledove's Great War trilogy gets the basic framework right (CSA allied with France and Britain, resulting in an American alliance with Germany and Austria).

 

[Polk]

Anyone that claims that the Civil War wasn't about slavery is a fucking moron.

Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The hillbillies in West Virginia were smart enough to know it and seceded from the Confederacy. They had nothing to gain from slavery.

My family all fought for the South. I am glad they lost. It was a disastrous cause.

In all fairness, this is one speech given by one man. It's just his opinion....just like any other poster on this board.
If you were to poll soldiers and citizens from the North and South, in say 1866, and ask them the reason for the war, you'd probably get a dozen more different answers than what are already in this thread.
What, exactly, makes his opinion more 'right' than any of ours or any of the opinions of those that actually lived through it all?

Perhaps because his viewpoint was embodied in the resolutions?

 

[Ringel05]

I love all these people with opinions but no clue. Break it down to it's common denominator and take a realistic, detached view. Specifically for the south the question of slavery (with all it entails) and states rights were intertwined, they were one in the same. Why? Economics. Cotton and tobacco were king, they were the primary export in the south, without slavery the south's economy would have been devastated. Crop rotation was not well known or very well utilized and both cotton and tobacco deplete the soil very quickly hence the south's perception of the need for expansion of farming lands, i.e. the expansion of slavery. The north's abolitionists demands to limit and eradicate slavery and the tariffs put in place by the north was viewed by the south as an attack on their very livelihood, (what would you do if someone(s) were acting to limit or take away your livelihood and the only way of life you've ever known).
So as you can see, for the south, slavery and states rights were inseparable. What today's southern apologists omit is the slavery connection to their states rights claim essentially because most want to focus on the original balance of power between the states and the federal government and because their opponents have painted them as pro slavery advocates who want to return to the bad old days. Maybe for a very few this is true.
As for the secession question, once again we turn to the word "intent", as in what was the intent of the founders. The founders did not intend that the union be broken but granted implied consent to get some states on board the ratification of the Constitution. After ratification James Madison realized to his horror that states could ostensibly use the 10th Amendment as a legal basis to secede from the union. So yes, the intent, determined by interpretation, was there.

 

[Publius1787]

I love all these people with opinions but no clue. Break it down to it's common denominator and take a realistic, detached view. Specifically for the south the question of slavery (with all it entails) and states rights were intertwined, they were one in the same. Why? Economics. Cotton and tobacco were king, they were the primary export in the south, without slavery the south's economy would have been devastated. Crop rotation was not well known or very well utilized and both cotton and tobacco deplete the soil very quickly hence the south's perception of the need for expansion of farming lands, i.e. the expansion of slavery. The north's abolitionists demands to limit and eradicate slavery and the tariffs put in place by the north was viewed by the south as an attack on their very livelihood, (what would you do if someone(s) were acting to limit or take away your livelihood and the only way of life you've ever known).
So as you can see, for the south, slavery and states rights were inseparable. What today's southern apologists omit is the slavery connection to their states rights claim essentially because most want to focus on the original balance of power between the states and the federal government and because their opponents have painted them as pro slavery advocates who want to return to the bad old days. Maybe for a very few this is true.
As for the secession question, once again we turn to the word "intent", as in what was the intent of the founders. The founders did not intend that the union be broken but granted implied consent to get some states on board the ratification of the Constitution. After ratification James Madison realized to his horror that states could ostensibly use the 10th Amendment as a legal basis to secede from the union. So yes, the intent, determined by interpretation, was there.

Great Post but both Thomas Jefferson in his first inaugrial address and James Madison in the federalist papers talked of the right to secession. Even states like Virginia joined the union on the condition that they could secede.

From the earleyer post.

the South paid an undue proportion of federal revenues derived from tariffs, and these were expended by the federal government more in the North than the South: in 1840, the South paid 84% of the tariffs, rising to 87% in 1860. They paid 83% of the $13 million federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35 million to Northern shipping interests which had a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports. The South, in effect, was paying tribute to the North. The address of Texas Congressman Reagan on 15 January 1861 summarizes this discontent: "You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue law, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of northern capitalists. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and institutions." As the London Times of 7 Nov 1861 stated: "The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....".



I must request a break in descussion of this topic. I have enough references but if I am going to write a college thesis I would rather not do it on an internet forum. You game?

