|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Cause of Civil War | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4259 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes: Here's the speech of Tennessee Governor Isham G. Harris calling for a referendum on a Tennessee Secession Convention that speech was on January 7th 1861. yet in feburary Tennessee voted to not set up a convention for sucession "In February 1861, 54 percent of the state’s voters voted against sending delegates to a secession convention, defeating the proposal for a State Convention by a vote of 69,675 to 57,798. If a State Convention had been held, it would have been very heavily pro-Union. 88,803 votes were cast for Unionist candidates and 22,749 votes were cast for Secession candidates. That day the American flag was displayed in "every section of the city," with zeal equal to that which existed during the late 1860 presidential campaign, wrote the Nashville Daily Gazette. On the corner across from the newspaper office, a crowd had gathered around a bagpipe player playing Yankee Doodle, after which ex-mayor John Hugh Smith gave a speech that was received with loud cheers." Tennessee in the American Civil War - Wikipedia Tennessee did not want to leave and was not going to leave over the issue of slavery alone. I do not care if you quote the most sucessionist of those from TN at that time and try to make it sound as if that is how everyone in TN thought, and voted, because it is dishosnet and more importantly incorrect. I especially liked how you quote minded something from before TN voted to remain in the Union, and pass it off as somthing from the sucessesion, and then snarkly asked me how to explain it, as if mattered. You only quoted one side of the arguement, while claiming this nonesense over resources, and evidence. I see how you like to use evidence, and I find it rather less than ethical. Everyone knows that TN was the last state to withdraw fromt he Union, that it was battling hard internally on BOTH sides, reasons for staying and reasons for leaving. And then Lincoln gave them no choice. When Lincoln called for 75,000 troops, the poeple in TN knew it was for only one thing, and that thing was invasion. TN revoted and with astonighing reversal voted to for secession. In june of 1861. In a June 8, 1861 referendum, East Tennessee held firm against separation, while West Tennessee returned an equally heavy majority in favor. The deciding vote came in Middle Tennessee, which went from 51 percent against secession in February to 88 percent in favor in June." why, because they knew the army was commong through TN to get to AL, and GA, and MS. And they knew what laws would be broken since lincoln obviously cared little for the rights of the states already.
" For what purpose, they asked, could such an army be wanted "but to invade, overrun and subjugate the Southern states." The growing war spirit in the North further convinced southerners that they would have to "fight for our hearthstones and the security of home." "fight for our hearthstones and the security of home." oh shit isn't that supposed to say fight for our slaves? well it didn't. --Daniel W. Crofts, Reluctant Confederates: Upper South Unionists in the Secession Crisis you do you think they just changed thier minds because of the slavery issue!?! after thinking about it for 4 months, everyone changed thier minds and shared thoughts with the governor!?! yeah right. here is the real ordinace of sucession from June of 1861:http://www.csawardept.com/documents/secession/TN/index.html didn't really see anything about slaves in there.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- to anglagard If I were you, I would retract this statement before this Saturday, when I will have the time to heavily document how the South sabotaged the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights prior to the Civil War through terrorist actions such as state-sanctioned lynch mobs.
If I were you I was stop name calling names and telling people how to express thier opinions on the internet.
Patriot my ass.
LOL why is it always some jackass from TX of all places pulling this shit? Fucking Steers and Queers. So which are you: nutless, or a cocksuker? eat shit mother fucker. Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Long line of "-" was causing a bit of a page width glitch.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 336 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
LOL why is it always some jackass from TX of all places pulling this shit? Fucking Steers and Queers. So which are you: nutless, or a cocksuker? ah americans thinking your swearword can match other nations swearword you should go sduy in germany hungary or bosina if you realy want to make an efect the german ones i likefick dich ins knie (f***k yourself in your knee) leck mich kreuzweise (lick me horizontaly) the bosnian ones i like jebem ti majku ( a standard that always works im f***ing your mother)a more complicated version đubre pederu jedno jebo ti pas majku (you piece of shit fag*** a dog f***ked your mother (inclining that the dog is your father)) although i shouldent be talking the worst truly slovenian swearwords and profanety Kapa kosmata! (furry hat)Tristo kosmatih medvedov!( 300 furry bears) Bes te plentaj! (anger nit you) Vrag te pocitraj. (the devil harp you (citra is a similar instrument to a harp) Da bi te koklja brcnila!( may a hen kick you)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Arty writes: This idea that the whole war was to end slavery and the southern states rose up to gether to protect slavery is misleading and incorrect.
