Why Did The South Secede?

[rightwinger]

The South seceded to prevent Obama

Looks like it didn't work

 

[Coloradomtnman]

As Abraham Lincoln and I have shown, the proximate reason for secession was not slavery.
Seems to have silenced the peanut gallery.



5. Well, if the issue wasn't about slavery, what was it about???

This, from the Op-
" You see, the South believed that they ruled the world.
Really. Ruled!
Whether or not they imagined that they could defeat the North militarily,they fervently believed that they could oblige....compel... the greatest military power in the world to back them."



Here are some facts that you make it clear:


a. 75% of the world's cotton, and up to 84% of Britain's, came from the South's cotton fields. The Cotton Economy in the South FREE The Cotton Economy in the South information Encyclopedia.com Find The Cotton Economy in the South research

b. In Britain's industrial heartland, where all but 500 of the country's 2,650 cotton factories, employing 440 000 people, were located, and almost all of the cotton came from the Southern United States. A history of the Lancashire cotton mills

c. "In 1861 the London Times estimated that one fifth of the British population was dependent, directly or indirectly, on the success of the cotton districts." "Double Death: The True Story of Pryce Lewis, the Civil War's Most Daring Spy,"byGavin Mortimer, p.72




6. "The Trent Affairwas an international diplomatic incident that occurred during the American Civil War. On November 8, 1861, the USS San Jacinto, commanded by Union Captain Charles Wilkes, intercepted the British mail packet RMSTrent and removed, as contraband of war, two Confederate diplomats, James Mason and John Slidell. The envoys were bound for Great Britain and France to press the Confederacy's case for diplomatic recognition and financial support for the Confederacy in the name of King Cotton."
Trent Affair - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

What and where is your conclusion?

Are you saying that the Union went to war with the Confederacy because the Union was afraid of the success of the South's cotton exports?

I think the most significant reason the US Civil War occurred was slavery, most people think its slavery, and most experts do as well because that is the cause the evidence most strongly supports.

But neo-Confederates, conservative revisionists, and those willing to make fools of themselves just to make a name for themselves can try to spin the causes of the Civil War into something anti-progressive. We'll all enjoy the gymnastics required for the attempt.

 

[PoliticalChic]

As Abraham Lincoln and I have shown, the proximate reason for secession was not slavery.
Seems to have silenced the peanut gallery.



5. Well, if the issue wasn't about slavery, what was it about???

This, from the Op-
" You see, the South believed that they ruled the world.
Really. Ruled!
Whether or not they imagined that they could defeat the North militarily,they fervently believed that they could oblige....compel... the greatest military power in the world to back them."



Here are some facts that you make it clear:


a. 75% of the world's cotton, and up to 84% of Britain's, came from the South's cotton fields. The Cotton Economy in the South FREE The Cotton Economy in the South information Encyclopedia.com Find The Cotton Economy in the South research

b. In Britain's industrial heartland, where all but 500 of the country's 2,650 cotton factories, employing 440 000 people, were located, and almost all of the cotton came from the Southern United States. A history of the Lancashire cotton mills

c. "In 1861 the London Times estimated that one fifth of the British population was dependent, directly or indirectly, on the success of the cotton districts." "Double Death: The True Story of Pryce Lewis, the Civil War's Most Daring Spy,"byGavin Mortimer, p.72




6. "The Trent Affairwas an international diplomatic incident that occurred during the American Civil War. On November 8, 1861, the USS San Jacinto, commanded by Union Captain Charles Wilkes, intercepted the British mail packet RMSTrent and removed, as contraband of war, two Confederate diplomats, James Mason and John Slidell. The envoys were bound for Great Britain and France to press the Confederacy's case for diplomatic recognition and financial support for the Confederacy in the name of King Cotton."
Trent Affair - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

What and where is your conclusion?

Are you saying that the Union went to war with the Confederacy because the Union was afraid of the success of the South's cotton exports?

I think the most significant reason the US Civil War occurred was slavery, most people think its slavery, and most experts do as well because that is the cause the evidence most strongly supports.

But neo-Confederates, conservative revisionists, and those willing to make fools of themselves just to make a name for themselves can try to spin the causes of the Civil War into something anti-progressive. We'll all enjoy the gymnastics required for the attempt.

It never ceases to amaze, how few posters can read.

The title to which you were ostensibly addressing your post was
"Why Did The South Secede?"

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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


No, the reason is the same one that bases Barack Obama's foreign policy: a misunderstanding of geopolitical realities.


1. You see, the South believed that they ruled the world.
Really. Ruled!

Whether or not they imagined that they could defeat the North militarily, they fervently believed that they could oblige....compel... the greatest military power in the world to back them.