 

[Ringel05]

I love all these people with opinions but no clue. Break it down to it's common denominator and take a realistic, detached view. Specifically for the south the question of slavery (with all it entails) and states rights were intertwined, they were one in the same. Why? Economics. Cotton and tobacco were king, they were the primary export in the south, without slavery the south's economy would have been devastated. Crop rotation was not well known or very well utilized and both cotton and tobacco deplete the soil very quickly hence the south's perception of the need for expansion of farming lands, i.e. the expansion of slavery. The north's abolitionists demands to limit and eradicate slavery and the tariffs put in place by the north was viewed by the south as an attack on their very livelihood, (what would you do if someone(s) were acting to limit or take away your livelihood and the only way of life you've ever known).
So as you can see, for the south, slavery and states rights were inseparable. What today's southern apologists omit is the slavery connection to their states rights claim essentially because most want to focus on the original balance of power between the states and the federal government and because their opponents have painted them as pro slavery advocates who want to return to the bad old days. Maybe for a very few this is true.
As for the secession question, once again we turn to the word "intent", as in what was the intent of the founders. The founders did not intend that the union be broken but granted implied consent to get some states on board the ratification of the Constitution. After ratification James Madison realized to his horror that states could ostensibly use the 10th Amendment as a legal basis to secede from the union. So yes, the intent, determined by interpretation, was there.

Great Post but both Thomas Jefferson in his first inaugrial address and James Madison in the federalist papers talked of the right to secession. Even states like Virginia joined the union on the condition that they could secede.

From the earleyer post.

the South paid an undue proportion of federal revenues derived from tariffs, and these were expended by the federal government more in the North than the South: in 1840, the South paid 84% of the tariffs, rising to 87% in 1860. They paid 83% of the $13 million federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35 million to Northern shipping interests which had a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports. The South, in effect, was paying tribute to the North. The address of Texas Congressman Reagan on 15 January 1861 summarizes this discontent: "You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue law, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of northern capitalists. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and institutions." As the London Times of 7 Nov 1861 stated: "The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....".



I must request a break in descussion of this topic. I have enough references but if I am going to write a college thesis I would rather not do it on an internet forum. You game?

Oh, I don't have a problem, it's the ones who rely on the high school version of history and only delve as far as they need or want to validate that truncated, idealized version.

 

[Publius1787]

I love all these people with opinions but no clue. Break it down to it's common denominator and take a realistic, detached view. Specifically for the south the question of slavery (with all it entails) and states rights were intertwined, they were one in the same. Why? Economics. Cotton and tobacco were king, they were the primary export in the south, without slavery the south's economy would have been devastated. Crop rotation was not well known or very well utilized and both cotton and tobacco deplete the soil very quickly hence the south's perception of the need for expansion of farming lands, i.e. the expansion of slavery. The north's abolitionists demands to limit and eradicate slavery and the tariffs put in place by the north was viewed by the south as an attack on their very livelihood, (what would you do if someone(s) were acting to limit or take away your livelihood and the only way of life you've ever known).
So as you can see, for the south, slavery and states rights were inseparable. What today's southern apologists omit is the slavery connection to their states rights claim essentially because most want to focus on the original balance of power between the states and the federal government and because their opponents have painted them as pro slavery advocates who want to return to the bad old days. Maybe for a very few this is true.
As for the secession question, once again we turn to the word "intent", as in what was the intent of the founders. The founders did not intend that the union be broken but granted implied consent to get some states on board the ratification of the Constitution. After ratification James Madison realized to his horror that states could ostensibly use the 10th Amendment as a legal basis to secede from the union. So yes, the intent, determined by interpretation, was there.

Great Post but both Thomas Jefferson in his first inaugrial address and James Madison in the federalist papers talked of the right to secession. Even states like Virginia joined the union on the condition that they could secede.

From the earleyer post.

the South paid an undue proportion of federal revenues derived from tariffs, and these were expended by the federal government more in the North than the South: in 1840, the South paid 84% of the tariffs, rising to 87% in 1860. They paid 83% of the $13 million federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35 million to Northern shipping interests which had a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports. The South, in effect, was paying tribute to the North. The address of Texas Congressman Reagan on 15 January 1861 summarizes this discontent: "You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue law, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of northern capitalists. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and institutions." As the London Times of 7 Nov 1861 stated: "The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....".



I must request a break in descussion of this topic. I have enough references but if I am going to write a college thesis I would rather not do it on an internet forum. You game?