I agree with the part of your statement I quoted above. The purpose of the civil war was not to free the slaves. But nonethelesss slavery was indeed the cause of the war. Certainly most Yankees believed they were fighting to preserve the union. Most of them would never have been willing to go to war to free black people. Yet there seems to be little doubt among historians that questions about the future of slavery was a decades long concern that developed into the schism that resulted in secession and the civil war. By the time of the election of Lincoln, the major question of the day was whether the western territories would enter the union as free or slave states. The question was important because the balance of power in the Senate was at stake. The House of Representatives was fairly well balanced but only because of the slaves = 3/5 person equalizer written into the Constitution. But the population of the North was growing so much faster than that of the South, that even the 3/5 rule was not going to be much help. In previous times, the states had found various compromises that preserved the balance, but one of the consequences of the Dred Scott Court decision in 1857 was the overturning of the Missouri compromise and the removal of essential all basis for compromises to keep a political balance. Dred Scott v. Sandford - Wikipedia
quote:In addition to the political question, the deep south states believed that their economical future required slavery to expand into the western territories. By contrast, the northern states almost universally opposed such expansion not out of love for their black brethern, but because slave labor devalued white labor. They wanted access to western territories and they wanted to compete on a non slave basis. Lincoln's position was to leave slavery alone were it existed but to not let it expand any further. To the slave states this proposition meant simply financial and political death, and secession began shortly after Lincoln's election but before Lincoln had even been inaugurated, let alone take any action. So you can label the causes political or economic, of whatever, but the major issues leading to secession and the civil war were all slavery related. It is not really all that difficult to trace the ups and downs of the relation ship between Northern and Southern State over slavery related issues. Bleeding Kansas, John Brown's insurrection, Southern reaction to the publishing of Uncle Tom's Cabin, all slavery related. And then what kind of constitution did the Confederacy adopt? They adoped a constitution remarkably like the US Constitution with the exception that it made slavery in the Confederate states eternal. Supposedly they split with the Union over states rights, and they did put some limits on federal power into the Constituton. But the Confederacy then adopted federal policies more far reaching than anything that anything Congress had adopted. Pretty much all of their objections to the federal constitution other than preservation of slavery can be shown to be shams. Yes there were a few states that didn't suceed till later, but if they signed onto the Confederacy then we cannot really say their reasons reflect on the causes for creation of the Confederacy can we? The confederacy in my opinion was a gathering of treasonists who simply could not stand not getting their way politically against the larger population who did not want slavery to expand westward. The fact that Jefferson Davis is considered any kind of national hero is siimply Lost Cause nonsense. He was a criminal of the worst order. For Jefferson Davis, slavery was *THE* cause worth fighting for. Yet in VA we name major a thoroughfare after him. Confederacy apologetics belongs on the same heap with tobacco causes cancer denial and Holocaust denial. Edited by NoNukes, : Minor corrections. Change slave rights to states rights Edited by NoNukes, : minor edits
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
If you cannot debate in a civil manner I request you not post to this thread. This was meant to be a thread that would allow you to back your assertions. If you are going to be a abusive I will ask that this thread be closed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tram law Member (Idle past 4735 days) Posts: 283 From: Weed, California, USA Joined: |
The thing is, for northerners it will be about slavery, but Southerners will claim it's about states rights and will ignore the issue of slavery.
