The Confederacy and States' Rights

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Vice-president of the CSA disagrees with your argument. He said slavery was the "prime" cause, and that Jefferson agreed with him.

So go argue with Stephens and Jefferson.

Sheesh, guys, the contemporaries believed the main problem was slavery.

That part of the debate is over.

What else do you wish to discuss?

Yet you're still ignoring all the evidence that has been provided to the contrary.

 

[JBeukema]

Positive legal right is a fool's chase, JB. You have lost that argument. And you have no critical evidence that God does not exist. JB, you are OK in your way, but you are wrong on these points.

I am god and you cannot prove otherwise.

Cotton production rested on the back of slaves ~ thus, your cause goes back to slavery.

Try again.

Actually, it goes back to the economic interests of Union businessmen- the same financial interests that later led to the Monroe doctrine and our refusal to recognize the right to self-determination in Cuba and other nations. It all started in earnest with Lincooln.

All warlike actions were done by the South, not the North.

Like keeping an armed fort in another nation's land?

God turned His face from the South, and guided His hammer, even Abraham Lincoln, in defeating and despoiling an enemy of the nation, even as God upheld Joshua in the despoling of the Canaanites and taking the enemy's lands as their own. Selah. (It's fun to write like that!)

No one is arguing really whether the South had the right to secede. The argument is whether slavery was the prime cause.

Motivations don't matter except to those who wish to convince their contemporaries to support one's actions.

 

[paperview]

...

Lest we forget, the South paid 87% of the tariffs in 1860. They paid 83% of the $13,000,000 federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35,000,000 to Northern shipping interests which had a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports. The South was in fact paying tribute to the North, and secession was the only way to stop this practice.

Please provide some links to back this data up. And it would be nice if they were not CSA blogs.

Also if the abolition of slavery was the cause the Union fought for, why were the 250,000 slaves held in the Northern states not freed until the 13th amendment was passed, in lieu of freeing them at the start of the war?

Because that would have antagonized the border states (of which you are referring) into possibly seceding and joining the CSA.

Easy.

 

[bodecea]

"The War of Northern Aggression", also known in the northern states, as the Civil War.

Was an illegal war and violated the Constitution.

The South never should have started it...agreed.

 

[bodecea]

Cotton production rested on the back of slaves ~ thus, your cause goes back to slavery.

Try again.

Since slavery was not in danger at the time of the War, what has that got to do with anything?

You could not have convinced those in power in the South of that...even tho Lincoln tried in his 1st Inaugural Speech.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

"The War of Northern Aggression", also known in the northern states, as the Civil War.

Was an illegal war and violated the Constitution.

The South never should have started it...agreed.

Lincoln shouldn't have backed them into a corner with no other choice.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Cotton production rested on the back of slaves ~ thus, your cause goes back to slavery.

Try again.

Since slavery was not in danger at the time of the War, what has that got to do with anything?

You could not have convinced those in power in the South of that...even tho Lincoln tried in his 1st Inaugural Speech.

You're ignoring the fact that Lincoln ran on a platform of higher tariffs which is why he had no support in the south.

 

[editec]

Cotton production rested on the back of slaves ~ thus, your cause goes back to slavery.

Try again.

Since slavery was not in danger at the time of the War, what has that got to do with anything?

Why not ask the people who started the war?

If one reads their own words one discovers that they started the war because the FEARED that slavery would be owtlawed eventually.

Plus, as they wanted to expand slavery into the territories, and thought that would not happen, they fought for their indpendence to do so.

Had they won their war for indepndence, there'd have more additional wars as they attempted to wrest control of the territories from the Republic , too.

Slavery was the root cause of the war.

Tariffs were annoying, but not annoying enough to rebel.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

It wasn't about Slavery. That is 1960's red diaper doper baby revisionist bullcrap. It was about State rights, all State rights which would include the right to own a slave. Read it and study it. I am talking about Books that were written on the subject prior to the 1960's. Plus, We all know the victors write the History Books, and what a cute story it is. It paints their cause as the righteous one, when in fact the Federal Government made slaves of The States and it's citizens.

Luckily, There were still Historian truth seekers that wrote alot of good pieces on The War Between The States.The was the War of Northern agression. The Federal Government wanted their power and they got it. The people lost, and you can see the result today. It has grown into an out of control monster. Slavery would have ended up being aboloshed anyway by the way. The compassionate Federal Government didn't even get around to treating Blacks as humanbeings until the 1960's. What a load of bullcrap. ~BH

 

[JakeStarkey]

BH is full of BS and KK knows better.

We have been through this thoroughly.

Slavery was, is, and forever will be the root, the "prime" cause of the war. You will not find one contemporary of that conflict who wrote or said that it wasn't the cause. Not one.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

BH is full of BS and KK knows better.

We have been through this thoroughly.

