Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9057 total)
135 online now:
jar, nwr, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx, Theodoric (5 members, 130 visitors)
Newest Member: drlove
Post Volume: Total: 889,897 Year: 1,009/6,534 Month: 1,009/682 Week: 62/182 Day: 7/29 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Cause of Civil War
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7148
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 1 of 193 (583866)
09-29-2010 11:12 AM


Artemis has made some assertions in the daily quote thread.

The first is a spurious quote from Robert E. Lee.

quote:
"This war is not about slavery."

He has shown no evidence this is a correct quote or anything to show Lee felt this way.

Next he makes this claim.

Artemis Entreri writes:

but the general wasn't fighting and bleeding so a the elite could own slaves, its not was VA, NC, AR, or TN left the union, and its not why KY or MO tried to leave.

Now I would love to see his arguments and evidence for this. He seems pretty confident here.

I know how this is going to go. He is going to demand evidence from me first.

I will assume it is lee, as you have failed to disprove it.

Well Artie, you made the assertions and demanded a thread so you can back them up.
anyway this is not the thread for this, make a new thread and we can go back and forth but I think we should stop jacking this thread, and move to another one where we can stay more on topic.

yep, i changed you on this 1st and you backed down, now you are acting like it is the other way around. that's hilarious.

Artie, can you back up your statements? I know you can't on the Lee quote, but maybe on the others?


Facts don\'t lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Theodoric, posted 09-29-2010 12:53 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7148
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 2 of 193 (583878)
09-29-2010 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Theodoric
09-29-2010 11:12 AM


Evidence against AE's assertions
As Arty probably will not attempt to support his assertions, lets look at some evidence already presented against them.

Subbie and Dr A posted this info in the quote thread already. I hope they do not mind that I repost it here.

Message 50
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. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

- State of Mississippi in its Declaration of Causes of Secession

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. 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."

- Alexander H. Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy

That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

(Emphasis in original)

- State of Texas in its Declaration of Causes of Secession

Message 81

Resolved by the general assembly of Virginia [...] That these causes are to be mainly found in the denied equality of the rights of the slaveholder and the non-slaveholder, involved in the proposed partial exclusion of the former from the common territories--in the breach of the plighted faith of some of the non-slaveholding states and people, by acts and laws designed to obstruct the recovery of escaped slaves--by avowed designs to shape the policy, and use the machinery of the general government so as to effect, by indirection, the extinction of slavery, which it is conceded that government cannot rightfully or directly interfere with--and by other acts importing a denial of our rights of property in our slaves, and of our exclusive control over slavery as a domestic institution--and these are causes of complaint common to all the slaveholding people and states, and are in plain violation of the spirit and terms of our compact of union. --- Journal of the House of Delegates of the State of Virginia, for the Extra Session, 1861.

The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in convention on the twenty-fifth day of June in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under the said constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and the federal government having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the southern, slaveholding states: --- Virginia Ordinance of Secession

quote:
The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.

Source
Lee to Mrs. Lee, Dec. 27, 1856; Lee MSS., Library of Congress.

So here is some evidence to counter your assertions. Now are you ready to refute it?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Theodoric, posted 09-29-2010 11:12 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3345 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 3 of 193 (583903)
09-29-2010 1:30 PM


thanks
thanks for the opportunity to discuss this in a thread where it belongs, I hope the Admin allow us to continue this one.

Artemis Entreri writes:

but the general wasn't fighting and bleeding so a the elite could own slaves, its not was VA, NC, AR, or TN left the union, and its not why KY or MO tried to leave.

and of course a the counter is from none of those states

State of Mississippi in its Declaration of Causes of Secession

Alexander H. Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy

A Georgian

State of Texas in its Declaration of Causes of Secession

I do not see how the Virginia Ordinace of Sucession supports your claims, it states that the powers of the federal government have grown to large, and that is something that Virginia did not sign up for at the end of the 18th century, and they felt they had the legal right as a state to leave an unfair and tyrranical union.

Part of the issue in in the idea of this Unified South, this unified slave states idea. That is not what a Confederacy means. The confederacy was not another union to fight against the previous union, but a collection of individual sovereign states. for some states with slavery as the backbone to thier economies, it was more of an issue that other states. 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. There were two years of the bloodiest fighting in american history before the emancipation proclamation; and the simple fact that the emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in states that left the union, shows that it was merely a political and strategic move to destablize the enemy. If the true goal of the war and the emancipation proclamation was to end slavery, then states like Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, and slaveholding territories, would have ended slavery earlier rather than after the war.

I'll be back, I got to find some data.

1865 the year the consitution died.


Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Theodoric, posted 09-29-2010 1:45 PM Artemis Entreri has responded
 Message 7 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-29-2010 9:20 PM Artemis Entreri has responded
 Message 8 by anglagard, posted 09-29-2010 10:16 PM Artemis Entreri has acknowledged this reply
 Message 9 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-29-2010 10:27 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded
 Message 10 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-29-2010 10:47 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded
 Message 12 by anglagard, posted 09-29-2010 11:18 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded
 Message 14 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-30-2010 2:39 AM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded
 Message 15 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-30-2010 3:26 AM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded
 Message 18 by NoNukes, posted 09-30-2010 1:46 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded
 Message 121 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-26-2010 4:31 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7148
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 4 of 193 (583907)
09-29-2010 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Artemis Entreri
09-29-2010 1:30 PM


Re: thanks
You have done nothing to defend your point. You have presented no evidence to support your assertions.