2. "TheUnion blockadein theAmerican Civil War was a naval tactic by the Northern government to prevent the Confederacy from trading. The blockade was proclaimed by President Abraham Lincoln in April 1861, and required the closure of 3,500 miles (5,600 km) of Atlantic and Gulf coastline, ..."
Union blockade - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

a. "In January, 1861, De Bow’s Reviewcontained an article declaring that “the first demonstration of blockade of the Southern ports would be swept away by the English fleets of observation hovering on the Southern coasts,..."
Great Britain and the American Civil War eBook





3. Why? Certainly, the English disgust with the practice of slavery wouldn't allow them to run....or sail....to the Confederacy's side?

So what made the Southerners believe that the had Britain in their pocket?

a. "Like all educated Southerners in the summer of 1861, [they] hoped one morning to hear the news that Great Britain had recognized the independence of the Confederate States. In May a delegation of rebel commissioners, headed by William Lowndes Yancey, had arrived in London for an audience with the British foreign secretary, Lord John Russell. The rebels took great heart from what was said. Russell had discussed the constitutional rights of secession, and Yancey had pledged the South's desire for free trade, reminding the British minister of the importance to his people of Southern cotton. Russell's principal concern, however, was the issue of the African slave trade. He had heard that the Confederate government was keen to restore this abomination. Was this true? Yancey reassured Russell that the South "had prohibited the slave-trade, and did not mean to revive it."

Lord Russell was in a tricky position, as were all the members of the British government. Though they opposed slavery, three wasn't a true democrat among them, not in the mold of Abraham Lincoln [who] could never have risen to become a British minister; to be that, one had to have been born into privilege, with wealth and property the only prerequisites. The members of the British government believed in "aristocratic government," and anyone who challenged them was crushed mercilessly......therefore, ministers such as Lord Russell and the prime minister, seventy-seven-year-old Lord Palmerston, had more in common with the Confederate government than they did with the Federal. Lincoln's administration believed in equal rights and espoused the cause of the workingman, themes that were anathema to the British government."
"Double Death: The True Story of Pryce Lewis, the Civil War's Most Daring Spy,"byGavin Mortimer, p.70-71




What was the hold that the Confederacy mistakenly believed would bring Britain to their cause?
The answer is in the section above.

One word: cotton.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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


No, the reason is the same one that bases Barack Obama's foreign policy: a misunderstanding of geopolitical realities.


1. You see, the South believed that they ruled the world.
Really. Ruled!

Whether or not they imagined that they could defeat the North militarily, they fervently believed that they could oblige....compel... the greatest military power in the world to back them.





2. "TheUnion blockadein theAmerican Civil War was a naval tactic by the Northern government to prevent the Confederacy from trading. The blockade was proclaimed by President Abraham Lincoln in April 1861, and required the closure of 3,500 miles (5,600 km) of Atlantic and Gulf coastline, ..."
Union blockade - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

a. "In January, 1861, De Bow’s Reviewcontained an article declaring that “the first demonstration of blockade of the Southern ports would be swept away by the English fleets of observation hovering on the Southern coasts,..."
Great Britain and the American Civil War eBook





3. Why? Certainly, the English disgust with the practice of slavery wouldn't allow them to run....or sail....to the Confederacy's side?

So what made the Southerners believe that the had Britain in their pocket?

a. "Like all educated Southerners in the summer of 1861, [they] hoped one morning to hear the news that Great Britain had recognized the independence of the Confederate States. In May a delegation of rebel commissioners, headed by William Lowndes Yancey, had arrived in London for an audience with the British foreign secretary, Lord John Russell. The rebels took great heart from what was said. Russell had discussed the constitutional rights of secession, and Yancey had pledged the South's desire for free trade, reminding the British minister of the importance to his people of Southern cotton. Russell's principal concern, however, was the issue of the African slave trade. He had heard that the Confederate government was keen to restore this abomination. Was this true? Yancey reassured Russell that the South "had prohibited the slave-trade, and did not mean to revive it."

Lord Russell was in a tricky position, as were all the members of the British government. Though they opposed slavery, three wasn't a true democrat among them, not in the mold of Abraham Lincoln [who] could never have risen to become a British minister; to be that, one had to have been born into privilege, with wealth and property the only prerequisites. The members of the British government believed in "aristocratic government," and anyone who challenged them was crushed mercilessly......therefore, ministers such as Lord Russell and the prime minister, seventy-seven-year-old Lord Palmerston, had more in common with the Confederate government than they did with the Federal. Lincoln's administration believed in equal rights and espoused the cause of the workingman, themes that were anathema to the British government."
"Double Death: The True Story of Pryce Lewis, the Civil War's Most Daring Spy,"byGavin Mortimer, p.70-71




What was the hold that the Confederacy mistakenly believed would bring Britain to their cause?
The answer is in the section above.

