Why Did The South Secede?

[rightwinger]

The industrial revolution was occuring and those automated looms needed an ever increasing supply of cotton. The only way to pick cotton was by hand. The traitorous south was making millions off the cotton trade.....should they share it with those actually doing the work?

We know the answer to that one

The first cotton harvester was patented in 1850..strippers and harvesters were used prior to then also.
The cotton gin was invented in 1794.

By 1861 slavery was a fading, inefficient and destructive practice and everyone knew it at the time.

Read something besides wikipedia..you'll learn a lot more.

Cotton was picked by hand up till the 1930s

So are you claiming the Traitorous South would have had slaves up till the 1930s?

Isn't it strange that the souf' after they lost , put in Jim crow laws ? So much for their lies it wasn't about slavery and hatred of Blacks

Their worst fear was that blacks would think of themselves as their equal

Know your place boy

 

[JakeStarkey]

paperview is the expert on this, and PC is not even on campus much less in the room.

 

[rightwinger]

The South seceded so they could keep blacks in chains

Sad, but true

 

[Wry Catcher]

The South seceded because they had been itchin to...

The fires were burning many, many years before 1861, This is fact.

The slavery issue was a major one in the preceding presidential election. (not to mention the high intensity of the full 1850's decade...)

The South was itching for a fight, and they intended to take it home over that issue.

Let's go back, 4 years earlier, to just before the November, 1856 election.
Here is an article from ----> OCT 1856, from the New York Times, quoting a Richmond editorial, entitled: LOOK THE FUTURE IN THE FACE

...where future secessionists threaten war and the evil of what they term "Black Republicanism" (their term for the Republicans who favored emancipation ) is castigated, and where they predict, nay - taunt, the coming bloodbath.

I present a picture of the actual paper below...read it:

Here is the top line:

It begins:

"The Southern political Press has never been more open and frank in its avowal of political purposes and plans, than it is during the present canvass.

The triumphs of Slavery during the past four years,--the successful repeal of the Missouri Compromise, a measure for which oven Mr. CALHOUN never dared to hope,--and the ready, eager promptitude with which the Democratic party at Cincinnati yielded to the exactions of the Slaveholding power, seemed to have inspired the political leaders of the South with the belief, that time has come when they can safely and even with advantage to themselves, make open proclamation of the projects they have in store for the future.

....We invite attention to the following lead editorial from Richmond (the NY Times here quotes from the Southern paper) where Southerners state: "'Tis treason to cry "Peace!" "peace!" when there is no peace. There is, there can be, no peace, no lasting union between the south and Black Republicanism."

And they go on:
Forewarned...Forearmed!" We see the numbers, the characters, the designs of our enemies/ Let us prepare to resist them and drive them back

....A common danger from without, and a common necessity (Slavery) within,
will be sure to make the South a great, a united, a vigilant and a warlike people."
..

",...the division is sure to take place...Socialism, communism, infidelity,licentiousness and agrarianism, now scarcely suppressed by union with the conservative South will burst forth in a carnival of blood..."

Those were the Southern sentiments well before the Confederates started seizing forts and arsenals and firing on Unions ships in January of 1861. They continue:

"The great object of the South in supporting Buchanan is to promote and extend the perpetuation of the "conservative institution of Slavery." And the votes by which it is hoped he may be elected, are to become the basis of a secession movement and the formation of a Southern Slave Confederacy...

See the full newspaper article here: (!) Bold Avowals--The Election of Buchanan to be a Stop Towards Disunion. - Article - NYTimes.com

1856. Itchin' itchin itchin.

So?
I can find an "editorial" opinion from a contemporary newspaper that gives different causes.

Here's what a famous "leader" said about "secession";


Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can may revolutionize and make their own of so many of the territory as they inhabit."


Abraham Lincoln
Jan 12, 1848



Lincoln was (probably) also in favor of the american revolution "secession" from england, one would have to assume...otherwise he wouldn't be "president".

Comparing it to the American Revolution, it would be tough to argue "no taxation without re

Well, when people jump off their meds, this kind of stuff happens. Poor PoliticalSchtick.