Nothing to support this.

but the general wasn't fighting and bleeding so a the elite could own slaves, its not was VA, NC, AR, or TN left the union, and its not why KY or MO tried to leave.

The Virginia declaration mentions slaveholders and slave holding states directly. I think maybe you have some cognitive dissonance there. How about some evidence for your assertions next time.

Part of the issue in in the idea of this Unified South, this unified slave states idea. That is not what a Confederacy means. The confederacy was not another union to fight against the previous union, but a collection of individual sovereign states.

This has nothing to do with the thread or your assertions. You made very clear assertions. Back them up.

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.

No one is saying this. This is a strawman you are attempting to build. Slavery was an integral part of the reasons for the war. Was it the sole reason? No. But the economic reasons for the war were driven by slavery. States rights is just a smoke screen to hide slavery as a primary cause.

If the true goal of the war and the emancipation proclamation was to end slavery

No one is stating this. Another straw man. The war from the union side was to preserve the union. The war from the confederate side was to dissolve the union.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Artemis Entreri, posted 09-29-2010 1:30 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Artemis Entreri, posted 09-29-2010 3:38 PM Theodoric has responded

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3345 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 5 of 193 (583953)
09-29-2010 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Theodoric
09-29-2010 1:45 PM


Re: thanks
You have done nothing to defend your point. You have presented no evidence to support your assertions.

i do not think that you have really supported anything against me either.

but the general wasn't fighting and bleeding so a the elite could own slaves, its not was VA, NC, AR, or TN left the union, and its not why KY or MO tried to leave.

The Virginia declaration mentions slaveholders and slave holding states directly. I think maybe you have some cognitive dissonance there. How about some evidence for your assertions next time.

I am going to start with individual states, and go through what I have. Since theodoric doesn't really claim to have opinions and merely just tries to refute everything I say I think it will be a booring and easy to call debate. He will probably just attack me and my sources without much thought given to the response.

Missouri (MO):
Actually at the onset of the war Missouri was divided. At the Constitutional convention to discuss secession, there were very few elected secessionist delegates, and Missouri voted to remain Nuetral in the Civil War between the States. I do not think that the issue of slavery was really even brought up as most of that was covered in the Missouri Compromise.
In St. Louis there was an arsenal that was eyed by both sides of the war, and was a large cache of equipment in the West. A Federal Captain, and his paramilitary group from Illinois, moved in and took the arsenal at St. Louis. Lincoln did nothing but give him the go ahead afterwards. After securing the arsenal, the captain and his group marched on and took the state capital of Jefferson City. Most of the Missouri legislature fleed before they arrived. Now they had a change of heart, as their state was being taken from them by a miliarty group with a nod from Lincoln. At this point the Missouri Legislature set up thier government further South in the state, and argued for secession. the captain (now a general) set up his own pro federal Missouri government. Missouri during the war had two governments one on each side, and sent men and supplies to both sides.

Slavery was not the issue in Missouri, the issue there was invasion.

1 down 5 to go.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Theodoric, posted 09-29-2010 1:45 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Theodoric, posted 09-29-2010 4:34 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded
 Message 11 by Theodoric, posted 09-29-2010 11:13 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-29-2010 11:29 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7148
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 6 of 193 (583975)
09-29-2010 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Artemis Entreri
09-29-2010 3:38 PM


Re: thanks
You really should try using references.

The reason for the "invasion" is because MO was split between pro and anti slavery. In the 1850's there was a large influx of Germans into MO. They were staunchly anti-slavery. The 1850's was the scene of much violence in MO, caused by the pro and anti slave people. To say slavery has nothing to do with the civil war in Mo is to deny the history of the 1850's.

quote:
By 1860 Missouri was a state in change. In the ten years before the war the original Southern settlers of the state discovered themselves sharing the land with a large contingent of German immigrants. These newcomers were staunchly antislavery. As the country lurched toward war in 1861, newly elected Governor Claiborne F. Jackson led the pro-slavery forces in Missouri. Leading the antislavery group were Congressman Francis P. Blair and General Nathaniel Lyon.

http://www.mocivilwar.org/history/1861.html

The arsenal was a Federal arsenal. There was not an invasion. The federal troops were there to move the US arms out of MO to Illinois in order that they would not fall into the hands of secessionists.

Missouri during the war had two governments one on each side, and sent men and supplies to both sides.