For example:
First of all, I feel the need to point out that there never was a civil war in the USA. By definition, a civil war is where 2 or more factions are fighting for control of the same government. The War For States' Rights was not about control of the US government, but about our desire to govern ourselves as an independent nation. That desire still remains strong with us. That having been said, I have put down as much information about the War For State's Rights as I have on hand, and will continually add to it as I get more. Information about Battles and Campaigns, Distinguished Military Units, Statesmen, Soldier's Lives during "the conflict", Officers, Weapons, Prison Camps, Blockade Runners, Spies, Slavery Issues, and many other categories. I am a Confederate all the way to the bone and would love nothing better than to list only triumphs by our Glorious Nation, but this would not be fair to history. All of my information can be easily verified by anyone who disputes any of it. Those who have actually studied history (or at least paid attention in history class, assuming they had a good teacher like I did - thank you Mr. Simms) know that the War For State's Rights was not about slavery (as the occupational government would like you to believe), but about where (at its most basic level) governing laws, and regulations should come from. This site will, undoubtedly, go through many updates and revisions as time goes on, though I will ONLY post truthful and accurate information. I am not a racist, skinhead, hate-monger, or any of the other labels usually associated with those who dispute the distorted Yankee version of this period in the history of our two countries usually are.Now, without further ado, on with the information (which will be continually added to as my limited free time allows): http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/ Edited by Tram law, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Tram Law writes: The thing is, for northerners it will be about slavery, but Southerners will claim it's about states rights and will ignore the issue of slavery. You tar with too course a brush here. Your article was written by a southerner with a particular political view. What else would a modern secessionist believe?
quote: That certainly doesn't refect what I believe. I'd state the split between view points as follows; Neo Confederates are the only ones who deny that slavery played any role in igniting the civil war. They universally state that it was about states rights and will deny that an important state right at issue was the right to enslave black people. Almost noone else holds that view even if they disagree about the importance of factors other than slavery. Hardly anyone believes that most Northerns supported going to war to abolish slavery. Dividing the issue of believe along geographical lines also complete discounts the opinions of black people and suggests that they aren't true southerners regardless of where they've lived their lives. Edited by NoNukes, : Fix up tags
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tram law writes:
Maybe it would help if somebody listed the other states' rights that the South was promoting, besides the right to allow slavery on a state-by-state basis. The thing is, for northerners it will be about slavery, but Southerners will claim it's about states rights and will ignore the issue of slavery. "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
I agree with your viewpoint.
There are people like Artie that will claim Slavery had nothing to do with it. The reasons for this view should be looked into by psychologists. Even if you believe it was primarily a states rights issue, there has to be an acknowledgment that slavery was the catalyst for the states rights issues. To do anything else would be a display of extreme denial of facts and outright revisionism of the historical record. A few posters have shown that the states rights issue is disingenuous at best and a flat out lie at worst. The CSA Constitution did not make a marked change in the relationship between the states and the federal government.I'd love to hear an argument of what those major changes were that alleviated the problems they had with the US with states rights. The only major one I can see is the right to own slaves. The ability to suspend habeus corpus is still there. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Tram law writes:
Well, sure. However, since the "right" that was the center of the dispute was the alleged right of states to continue slavery, this seems to be a distinction without a difference.
The thing is, for northerners it will be about slavery, but Southerners will claim it's about states rights and will ignore the issue of slavery.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
that speech was on January 7th 1861. yet in feburary Tennessee voted to not set up a convention for sucession He made another speech, you know. In April, ten days after Lincoln's call for troops. Calling for the second and successful referendum on secession. You can read it here:
The President of the United States - elected according to the forms of the Constitution, but upon principles openly hostile to its provisions --having wantonly inaugurated an internecine war between the people of the slave and non-slave holding States, I have convened you again at the seat of Government ... [...] In the message which I addressed to you at your called session in January last, these things were somewhat elaborately referred to, as constituting, in my judgment, the amplest reason for considering ourselves in imminent danger, and as requiring such action on the part of the Legislature as would place the State in an attitude for defence, whenever the momentous crisis should be forced upon us; and, also, as presenting to the North the strongest argument for peace, and if possible, securing a reconstruction of the Union, thus already dissolved by the most authoritative, formal, and matured action of a portion of the slaveholding States. [...] Whatever grounds of hope may have been supposed to exist heretofore for an adjustment of the difficulties between the two sections of the Federal Union; however anxious we may have been to continue members of the same common family with the people of the North, such hope and expectation no longer exist in the mind of any rational man, who desires to maintain the honor and equality of the State, and the inviolability of her peculiar institutions. But not a word about the route of march of the Union Army.