Not to mention the huge missing link in her OP, namely that the cotton industry in the South was doomed to fail were the slaves to be freed, BECAUSE the White plantation owners would then have to pay workers to do work that the slaves were doing for free, of course, because they were being held against their will. And since cotton picking required oodles of workers, with paid-workers, it was just not doable with the technology of that day. This is also the reason why vast swaths of the South remained dirt poor for generations after the end of our Civil War.

So, sure, it was a financial issue, but the lynchpin to all of this was indeed slavery.

Were this not the case, then there would have been no need for the Missouri Compromise of 1980, one of the more important moments in our history, because it slowed the onset of the war and also vastly delayed the admission of new years quite severely. It was a "balance of power" act that at the end, caused each side of the Mason-Dixon line to be even more bitter.

It wasn't an issue about wages. It was an issue about capital. Many of the slaves stayed on the plantation and were paid wages after the Civil War. However, a third of all the South's capital was tied up in slaves. And since most of the slaves were owned by the wealthy, upwards of half or more of their wealth was tied up in owning human beings. Many of these families borrowed to buy the slaves, and many went bankrupt after the war. So for the Southern plantation class, they had a tremendous amount to lose, with half or more of their wealth disappearing, and some being wiped out.

That's another reason why this "the Civil War was not about slavery" is so ludicrous. For the wealthy, they were literally fighting for everything they had.

It seems that you "accidentally" misquote the premise.

It wasn't "the Civil War was not about slavery" ....

...it was "why did the South secede."


Reminder: honesty is the best policy.....other wise you look ....ludicrous.

A distinction without a difference! Didn't they teach logical fallacies to freshman at the Columbia Continuation School you attended?

 

[guno]

The South seceded because they had been itchin to...

The fires were burning many, many years before 1861, This is fact.

The slavery issue was a major one in the preceding presidential election. (not to mention the high intensity of the full 1850's decade...)

The South was itching for a fight, and they intended to take it home over that issue.

Let's go back, 4 years earlier, to just before the November, 1856 election.
Here is an article from ----> OCT 1856, from the New York Times, quoting a Richmond editorial, entitled: LOOK THE FUTURE IN THE FACE

...where future secessionists threaten war and the evil of what they term "Black Republicanism" (their term for the Republicans who favored emancipation ) is castigated, and where they predict, nay - taunt, the coming bloodbath.

I present a picture of the actual paper below...read it:

Here is the top line:

It begins:

"The Southern political Press has never been more open and frank in its avowal of political purposes and plans, than it is during the present canvass.

The triumphs of Slavery during the past four years,--the successful repeal of the Missouri Compromise, a measure for which oven Mr. CALHOUN never dared to hope,--and the ready, eager promptitude with which the Democratic party at Cincinnati yielded to the exactions of the Slaveholding power, seemed to have inspired the political leaders of the South with the belief, that time has come when they can safely and even with advantage to themselves, make open proclamation of the projects they have in store for the future.

....We invite attention to the following lead editorial from Richmond (the NY Times here quotes from the Southern paper) where Southerners state: "'Tis treason to cry "Peace!" "peace!" when there is no peace. There is, there can be, no peace, no lasting union between the south and Black Republicanism."

And they go on:
Forewarned...Forearmed!" We see the numbers, the characters, the designs of our enemies/ Let us prepare to resist them and drive them back

....A common danger from without, and a common necessity (Slavery) within,
will be sure to make the South a great, a united, a vigilant and a warlike people."
..

",...the division is sure to take place...Socialism, communism, infidelity,licentiousness and agrarianism, now scarcely suppressed by union with the conservative South will burst forth in a carnival of blood..."

Those were the Southern sentiments well before the Confederates started seizing forts and arsenals and firing on Unions ships in January of 1861. They continue:

"The great object of the South in supporting Buchanan is to promote and extend the perpetuation of the "conservative institution of Slavery." And the votes by which it is hoped he may be elected, are to become the basis of a secession movement and the formation of a Southern Slave Confederacy...

See the full newspaper article here: (!) Bold Avowals--The Election of Buchanan to be a Stop Towards Disunion. - Article - NYTimes.com

1856. Itchin' itchin itchin.

So?
I can find an "editorial" opinion from a contemporary newspaper that gives different causes.

Here's what a famous "leader" said about "secession";


Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can may revolutionize and make their own of so many of the territory as they inhabit."