One word: cotton.

Yer toooo darned smart, M.D.!

I attribute that to you being on the Right.....

...the Lefties are determined to believe that slavery was the center of everything, because that topic, ad infinitum keeps the Left in power.


But....I will continue.....two or three more panels just to show how Obama fits in.



Did you notice how quite they got when I produced Lincoln's promise in post #62?
I heard a collective "gulp!"

 

[NYcarbineer]

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


No, the reason is the same one that bases Barack Obama's foreign policy: a misunderstanding of geopolitical realities.


1. You see, the South believed that they ruled the world.
Really. Ruled!

Whether or not they imagined that they could defeat the North militarily, they fervently believed that they could oblige....compel... the greatest military power in the world to back them.





2. "TheUnion blockadein theAmerican Civil War was a naval tactic by the Northern government to prevent the Confederacy from trading. The blockade was proclaimed by President Abraham Lincoln in April 1861, and required the closure of 3,500 miles (5,600 km) of Atlantic and Gulf coastline, ..."
Union blockade - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

a. "In January, 1861, De Bow’s Reviewcontained an article declaring that “the first demonstration of blockade of the Southern ports would be swept away by the English fleets of observation hovering on the Southern coasts,..."
Great Britain and the American Civil War eBook





3. Why? Certainly, the English disgust with the practice of slavery wouldn't allow them to run....or sail....to the Confederacy's side?

So what made the Southerners believe that the had Britain in their pocket?

a. "Like all educated Southerners in the summer of 1861, [they] hoped one morning to hear the news that Great Britain had recognized the independence of the Confederate States. In May a delegation of rebel commissioners, headed by William Lowndes Yancey, had arrived in London for an audience with the British foreign secretary, Lord John Russell. The rebels took great heart from what was said. Russell had discussed the constitutional rights of secession, and Yancey had pledged the South's desire for free trade, reminding the British minister of the importance to his people of Southern cotton. Russell's principal concern, however, was the issue of the African slave trade. He had heard that the Confederate government was keen to restore this abomination. Was this true? Yancey reassured Russell that the South "had prohibited the slave-trade, and did not mean to revive it."

Lord Russell was in a tricky position, as were all the members of the British government. Though they opposed slavery, three wasn't a true democrat among them, not in the mold of Abraham Lincoln [who] could never have risen to become a British minister; to be that, one had to have been born into privilege, with wealth and property the only prerequisites. The members of the British government believed in "aristocratic government," and anyone who challenged them was crushed mercilessly......therefore, ministers such as Lord Russell and the prime minister, seventy-seven-year-old Lord Palmerston, had more in common with the Confederate government than they did with the Federal. Lincoln's administration believed in equal rights and espoused the cause of the workingman, themes that were anathema to the British government."
"Double Death: The True Story of Pryce Lewis, the Civil War's Most Daring Spy,"byGavin Mortimer, p.70-71




What was the hold that the Confederacy mistakenly believed would bring Britain to their cause?
The answer is in the section above.

One word: cotton.

Yer toooo darned smart, M.D.!

I attribute that to you being on the Right.....

...the Lefties are determined to believe that slavery was the center of everything, because that topic, ad infinitum keeps the Left in power.


But....I will continue.....two or three more panels just to show how Obama fits in.



Did you notice how quite they got when I produced Lincoln's promise in post #62?
I heard a collective "gulp!"

Slaves produced the cotton, genius.

Secession was over slavery, period. One need only read the states' secession proclamations to prove that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So.....since Lincoln's inaugural address promised that slavery would remain the prerogative of each state that had it at the moment.....why did they insist on secession?



Clearly I've proven my point, judging by how the deniers have dropped off, alternating feed in their mouths.....
....but here is even more substantiation.



7. A view of the mistaken importance that the South placed on it's ability to supply Britain...and the world...with cotton can be seen in an 1858 speech by a Senator from the state that led secession, South Carolina.


a. Senator James Henry Hammond, in what became known as the "Cotton is King" speech:

" Without firing a gun, without drawing a sword, should they make war on us we could bring the whole world to our feet.

The South is perfectly competent to go on, one, two, or three years without planting a seed of cotton. I believe that if she was to plant but half her cotton, for three years to come, it would be an immense advantage to her. I am not so sure but that after three years' entire abstinence she would come out stronger than ever she was before, and better prepared to enter afresh upon her great career of enterprise.