Oh, I don't have a problem, it's the ones who rely on the high school version of history and only delve as far as they need or want to validate that truncated, idealized version.

Yeah well, tell that to someone who doesent hold a BA in history will ya?

 

[paperview]

...

From the earleyer post.

the South paid an undue proportion of federal revenues derived from tariffs, and these were expended by the federal government more in the North than the South: in 1840, the South paid 84% of the tariffs, rising to 87% in 1860. They paid 83% of the $13 million federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35 million to Northern shipping interests which had a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports. The South, in effect, was paying tribute to the North. The address of Texas Congressman Reagan on 15 January 1861 summarizes this discontent: "You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue law, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of northern capitalists. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and institutions." As the London Times of 7 Nov 1861 stated: "The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....".



I must request a break in descussion of this topic. I have enough references but if I am going to write a college thesis I would rather not do it on an internet forum. You game?

Honestly? I doubt you could write a high school term paper.

Your posts are embarrassing.

 

[Publius1787]

...

From the earleyer post.

the South paid an undue proportion of federal revenues derived from tariffs, and these were expended by the federal government more in the North than the South: in 1840, the South paid 84% of the tariffs, rising to 87% in 1860. They paid 83% of the $13 million federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35 million to Northern shipping interests which had a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports. The South, in effect, was paying tribute to the North. The address of Texas Congressman Reagan on 15 January 1861 summarizes this discontent: "You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue law, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of northern capitalists. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and institutions." As the London Times of 7 Nov 1861 stated: "The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....".



I must request a break in descussion of this topic. I have enough references but if I am going to write a college thesis I would rather not do it on an internet forum. You game?

Honestly? I doubt you could write a high school term paper.

Your posts are embarrassing.

Yeah. My spelling is still horrible but this is a forum and is not worth taking the time to ensure proper spelling/grammar/punctuation etc. I suppose I am part of that generation raised on word processors. I feel sorry for all those who came before me who didnt have computers. Would you like to see one of my papers? Perhaps I could convince you that I write better than I put on.

 

[Ringel05]

...

From the earleyer post.

the South paid an undue proportion of federal revenues derived from tariffs, and these were expended by the federal government more in the North than the South: in 1840, the South paid 84% of the tariffs, rising to 87% in 1860. They paid 83% of the $13 million federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35 million to Northern shipping interests which had a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports. The South, in effect, was paying tribute to the North. The address of Texas Congressman Reagan on 15 January 1861 summarizes this discontent: "You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue law, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of northern capitalists. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and institutions." As the London Times of 7 Nov 1861 stated: "The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....".



I must request a break in descussion of this topic. I have enough references but if I am going to write a college thesis I would rather not do it on an internet forum. You game?

Honestly? I doubt you could write a high school term paper.

Your posts are embarrassing.

Everything in that post is documented history, I don't understand your objection.

 

[JBeukema]

Did anyone address the myth that we ever had a civil war?

 

[paperview]

Everything in that post is documented history, I don't understand your objection.

I've put forth a lot of documented history. History the Publius has chose to ignore.
It is a fact tariffs were historically low prior to the Civil war.

Why did he ignore the words of the Confederate VP just before secession I posted saying how tariffs were not really an issue?

Why does he ignore all the documented proof from nearly all the southern leaders saying what their main concern was?

No, an aggrieved voice from Texas is his hallmark, an out of context snip from an editorial, a comment from an Englishman. These all mean more to him and the revisionist author he clings to. Cherrypicking.

That's what revisionist "Lost Cause" history is all about, and it's clear, he's a soldier in the Lost Cause parade.

 

[Publius1787]

...

From the earleyer post.

the South paid an undue proportion of federal revenues derived from tariffs, and these were expended by the federal government more in the North than the South: in 1840, the South paid 84% of the tariffs, rising to 87% in 1860. They paid 83% of the $13 million federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35 million to Northern shipping interests which had a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports. The South, in effect, was paying tribute to the North. The address of Texas Congressman Reagan on 15 January 1861 summarizes this discontent: "You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue law, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of northern capitalists. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and institutions." As the London Times of 7 Nov 1861 stated: "The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....".



I must request a break in descussion of this topic. I have enough references but if I am going to write a college thesis I would rather not do it on an internet forum. You game?

Honestly? I doubt you could write a high school term paper.

Your posts are embarrassing.

Everything in that post is documented history, I don't understand your objection.

It doesent fit his/her narrative. See video for futher explanation.