Why Did The South Secede?

[JakeStarkey]

I never lie.... is a PC lie. I correct her below.

Foner said the KKK served the interest of the Democratic Party not that the Party created it.

The Dixiecrats were very much like conservative TP members (no one said anything about the GOP).

Many of the surviving Dixiecrats did indeed become Republicans in the 1960s and 1970s. Link the silly comments from National Black Republican Association National Black Republican Association

The sad part is that the good Republicans in the old South allowed the bad Dems to come into the party.

So now we have a less than stellar southern GOP party on matters of race, and the bad old Dems now good on race.

PC is attempting to sweep away the flip flop of the two parties in the South of these issues.

 

[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.

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.

Oh.....you're sulking because I left you out and Jakal is taking your title???


OK....here:
....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.


Go for it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I never lie.... is a PC lie. I correct her below.

Foner said the KKK served the interest of the Democratic Party not that the Party created it.

The Dixiecrats were very much like conservative TP members (no one said anything about the GOP).

Many of the surviving Dixiecrats did indeed become Republicans in the 1960s and 1970s. Link the silly comments from National Black Republican Association National Black Republican Association

The sad part is that the good Republicans in the old South allowed the bad Dems to come into the party.

So now we have a less than stellar southern GOP party on matters of race, and the bad old Dems now good on race.

PC is attempting to sweep away the flip flop of the two parties in the South of these issues.

So....no name?

Gave up?

That means you're pleased to accept 'Chief Lying Moron'???

NYCarbuncle is gonna fight you for it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

Immaterial and not relevant. The South could keep its system if it respected the constitutional, electoral process.

Since the southern States decided to go to war rather than accept slavery in the Old South but in the territories, the South rose up, and Lincoln murdered it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And this reminder:

The most important points: all the segregationists in the Senate were Democrats, and remained same for the rest of their lives…except for one. And they were not conservative.

1. 1. Strom Thurmond became a Republican, albeit 16 years later. Lets see how many of the 12 in the Senate were conservative, became Republicans:
   2. Senator Harry Byrd, staunch opponent of anti-communist McCarthy
   3. Senator Robert Byrd, proabortion, opposed Gulf Wars, supported ERA, high grades from NARAL and ACLU
   4. Senator Allen Ellender, McCarthy opponent, pacifist
   5. Senator Sam Ervin, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, Nixon antagonist
   6. Senator Albert Gore, Sr., McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War
   7. Senator James Eastland, strong anti-communist
   8. Senator Wm. Fulbright, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, big UN supporter
   9. Senator Walter F. George, supported TVA, and Great Society programs
   10. Senator Ernest Hollings, initiated federal food stamp program, …but supported Clarence Thomas’ nomination
   11. Senator Russell Long, led the campaign for Great Society programs
   12. Senator Richard Russell, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, supported FDR’s New Deal
   13. Senator John Stennis, McCarthy opponent, opposed Robert Bork’s nomination

Notice how segregationist positions went hand-in-hand with opposition to McCarthy? Not all Democrats….Robert Kennedy worked for McCarthy, and Senator John F. Kenned refused to censure him.
Coulter, "Mugged," chapter 12

 

[JakeStarkey]

PC, you can never win these arguments against us, your better informed and balanced opponents.

You try your silly revisionism, and we will keep making you look like an idiot.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

Immaterial and not relevant. The South could keep its system if it respected the constitutional, electoral process.

Since the southern States decided to go to war rather than accept slavery in the Old South but in the territories, the South rose up, and Lincoln murdered it.

"Immaterial and not relevant."

Throwing in the towel, Chief Lying Moron?

 

[JakeStarkey]

PC wants to note the Dems of sixty years ago while ignoring the changes since then.

Typical revisionist nonsense, by PC.

 

[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.

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

Of course you lie.

The only difference between you and lying in a bed is a bed is comfy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Let's move this to the Badlands since all PC can do now is ad hom.

 

[haissem123]

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.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

PC, you can never win these arguments against us, your better informed and balanced opponents.


You try your silly revisionism, and we will keep making you look like an idiot.

What did I tell you about that crack pipe?

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC, you can never win these arguments against us, your better informed and balanced opponents.

You try your silly revisionism, and we will keep making you look like an idiot.

"PC, you can never win these arguments against us, your better informed and balanced opponents."

When I read posts like that, I keep waiting for you open your jacket and reveal the vest of dynamite cylinders.

 

[JakeStarkey]

M. D., as a writer of cultural McCarthyism, you have no with those who know better than you on these matters.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Time to move this to Badlands. So requested.

 

[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.

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

You lie so much your name should be LyinChic.

 

[JakeStarkey]

PC and MD have been weighed in the balance and found wanting yet again.

 

[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.

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

What...are you illiterate....or as dumb as Chief Lying Moron????

 

[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.

You lie so much your name should be LyinChic.

I believe I've already put you in your place....last seat in the dumb row.

 

[haissem123]

everybody wants to rule over the other guys? so what? the might of the north made them right as always in history. the south wanted to keep blacks doing their work and getting rich off of other peoples work. they called them slave owners now they call them stock holders, partners, investors etc... they won cause lincoln fought so his fellow men up north didn't have to slave like ******* in the fields for nothing but scrap pork. now we are all ******* in the true sense of the word. stupid ignorant servants doing jigs and yessirin our massers. I for one want to fight the south again. you ignant ******* don't noes no bettar or our too cowardly to admit you've been had bad. good luck keeping your ******* in line. they got some tough skin on there backs bye now.