What would happen if no cotton was furnished for three years? I will not stop to depict what every one can imagine, but this is certain: England would topple headlong and carry the whole civilized world with her, save the South.No, you dare not make war on cotton. No power on earth dares to make war upon it. Cotton is king." James Henry Hammond Cotton is King




b. That was 1858. The Southern elite already thought they had an ace up their sleeve with which to coax Britain.

c. Senator Hammond's South Carolina was the first state to respond to Lincoln's election (Novermber 6, 1860): it called a convention on whether to secede....the vote was announced on December 20, 1860: 169-0 to secede.

d. London Times: "there is nothing in all the dark caves of human passion so cruel and deadly as the hatred the South Carolinians profess for the Yankees."
May 28, 1861



See where this is going?
They misunderstood their place in the world.



Did I mention that being Obama's problem, as well?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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


No, the reason is the same one that bases Barack Obama's foreign policy: a misunderstanding of geopolitical realities.


1. You see, the South believed that they ruled the world.
Really. Ruled!

Whether or not they imagined that they could defeat the North militarily, they fervently believed that they could oblige....compel... the greatest military power in the world to back them.





2. "TheUnion blockadein theAmerican Civil War was a naval tactic by the Northern government to prevent the Confederacy from trading. The blockade was proclaimed by President Abraham Lincoln in April 1861, and required the closure of 3,500 miles (5,600 km) of Atlantic and Gulf coastline, ..."
Union blockade - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

a. "In January, 1861, De Bow’s Reviewcontained an article declaring that “the first demonstration of blockade of the Southern ports would be swept away by the English fleets of observation hovering on the Southern coasts,..."
Great Britain and the American Civil War eBook





3. Why? Certainly, the English disgust with the practice of slavery wouldn't allow them to run....or sail....to the Confederacy's side?

So what made the Southerners believe that the had Britain in their pocket?

a. "Like all educated Southerners in the summer of 1861, [they] hoped one morning to hear the news that Great Britain had recognized the independence of the Confederate States. In May a delegation of rebel commissioners, headed by William Lowndes Yancey, had arrived in London for an audience with the British foreign secretary, Lord John Russell. The rebels took great heart from what was said. Russell had discussed the constitutional rights of secession, and Yancey had pledged the South's desire for free trade, reminding the British minister of the importance to his people of Southern cotton. Russell's principal concern, however, was the issue of the African slave trade. He had heard that the Confederate government was keen to restore this abomination. Was this true? Yancey reassured Russell that the South "had prohibited the slave-trade, and did not mean to revive it."

Lord Russell was in a tricky position, as were all the members of the British government. Though they opposed slavery, three wasn't a true democrat among them, not in the mold of Abraham Lincoln [who] could never have risen to become a British minister; to be that, one had to have been born into privilege, with wealth and property the only prerequisites. The members of the British government believed in "aristocratic government," and anyone who challenged them was crushed mercilessly......therefore, ministers such as Lord Russell and the prime minister, seventy-seven-year-old Lord Palmerston, had more in common with the Confederate government than they did with the Federal. Lincoln's administration believed in equal rights and espoused the cause of the workingman, themes that were anathema to the British government."
"Double Death: The True Story of Pryce Lewis, the Civil War's Most Daring Spy,"byGavin Mortimer, p.70-71




What was the hold that the Confederacy mistakenly believed would bring Britain to their cause?
The answer is in the section above.

One word: cotton.

Yer toooo darned smart, M.D.!

I attribute that to you being on the Right.....

...the Lefties are determined to believe that slavery was the center of everything, because that topic, ad infinitum keeps the Left in power.


But....I will continue.....two or three more panels just to show how Obama fits in.



Did you notice how quite they got when I produced Lincoln's promise in post #62?
I heard a collective "gulp!"

Actually, not yet. I just responded to your OP. Presumably, you're talking about Lincoln's inaugural speech in which he stated that he didn't have the constitutional power to dictate the institutional affairs of the several states, but I shall read on to see.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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


No, the reason is the same one that bases Barack Obama's foreign policy: a misunderstanding of geopolitical realities.


1. You see, the South believed that they ruled the world.
Really. Ruled!

Whether or not they imagined that they could defeat the North militarily, they fervently believed that they could oblige....compel... the greatest military power in the world to back them.