Abraham Lincoln
Jan 12, 1848



Lincoln was (probably) also in favor of the american revolution "secession" from england, one would have to assume...otherwise he wouldn't be "president".

Comparing it to the American Revolution, it would be tough to argue "no taxation without re

Well, when people jump off their meds, this kind of stuff happens. Poor PoliticalSchtick.

Not to mention the huge missing link in her OP, namely that the cotton industry in the South was doomed to fail were the slaves to be freed, BECAUSE the White plantation owners would then have to pay workers to do work that the slaves were doing for free, of course, because they were being held against their will. And since cotton picking required oodles of workers, with paid-workers, it was just not doable with the technology of that day. This is also the reason why vast swaths of the South remained dirt poor for generations after the end of our Civil War.

So, sure, it was a financial issue, but the lynchpin to all of this was indeed slavery.

Were this not the case, then there would have been no need for the Missouri Compromise of 1980, one of the more important moments in our history, because it slowed the onset of the war and also vastly delayed the admission of new years quite severely. It was a "balance of power" act that at the end, caused each side of the Mason-Dixon line to be even more bitter.

It wasn't an issue about wages. It was an issue about capital. Many of the slaves stayed on the plantation and were paid wages after the Civil War. However, a third of all the South's capital was tied up in slaves. And since most of the slaves were owned by the wealthy, upwards of half or more of their wealth was tied up in owning human beings. Many of these families borrowed to buy the slaves, and many went bankrupt after the war. So for the Southern plantation class, they had a tremendous amount to lose, with half or more of their wealth disappearing, and some being wiped out.

That's another reason why this "the Civil War was not about slavery" is so ludicrous. For the wealthy, they were literally fighting for everything they had.

It seems that you "accidentally" misquote the premise.

It wasn't "the Civil War was not about slavery" ....

...it was "why did the South secede."


Reminder: honesty is the best policy.....other wise you look ....ludicrous.

A distinction without a difference! Didn't they teach logical fallacies to freshman at the Columbia Continuation School you attended?

Thus is her Columbia she attends on the internet

Columbia International University

 

[paperview]

The South seceded because they had been itchin to...

The fires were burning many, many years before 1861, This is fact.

The slavery issue was a major one in the preceding presidential election. (not to mention the high intensity of the full 1850's decade...)

The South was itching for a fight, and they intended to take it home over that issue.

Let's go back, 4 years earlier, to just before the November, 1856 election.
Here is an article from ----> OCT 1856, from the New York Times, quoting a Richmond editorial, entitled: LOOK THE FUTURE IN THE FACE

...where future secessionists threaten war and the evil of what they term "Black Republicanism" (their term for the Republicans who favored emancipation ) is castigated, and where they predict, nay - taunt, the coming bloodbath.

I present a picture of the actual paper below...read it:

Here is the top line:

It begins:

"The Southern political Press has never been more open and frank in its avowal of political purposes and plans, than it is during the present canvass.

The triumphs of Slavery during the past four years,--the successful repeal of the Missouri Compromise, a measure for which oven Mr. CALHOUN never dared to hope,--and the ready, eager promptitude with which the Democratic party at Cincinnati yielded to the exactions of the Slaveholding power, seemed to have inspired the political leaders of the South with the belief, that time has come when they can safely and even with advantage to themselves, make open proclamation of the projects they have in store for the future.

....We invite attention to the following lead editorial from Richmond (the NY Times here quotes from the Southern paper) where Southerners state: "'Tis treason to cry "Peace!" "peace!" when there is no peace. There is, there can be, no peace, no lasting union between the south and Black Republicanism."

And they go on:
Forewarned...Forearmed!" We see the numbers, the characters, the designs of our enemies/ Let us prepare to resist them and drive them back

....A common danger from without, and a common necessity (Slavery) within,
will be sure to make the South a great, a united, a vigilant and a warlike people."
..

",...the division is sure to take place...Socialism, communism, infidelity,licentiousness and agrarianism, now scarcely suppressed by union with the conservative South will burst forth in a carnival of blood..."