Everyone knows that TN was the last state to withdraw fromt he Union, that it was battling hard internally on BOTH sides, reasons for staying and reasons for leaving. And then Lincoln gave them no choice. When Lincoln called for 75,000 troops, the poeple in TN knew it was for only one thing, and that thing was invasion. It is true that VA, NC, AR and TN did not leave the Union until it became clear that Lincoln was going to turn the dispute into a shooting war. The question is, what was the war about? And the answer seems plain enough.
why, because they knew the army was commong through TN to get to AL, and GA, and MS. The army would have to come through lots of places. The question was, surely, what it would do when it got there. And the answer was: fight with their fellow slave-states over the issue of slavery.
"fight for our hearthstones and the security of home." oh shit isn't that supposed to say fight for our slaves? well it didn't. Well done, you managed to find nine words in a row not explicitly referring to slavery. By the way, what's the primary source?
you do you think they just changed thier minds because of the slavery issue!?! I think they changed their minds because there was going to be a war "because of the slavery issue". They had hoped there wouldn't be.
here is the real ordinace of sucession from June of 1861: http://www.csawardept.com/documents/secession/TN/index.html didn't really see anything about slaves in there. And I don't see anything about troops marching through Tennessee in there. In fact, I don't see any reasons in there, or in most of the ordinances of secession (perhaps in none of them, I'd have to check again). But certainly most of them give no reason whatsoever, so if historians were obliged to limit their knowledge of the causes of the Southern secession to the ordinances of secession they'd have to say that it happened for no reason at all. --- The question is, what was the war about? And even if the people of Tennessee in particular were more concerned about soldiers passing through Tennessee than about their "peculiar institution" (and the evidence so far is for the latter and not the former) I should still have to conclude that the war was about slavery. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
ringo writes: Maybe it would help if somebody listed the other states' rights that the South was promoting, besides the right to allow slavery on a state-by-state basis. Good point. First, I think it is pretty clear that the South did not want the right for individual states to allow slavery or not. One reaon that Lincoln was elected was because the Dlemocratic Party split in 1860 over Stephen Douglas advocacy of the Freeport Doctrine, under which the people of each state would determine whether slavery existed in that state. Lincoln had pinned Douglas down to this position during the 1958 Lincoln/Douglas debates. The Freeport Doctrine was quite incompatible with the infamous Dred Scott v Sanford decision which had established that there was no place in the Union in which the federal govenment could prevent a man from taking his slaves or any other property. The delegates from the 10 southern states walked out of the 1860 Convention when Douglas won the fight over the party platform. The 10 states then held another convention in Baltimore and picked Breckinridge as their candidate. The resulting split led directly to Lincoln's election. 1860 Democratic National Conventions - Wikipedia If the southern states really were willing to just allow slavery on a state by state basis, then there reluctance to allow the people on each state to make that determination basically doomed their chances of preventing Lincoln from being elected. Another states rights issues on the table involved the desire to remove federally imposed tariff laws affected the south and their cotton more than it did the north. Of course one of the early measures imposed by the Confederate governement was to lock down cotton exports in an attempt to get England to intervene on their side. Some apologist will concede that the secession at least was driven by slavery, but will insist that secession did not require war. That view, will still despicable, is at least supported by some evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Let's hear from the Vice-President of the Confederate States, shall we?
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. Well, that's what he thought. But what would he know about it? He continues:
Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew." Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. But I guess you've got to look a little more closely. You have to read between the lines. Let's look at that last paragraph again:
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. See?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
quote:"Reminiscences Of The Civil War", (Chapter I) By John B. Gordon, Maj. Gen. CSA Source Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Some apologist will concede that the secession at least was driven by slavery, but will insist that secession did not require war. That view, will still despicable, is at least supported by some evidence. Despicable how? It is certainly true that the USA and CSA didn't have to resolve their differences by war. The USA wanted to, and however much we may sympathize with their goals, they didn't have to if they didn't want to. Perhaps you could elaborate on your point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Theodoric.
Theodoric writes: The CSA Constitution did not make a marked change in the relationship between the states and the federal government. So, I basically agree with your position, but I think you may have made an error here. My understanding (though I am admittedly out of my element here) is that the Confederacy didn't have a problem with what the Constitution said about states' rights: their problem was with the way the Lincoln government was abusing or misinterpreting (according to them) the Constitution. So, I don't see that the lack of changes in the CSA Constitution is particularly informative. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024