2. "TheUnion blockadein theAmerican Civil War was a naval tactic by the Northern government to prevent the Confederacy from trading. The blockade was proclaimed by President Abraham Lincoln in April 1861, and required the closure of 3,500 miles (5,600 km) of Atlantic and Gulf coastline, ..."
Union blockade - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

a. "In January, 1861, De Bow’s Reviewcontained an article declaring that “the first demonstration of blockade of the Southern ports would be swept away by the English fleets of observation hovering on the Southern coasts,..."
Great Britain and the American Civil War eBook





3. Why? Certainly, the English disgust with the practice of slavery wouldn't allow them to run....or sail....to the Confederacy's side?

So what made the Southerners believe that the had Britain in their pocket?

a. "Like all educated Southerners in the summer of 1861, [they] hoped one morning to hear the news that Great Britain had recognized the independence of the Confederate States. In May a delegation of rebel commissioners, headed by William Lowndes Yancey, had arrived in London for an audience with the British foreign secretary, Lord John Russell. The rebels took great heart from what was said. Russell had discussed the constitutional rights of secession, and Yancey had pledged the South's desire for free trade, reminding the British minister of the importance to his people of Southern cotton. Russell's principal concern, however, was the issue of the African slave trade. He had heard that the Confederate government was keen to restore this abomination. Was this true? Yancey reassured Russell that the South "had prohibited the slave-trade, and did not mean to revive it."

Lord Russell was in a tricky position, as were all the members of the British government. Though they opposed slavery, three wasn't a true democrat among them, not in the mold of Abraham Lincoln [who] could never have risen to become a British minister; to be that, one had to have been born into privilege, with wealth and property the only prerequisites. The members of the British government believed in "aristocratic government," and anyone who challenged them was crushed mercilessly......therefore, ministers such as Lord Russell and the prime minister, seventy-seven-year-old Lord Palmerston, had more in common with the Confederate government than they did with the Federal. Lincoln's administration believed in equal rights and espoused the cause of the workingman, themes that were anathema to the British government."
"Double Death: The True Story of Pryce Lewis, the Civil War's Most Daring Spy,"byGavin Mortimer, p.70-71




What was the hold that the Confederacy mistakenly believed would bring Britain to their cause?
The answer is in the section above.

One word: cotton.

Yer toooo darned smart, M.D.!

I attribute that to you being on the Right.....

...the Lefties are determined to believe that slavery was the center of everything, because that topic, ad infinitum keeps the Left in power.


But....I will continue.....two or three more panels just to show how Obama fits in.



Did you notice how quite they got when I produced Lincoln's promise in post #62?
I heard a collective "gulp!"

Slaves produced the cotton, genius.

Secession was over slavery, period. One need only read the states' secession proclamations to prove that.

What a marooon!

Who threatened slavery or cotton???? Who????



How can I possibly be considered the 'princess of posters' with low lever adversaries like this one?????



I see these as wars, and for same I need educated adversaries......not the dunces like this one.
FDR knew that.


“Earlier, during national elections, the president could use class warfare and federal subsidies to win votes. …But when wars came, they must be won. Few remembered the Panic of 1873- or even who was president then- but everyone remembered the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, and, of course, the Civil War. U.S. presidents could fail when they worked to end depressions, as FDR had shown, and still survive politically- if they had a viable scapegoat….Lincoln was great because Lincoln was a successful war president. His high taxes and abuse of civil liberties were largely forgotten. If the forthcoming war were lost, FDR could, of course, attack business again for not making enough weapons. But historians would still hold Roosevelt accountable for losing any war on his watch!”
From the Prologue of “FDR Goes To War: How Expanded Executive Power, Spiraling National Debt, And Restricted Civil Liberties Shaped Wartime America” by Burton W. Folsom Jr. and Anita Folsom…

 

[NYcarbineer]

PC's blathering reveals she has little clue to anything outside of her extremely limited view of reality.

Hey....be fair!

It's my job to make you look like a fool......stop doing my job!!

This is the opening line of the Mississippi secession declaration:

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.


"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."

...and to the specifics:

"That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.


Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it."

Now go ahead and make your argument that secession was not about the fear of the abolishment of the institution of slavery.

link Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Mississippi Secession

 

[NYcarbineer]

[





What a marooon!

Who threatened slavery or cotton???? Who????



How can I possibly be considered the 'princess of posters' with low lever adversaries like this one?????

…

I just proved who BELIEVED slavery was threatened, and made that the basis for secession. Go argue with the Ghosts of Mississippi if you'd like.

You've been proven wrong. Do you want me to run up the score?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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


No, the reason is the same one that bases Barack Obama's foreign policy: a misunderstanding of geopolitical realities.


1. You see, the South believed that they ruled the world.
Really. Ruled!

Whether or not they imagined that they could defeat the North militarily, they fervently believed that they could oblige....compel... the greatest military power in the world to back them.