Those were the Southern sentiments well before the Confederates started seizing forts and arsenals and firing on Unions ships in January of 1861. They continue:

"The great object of the South in supporting Buchanan is to promote and extend the perpetuation of the "conservative institution of Slavery." And the votes by which it is hoped he may be elected, are to become the basis of a secession movement and the formation of a Southern Slave Confederacy...

See the full newspaper article here: (!) Bold Avowals--The Election of Buchanan to be a Stop Towards Disunion. - Article - NYTimes.com

1856. Itchin' itchin itchin.

So?
I can find an "editorial" opinion from a contemporary newspaper that gives different causes.

Here's what a famous "leader" said about "secession";


Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can may revolutionize and make their own of so many of the territory as they inhabit."


Abraham Lincoln
Jan 12, 1848



Lincoln was (probably) also in favor of the american revolution "secession" from england, one would have to assume...otherwise he wouldn't be "president".

Comparing it to the American Revolution, it would be tough to argue "no taxation without re

Well, when people jump off their meds, this kind of stuff happens. Poor PoliticalSchtick.

Not to mention the huge missing link in her OP, namely that the cotton industry in the South was doomed to fail were the slaves to be freed, BECAUSE the White plantation owners would then have to pay workers to do work that the slaves were doing for free, of course, because they were being held against their will. And since cotton picking required oodles of workers, with paid-workers, it was just not doable with the technology of that day. This is also the reason why vast swaths of the South remained dirt poor for generations after the end of our Civil War.

So, sure, it was a financial issue, but the lynchpin to all of this was indeed slavery.

Were this not the case, then there would have been no need for the Missouri Compromise of 1980, one of the more important moments in our history, because it slowed the onset of the war and also vastly delayed the admission of new years quite severely. It was a "balance of power" act that at the end, caused each side of the Mason-Dixon line to be even more bitter.

It wasn't an issue about wages. It was an issue about capital. Many of the slaves stayed on the plantation and were paid wages after the Civil War. However, a third of all the South's capital was tied up in slaves. And since most of the slaves were owned by the wealthy, upwards of half or more of their wealth was tied up in owning human beings. Many of these families borrowed to buy the slaves, and many went bankrupt after the war. So for the Southern plantation class, they had a tremendous amount to lose, with half or more of their wealth disappearing, and some being wiped out.

That's another reason why this "the Civil War was not about slavery" is so ludicrous. For the wealthy, they were literally fighting for everything they had.

It seems that you "accidentally" misquote the premise.

It wasn't "the Civil War was not about slavery" ....

...it was "why did the South secede."


Reminder: honesty is the best policy.....other wise you look ....ludicrous.

A distinction without a difference! Didn't they teach logical fallacies to freshman at the Columbia Continuation School you attended?

Thus is her Columbia she attends on the internet

Columbia International University

Wow. LOL. I honestly thought that was a spoof sight or Onion-type satire page.

That's real. LOLOLOL.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Yes it is real. ..

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[paperview]

The funny part of that 1856 Southern editorial (which was the predominant mood of the day then) I posted -

is that a good part of it, save the Slavery portion, could be recycled at some of them Southern Tea party rally afiggitin' types today

-- same keywords 150 years later:

"...the division is sure to take place...Socialism, communism, infidelity, licentiousness and agrarianism, now scarcely suppressed by union with the conservative South will burst forth in a carnival of blood..."

For those that care to read that 1856 article in full (hey, maybe one person might) , it's here: Bold Avowals--The Election of Buchanan to be a Stop Towards Disunion. - View Article - NYTimes.com

 

[Wry Catcher]

The funny part of that 1856 Southern editorial (which was the predominant mood of the day then) I posted -

is that a good part of it, save the Slavery portion, could be recycled at some of them Southern Tea party rally afiggitin' types today

-- same keywords 150 years later:

"...the division is sure to take place...Socialism, communism, infidelity, licentiousness and agrarianism, now scarcely suppressed by union with the conservative South will burst forth in a carnival of blood..."

For those that care to read that 1856 article in full (hey, maybe one person might) , it's here: Bold Avowals--The Election of Buchanan to be a Stop Towards Disunion. - View Article - NYTimes.com

Wow, no wonder the RWers have kept away, to read the editorial form the Richmond Enquirer in your link sure puts their argument in perspective - a perspective framed in absurdity and deceit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm thinking that PC's next thread will be the charge that U.S. Grant prolonged the Civil War for 2 years by demanding unconditional surrender and somehow that eventually helped the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917.