Slavery was, is, and forever will be the root, the "prime" cause of the war. You will not find one contemporary of that conflict who wrote or said that it wasn't the cause. Not one.

Hey Jake, You seem to make it a habit of being full of bs here every day and everybody knows it bro. You're the perfect example of a good little sheople yes man. If you actually had studied what you are discussing than you would understand just how wrong you are. You don't have to swallow every load of revisionist bullcrap that you were fed by some Red diaper doper baby berkinstock wearing Proffessor. ~BH

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

BH is full of BS and KK knows better.

We have been through this thoroughly.

Slavery was, is, and forever will be the root, the "prime" cause of the war. You will not find one contemporary of that conflict who wrote or said that it wasn't the cause. Not one.

Lincoln himself said that slavery was not the cause of the Civil War, as has already been proven to you in this thread.

 

[Citizen]

BH is full of BS and KK knows better.

We have been through this thoroughly.

Slavery was, is, and forever will be the root, the "prime" cause of the war. You will not find one contemporary of that conflict who wrote or said that it wasn't the cause. Not one.

Speaking of contemporaries, would you consider the North American Review printed in 1862 as a contemporary, if so they wrote that: "Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion."

An editorial in the Charleston Mercury, in 1860, stated: "The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism."

On January 21, 1861, just five days before Louisiana seceded fro the Union, the New Orleans Daily Crescent printed the following editorial: "They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the peoples pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests... These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union."

Although you may not consider these sources to be contemporary, since they point out the real reason for the war of Northern aggression was really the unjust tariffs imposed on the South by the Northern controlled Congress, I do.

 

[Polk]

We supported the states that seceded from the Soviet Union.

We refused to supprt their right to self-determination whenever it wasn't our system or in our interest. Justr like Central America. See: banana republics; Cuba, Batista...

We also support the tyranny of the Czar when the Red Revolution began.

It's far easier to fight for principles than to live up to them'
-Alfred Adler

Good point. Well, we supported their right to secede from the Soviet Union at any rate.

But only because doing so was to our advantage. Not that it's a bad thing.

 

[paperview]

BH is full of BS and KK knows better.

We have been through this thoroughly.

Slavery was, is, and forever will be the root, the "prime" cause of the war. You will not find one contemporary of that conflict who wrote or said that it wasn't the cause. Not one.

Speaking of contemporaries, would you consider the North American Review printed in 1862 as a contemporary, if so they wrote that: "Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion."

....

Perhaps you should read that article you refer to in the 1862 article in the North American Review.

Here it is: The North American review - Google Books

 

[Citizen]

BH is full of BS and KK knows better.

We have been through this thoroughly.

Slavery was, is, and forever will be the root, the "prime" cause of the war. You will not find one contemporary of that conflict who wrote or said that it wasn't the cause. Not one.

Speaking of contemporaries, would you consider the North American Review printed in 1862 as a contemporary, if so they wrote that: "Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion."

....

Perhaps you should read that article you refer to in the 1862 article in the North American Review.

Here it is: The North American review - Google Books

You seem to overlook the other articles I mentioned, except for the one from the North.

 

[paperview]

Speaking of contemporaries, would you consider the North American Review printed in 1862 as a contemporary, if so they wrote that: "Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion."

....

Perhaps you should read that article you refer to in the 1862 article in the North American Review.

Here it is: The North American review - Google Books

You seem to overlook the other articles I mentioned, except for the one from the North.

Er, there's a reason for that.

The other ones are der...from the South.

lol.

Kinda hard owing up to the fact you are fighting for the right to own people. Even if it was pretty clearly stated in the Secession documents.

You didn't read the original article from the North American Review, did you.

You should. You might find it quite interesting.

 

[bodecea]

"The War of Northern Aggression", also known in the northern states, as the Civil War.

Was an illegal war and violated the Constitution.

The South never should have started it...agreed.

Lincoln shouldn't have backed them into a corner with no other choice.

HOw did he back the South into a corner?


(this I got to hear.....)

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The South never should have started it...agreed.

Lincoln shouldn't have backed them into a corner with no other choice.

HOw did he back the South into a corner?


(this I got to hear.....)

Refusing to meet with the Confederate delegates sent by Jefferson Davis to try and pay for all federal property in the Confederacy and the Confederates' portion of the national debt. By trying to resupply a Union fort within South Carolina's borders knowing full well that the south would try to stop him from doing so. Lincoln provoked the south into attacking to stir up public sentiment against the Confederates, since before Fort Sumter most in the north believed that the states had the right to secede peacefully.

 

[Equat]

What difference does it make if the Confederacy had the right to secede? They, like Cuba, were granted peaceful succession from the US. Since they attacked Sumter, they experienced a response the same as Castro would receive if he were foolish enough to attack Guantanamo.