2. "TheUnion blockadein theAmerican Civil War was a naval tactic by the Northern government to prevent the Confederacy from trading. The blockade was proclaimed by President Abraham Lincoln in April 1861, and required the closure of 3,500 miles (5,600 km) of Atlantic and Gulf coastline, ..."
Union blockade - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

a. "In January, 1861, De Bow’s Reviewcontained an article declaring that “the first demonstration of blockade of the Southern ports would be swept away by the English fleets of observation hovering on the Southern coasts,..."
Great Britain and the American Civil War eBook





3. Why? Certainly, the English disgust with the practice of slavery wouldn't allow them to run....or sail....to the Confederacy's side?

So what made the Southerners believe that the had Britain in their pocket?

a. "Like all educated Southerners in the summer of 1861, [they] hoped one morning to hear the news that Great Britain had recognized the independence of the Confederate States. In May a delegation of rebel commissioners, headed by William Lowndes Yancey, had arrived in London for an audience with the British foreign secretary, Lord John Russell. The rebels took great heart from what was said. Russell had discussed the constitutional rights of secession, and Yancey had pledged the South's desire for free trade, reminding the British minister of the importance to his people of Southern cotton. Russell's principal concern, however, was the issue of the African slave trade. He had heard that the Confederate government was keen to restore this abomination. Was this true? Yancey reassured Russell that the South "had prohibited the slave-trade, and did not mean to revive it."

Lord Russell was in a tricky position, as were all the members of the British government. Though they opposed slavery, three wasn't a true democrat among them, not in the mold of Abraham Lincoln [who] could never have risen to become a British minister; to be that, one had to have been born into privilege, with wealth and property the only prerequisites. The members of the British government believed in "aristocratic government," and anyone who challenged them was crushed mercilessly......therefore, ministers such as Lord Russell and the prime minister, seventy-seven-year-old Lord Palmerston, had more in common with the Confederate government than they did with the Federal. Lincoln's administration believed in equal rights and espoused the cause of the workingman, themes that were anathema to the British government."
"Double Death: The True Story of Pryce Lewis, the Civil War's Most Daring Spy,"byGavin Mortimer, p.70-71




What was the hold that the Confederacy mistakenly believed would bring Britain to their cause?
The answer is in the section above.

One word: cotton.

Yer toooo darned smart, M.D.!

I attribute that to you being on the Right.....

...the Lefties are determined to believe that slavery was the center of everything, because that topic, ad infinitum keeps the Left in power.


But....I will continue.....two or three more panels just to show how Obama fits in.



Did you notice how quite they got when I produced Lincoln's promise in post #62?
I heard a collective "gulp!"

Actually, not yet. I just responded to your OP. Presumably, you're talking about Lincoln's inaugural speech in which he stated that he didn't have the constitutional power to dictate the institutional affairs of the several states, but I shall read on to see.

PC's blathering reveals she has little clue to anything outside of her extremely limited view of reality.

Hey....be fair!

It's my job to make you look like a fool......stop doing my job!!

This is the opening line of the Mississippi secession declaration:

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.


"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."

...and to the specifics:

"That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.


Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it."

Now go ahead and make your argument that secession was not about the fear of the abolishment of the institution of slavery.

link Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Mississippi Secession

So, you got nothin'......as usual.

No one was taking slavery away.

 

[Sallow]

The South started the war because of Obama

Very true..... The idea that a black man would someday become president is more than enough reason to secede. Especially, a mixed race black

Obama represents everything the south was fighting against

Can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate the comic relief you provide.

But don't give up the retirement for that stand-up gig.

President Obama represents everything the South fought to prevent


1. A mixing of the races
2. Blacks not...."knowing their place"
3. Blacks with political power

I recognize your declination with respect to the OP question.

Thanks for dropping by.

I congratulate you on your unique spin on history and tying President Obama to the reasons for the Civil War

In a nutshell....President Obama IS the reason for the Civil War

A mixed race black President was the souths worst nightmare. A well educated black man with political power.

That is what the south fought against. Blacks who thought they were the equal of whites, blacks and whites marrying and producing children. Blacks in a political position to tell whites what to do

Which was the cause of the formation of the KKK after the war ended..

Very true

If Obamas father had attempted to marry his mother in the South in 1961 he would have been lynched

In many ways the Civil War had not ended

Those damned KKKers....and their founder, the Democrat Party!!!!

And of course, as usual, you are missing the point that at that time the Democratic Party was the CONSERVATIVE party and the fledgling GOP was the LIBERAL party of the day. When the parties swapped ideologies, they also swapped membership.