 

[Thobbs]

I believe that the south receeded for multiple reasons really. The threat to their economy (the attempt to abolish slavery). this led the southeners to think the north would soon attempt to violate their "rights", taking away their ability to decide whether they could had slavery.

But thats just what I think

 

[Statistikhengst]

I believe that the south receeded for multiple reasons really. The threat to their economy (the attempt to abolish slavery). this led the southeners to think the north would soon attempt to violate their "rights", taking away their ability to decide whether they could had slavery.

But thats just what I think

"receeded"?

???

 

[Statistikhengst]

I'm thinking that PC's next thread will be the charge that U.S. Grant prolonged the Civil War for 2 years by demanding unconditional surrender and somehow that eventually helped the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917.

No. She will claim that according to the butterfly effect, had Ulysses S. Grant drunk slightly less alcohol, this would have led the murder of Lenin in 1907 and therefore the USSR would never have risen. Which means there would have been no WWII and therefore, a glorious Republican would have been president from 1932-1944, because, well, BENGHAZI.

 

[paperview]

I believe that the south receeded for multiple reasons really. The threat to their economy (the attempt to abolish slavery). this led the southeners to think the north would soon attempt to violate their "rights", taking away their ability to decide whether they could had slavery.

But thats just what I think

"receeded"?

???

That too.

 

[Friends]

So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?

Yes. That is just what I believe.

------------

“Corner Stone” Speech
Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens
Savannah, Georgia
March 21, 1861

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.
8220 Corner Stone 8221 Speech Teaching American History

 

[gipper]

So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?

Yes. That is just what I believe.

------------

“Corner Stone” Speech
Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens
Savannah, Georgia
March 21, 1861

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.
8220 Corner Stone 8221 Speech Teaching American History

Then how do you address the contradictions that Lincoln stated in his first inaugural...that the federal government had no power to terminate slavery and he went on to say the slavery could exist in perpetuity?

 

[rightwinger]

So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?

Yes. That is just what I believe.

------------

“Corner Stone” Speech
Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens
Savannah, Georgia
March 21, 1861

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.
8220 Corner Stone 8221 Speech Teaching American History

Then how do you address the contradictions that Lincoln stated in his first inaugural...that the federal government had no power to terminate slavery and he went on to say the slavery could exist in perpetuity?

The topic of the thread is "Why did the South secede"

Seems like Stephens is telling you why

 

[gipper]

So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?

Yes. That is just what I believe.

------------

“Corner Stone” Speech
Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens
Savannah, Georgia
March 21, 1861

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.
8220 Corner Stone 8221 Speech Teaching American History

Then how do you address the contradictions that Lincoln stated in his first inaugural...that the federal government had no power to terminate slavery and he went on to say the slavery could exist in perpetuity?

The topic of the thread is "Why did the South secede"

Seems like Stephens is telling you why

As usual, you fail to comprehend.

The question to the poster was:
So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?

Do I need to spell it out for you?

 

[rightwinger]

So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?

Yes. That is just what I believe.

------------

“Corner Stone” Speech
Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens
Savannah, Georgia
March 21, 1861

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.
8220 Corner Stone 8221 Speech Teaching American History

Then how do you address the contradictions that Lincoln stated in his first inaugural...that the federal government had no power to terminate slavery and he went on to say the slavery could exist in perpetuity?

The topic of the thread is "Why did the South secede"

Seems like Stephens is telling you why

As usual, you fail to comprehend.

The question to the poster was:
So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?

Do I need to spell it out for you?

The answer is obviously YES

The traitorous south was making a fortune in dominating the worldwide cotton trade. They were in danger of losing their free labor if Lincoln became President

Forming a new country which ensured the bondage of other human beings to protect their income source was their solution

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, ...you believe that South seceded because the North was about to outlaw slavery?

Yes. That is just what I believe.

------------

“Corner Stone” Speech
Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens
Savannah, Georgia
March 21, 1861

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.
8220 Corner Stone 8221 Speech Teaching American History

In that case, you're wrong.

Not a new condition for you.