See: 1948 to 1972. Learn something. Like Nixon's SOUTHERN STATE STRATEGY.

Thank you.

The Democratic party did not form the KKK.

That's yet another lie in both PoliticalChic's and Conservative's quiver.

Additionally, Southern Democrats, pre 1960s (DixieCrats) are very much like Conservative Tea Party types of today.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The South started the war because of Obama

Very true..... The idea that a black man would someday become president is more than enough reason to secede. Especially, a mixed race black

Obama represents everything the south was fighting against

Can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate the comic relief you provide.

But don't give up the retirement for that stand-up gig.

President Obama represents everything the South fought to prevent


1. A mixing of the races
2. Blacks not...."knowing their place"
3. Blacks with political power

I recognize your declination with respect to the OP question.

Thanks for dropping by.

I congratulate you on your unique spin on history and tying President Obama to the reasons for the Civil War

In a nutshell....President Obama IS the reason for the Civil War

A mixed race black President was the souths worst nightmare. A well educated black man with political power.

That is what the south fought against. Blacks who thought they were the equal of whites, blacks and whites marrying and producing children. Blacks in a political position to tell whites what to do

Which was the cause of the formation of the KKK after the war ended..

Very true

If Obamas father had attempted to marry his mother in the South in 1961 he would have been lynched

In many ways the Civil War had not ended

Those damned KKKers....and their founder, the Democrat Party!!!!

And of course, as usual, you are missing the point that at that time the Democratic Party was the CONSERVATIVE party and the fledgling GOP was the LIBERAL party of the day. When the parties swapped ideologies, they also swapped membership.

See: 1948 to 1972. Learn something. Like Nixon's SOUTHERN STATE STRATEGY.

Thank you.

The Democratic party did not form the KKK.

That's yet another lie in both PoliticalChic's and Conservative's quiver.

Additionally, Southern Democrats, pre 1960s (DixieCrats) are very much like Conservative Tea Party types of today.

I never lie....you're just stupid.

1. 1. Liberal historian Eric Foner writes that the Klan was “…a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party…” Foner, “Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877,” p. 425

2. "Southern Democrats, pre 1960s (DixieCrats) are very much like Conservative Tea Party types of today."

See what I mean about you being stupid?

They were Dixiecrats....not Dixiecans.

They were all segregationist Democrats and remained so with one exception....and that was 16 years later.
a. In 1948, Strom Thurmond ran as a “Dixiecrat,” ... They were segregations, and an offshoot of the Democrat Party. And they remained Democrats.
b. The so-called “Dixiecrats” remained Democrats and did not migrate to the Republican Party. The Dixiecrats were a group of Southern Democrats who, in the 1948 national election, formed a third party, the State’s Rights Democratic Party with the slogan: “Segregation Forever!” Even so, they continued to be Democrats for all local and state elections, as well as for all future national elections. http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.com/FrequentlyAskedQuestions#The__Dixiecrats__Remained_Democrat



While all Democrats weren’t segregationists, all segregationists were Democrats.

1. 1. Klan members and racists including Hugo Black, George Wallace, ‘Bull’ Connor, Orval Faubus, Lester Maddox, etc.
   2. And, Hugo Black's anti-Catholic bias, which showed up in his actions on the Supreme Court:

"... Black was head of new members for the largest Klan cell in the South. New members of the KKK had to pledge their allegiance to the “eternal separation of Church and State.”... Separation was a crucial part of the KKK’s jurisprudential agenda. It was included in the Klansman’s Creed..."
Egnorance Hugo Black and the real history of the wall of separation between church and state

Democrat FDR made KKK guy his first Supreme Court nominee.

But the most important segregationists were Democrats in the U.S. Senate, where civil rights bills went to die.

a. "On June 13, 2005, in a resolution sponsored by senators Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and George Allen of Virginia, together with 78 others, the US Senate formally apologized for its failure to enact this and other anti-lynching bills "when action was most needed."[3] From 1882-1968, "...nearly 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress, and three passed the House. Seven presidents between 1890 and 1952 petitioned Congress to pass a federal law."[3] None was approved by the Senate because of the powerful opposition of the Southern Democratic voting bloc"
Senate Apologizes for Not Passing Anti-Lynching Laws Fox News

 

[JakeStarkey]

PC and the other writers of cultural McCarthyism deny the actual documents that support the narrative.

PC is right, the Mississippi delegation was wrong, is the way she rolls.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[


While all Democrats weren’t segregationists, all segregationists were Democrats.

Really? Then why did all ten southern Republican Congressmen vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

Not to mention REPUBLICAN Barry Goldwater, the Father of Modern Conservatism.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC and the other writers of cultural McCarthyism deny the actual documents that support the narrative.

PC is right, the Mississippi delegation was wrong, is the way she rolls.

OK....let me give you the opportunity to document your stupidity....

Who had the power to take slavery from the Southern states...and threatened to do so?

Name him.

Take your time.



Or....accept your regular title of Chief Lying Moron.

 

[Sallow]

I never lie....you're just stupid.

Oh you lie all the time.

The only difference between you and a rug, is that when a rug lies..it keeps the floor warm.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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


No, the reason is the same one that bases Barack Obama's foreign policy: a misunderstanding of geopolitical realities.


1. You see, the South believed that they ruled the world.
Really. Ruled!

Whether or not they imagined that they could defeat the North militarily, they fervently believed that they could oblige....compel... the greatest military power in the world to back them.





2. "TheUnion blockadein theAmerican Civil War was a naval tactic by the Northern government to prevent the Confederacy from trading. The blockade was proclaimed by President Abraham Lincoln in April 1861, and required the closure of 3,500 miles (5,600 km) of Atlantic and Gulf coastline, ..."
Union blockade - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

a. "In January, 1861, De Bow’s Reviewcontained an article declaring that “the first demonstration of blockade of the Southern ports would be swept away by the English fleets of observation hovering on the Southern coasts,..."
Great Britain and the American Civil War eBook





3. Why? Certainly, the English disgust with the practice of slavery wouldn't allow them to run....or sail....to the Confederacy's side?

So what made the Southerners believe that the had Britain in their pocket?

a. "Like all educated Southerners in the summer of 1861, [they] hoped one morning to hear the news that Great Britain had recognized the independence of the Confederate States. In May a delegation of rebel commissioners, headed by William Lowndes Yancey, had arrived in London for an audience with the British foreign secretary, Lord John Russell. The rebels took great heart from what was said. Russell had discussed the constitutional rights of secession, and Yancey had pledged the South's desire for free trade, reminding the British minister of the importance to his people of Southern cotton. Russell's principal concern, however, was the issue of the African slave trade. He had heard that the Confederate government was keen to restore this abomination. Was this true? Yancey reassured Russell that the South "had prohibited the slave-trade, and did not mean to revive it."

Lord Russell was in a tricky position, as were all the members of the British government. Though they opposed slavery, three wasn't a true democrat among them, not in the mold of Abraham Lincoln [who] could never have risen to become a British minister; to be that, one had to have been born into privilege, with wealth and property the only prerequisites. The members of the British government believed in "aristocratic government," and anyone who challenged them was crushed mercilessly......therefore, ministers such as Lord Russell and the prime minister, seventy-seven-year-old Lord Palmerston, had more in common with the Confederate government than they did with the Federal. Lincoln's administration believed in equal rights and espoused the cause of the workingman, themes that were anathema to the British government."
"Double Death: The True Story of Pryce Lewis, the Civil War's Most Daring Spy,"byGavin Mortimer, p.70-71




What was the hold that the Confederacy mistakenly believed would bring Britain to their cause?
The answer is in the section above.

One word: cotton.

Yer toooo darned smart, M.D.!

I attribute that to you being on the Right.....

...the Lefties are determined to believe that slavery was the center of everything, because that topic, ad infinitum keeps the Left in power.


But....I will continue.....two or three more panels just to show how Obama fits in.



Did you notice how quite they got when I produced Lincoln's promise in post #62?
I heard a collective "gulp!"

Actually, not yet. I just responded to your OP. Presumably, you're talking about Lincoln's inaugural speech in which he stated that he didn't have the constitutional power to dictate the institutional affairs of the several states, but I shall read on to see.

PC's blathering reveals she has little clue to anything outside of her extremely limited view of reality.

Hey....be fair!

It's my job to make you look like a fool......stop doing my job!!

This is the opening line of the Mississippi secession declaration:

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.


"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."

...and to the specifics:

"That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.


Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it."

Now go ahead and make your argument that secession was not about the fear of the abolishment of the institution of slavery.

link Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Mississippi Secession

So, you got nothin'......as usual.

No one was taking slavery away.

That's it eh?

So you deny that Mississippi seceded over the fear of slavery being abolished, even in the face of irrefutable evidence that that is exactly why they seceded...as did the other states, btw?

Anyone want to help PC here? Anyone agree with her daft claim in the OP enough to be able to refute what I've posted?

Please, someone attempt to refute the irrefutable. Entertain us.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I never lie....you're just stupid.

Oh you lie all the time.

The only difference between you and a rug, is that when a rug lies..it keeps the floor warm.

I just proved you are stupid,and I don't lie.