Not really true.
quote:
On July 22, 1861, following Lyon's capture of the Missouri capital at Jefferson City, the Missouri Constitutional Convention reconvened and declared the Missouri governor's office to be vacant. On July 28, it appointed Hamilton Rowan Gamble as governor of the state and agreed to comply with Lincoln's demand for troops.

quote:
In October 1861, the remnants of the elected state government that favored the South (including Jackson and Price) met in Neosho, and voted to formally secede from the Union. The measure gave them votes in the Confederate Congress, but otherwise was symbolic since they did not control any part of the state. The capital was to eventually move to Marshall, Texas. When Jackson died in office in 1862, his lieutenant governor, Thomas Caute Reynolds, succeeded him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/...issouri_in_the_American_Civil_War

I am not sure why MO is high on your list. They never seceded and never were in open rebellion to the Union. Pro-Unionist were in control from nearly the beginning.

Since theodoric doesn't really claim to have opinions and merely just tries to refute everything I say I think it will be a booring and easy to call debate. He will probably just attack me and my sources without much thought given to the response.

Ax to grind much?

When did I ever say I don't have opinions. All I want is for you to back you many assertions with facts and evidence. I have not attacked you. All I have done is question your assertions. I cannot attack your sources because as of yet you have none.

OK to summarize.
The reason for the conflict in MO was because of pro and
anti slavery forces fighting for control of the government. This in turn lead to the US forces moving the arms from an arsenal in St Louis to Illinois.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Artemis Entreri, posted 09-29-2010 3:38 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 7 of 193 (584035)
09-29-2010 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Artemis Entreri
09-29-2010 1:30 PM


Tennessee
Here's the speech of Tennessee Governor Isham G. Harris calling for a referendum on a Tennessee Secession Convention

[S]lave property rests upon the same basis, and is entitled to the same protection, as every other description of property; that the General Government has no power to circumscribe or confine it within any given boundary; to determine where it shall, or shall not exist, or in any manner to impair its value.

[...]

The attempt of the Northern people, through the instrumentality of the Federal Govermuent--their State governments, and emigrant aid societies--to confine this species of property [slaves] within the limits of the present Southern States--to impair its value by constant agitation and refusal to deliver up the fugitive--to appropriate the whole of the Territories, which are the common property all the people of all the States, to the Southern man who is unwilling to live under a government which, may by law recognize the free negroe as his equal; "and in fine, to put the question where the Northern mind will rest in the belief of its ultimate extinction" is justly regarded by the people of the Southern States as a gross and palpable violation of the spirit and obvious meaning of the compact of Union--an impertinent intermeddling with their domestic affairs, destructive of fraternal feeling, ordinary comity, and well defined rights.

The words "slave", "slavery", "slaveowner" etc appear 46 times in the speech.

So would Artemis or anyone else care to read between the lines and tell us the real causes of the secession of Tennessee. What were they fighting for? The right to use "y'all" as a second person plural pronoun unmolested?

Do tell.

Perhaps the following facts will shed some light on the subject:

Another factor in differing wartime allegiances involved slaveowning. It is to be expected that counties with little interest in slaveowning would have exhibited little support for secession. To measure this relationship, three categories of slave holding were developed: (1) Counties with at least one potential voter in four owning slaves included those areas where slavery was most entrenched, (2) Counties with between one in six and one in four potential voters owning slaves comprised areas of significant interest in slaveowning although to a lesser degree than in (1) above, and (3) Counties with fewer than one in six potential voters owning slaves encompassed the areas with least attachment to slavery.

In Tennessee, of the forty-four counties where the vote for secession was by at least a two to one margin, thirty were in the top two categories of slaveowning described. --- James Copeland, "Secession and the Union in Tennessee and Kentucky: A Comparative Analysis", Border States: Journal of the Kentucky-Tennessee American Studies Association, No. 11 (1997)

Coincidence?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Artemis Entreri, posted 09-29-2010 1:30 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Artemis Entreri, posted 09-30-2010 10:04 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 8 of 193 (584042)
09-29-2010 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Artemis Entreri
09-29-2010 1:30 PM


Payback Coming Soon - Apparent Terrorist Supporter
Artemis Entreri writes:

1865 the year the consitution died.

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.

Patriot my ass.


The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
— Salman Rushdie

This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Artemis Entreri, posted 09-29-2010 1:30 PM Artemis Entreri has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 9 of 193 (584044)
09-29-2010 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Artemis Entreri
09-29-2010 1:30 PM


North Carolina
Here's a speech by John Ellis, the Governor who led North Carolina out of the union, accepting the Democratic Party's nomination to stand again for the office of Governor, in 1860 (he won, of course, which is why he was Governor when N.C. seceeded):

Such, gentlemen, are the parties to the contest. The issue between them should be clearly understood, especially here at the South. I assert, and shall maintain it with the proofs, that this issue is, whether African slavery shall be abolished here in the States, where it now exists? Let us not be deceived upon this point. Men may talk about our rights in the territories, but depend upon it they are not the questions now in issue. The abolition of slavery here at home is the design of our opponents. This is the bond that cements all the anti-slavery elements in one solid column against us.

So, Artemis, do tell. What was the issue between North and South, in the eyes of the Tarheel State, if it wasn't slavery? The Governor of North Carolina, the guy who led them out of the Union, thought it was slavery. But perhaps it was something else.

What?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Artemis Entreri, posted 09-29-2010 1:30 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 10 of 193 (584048)
09-29-2010 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Artemis Entreri
09-29-2010 1:30 PM


Virginia
This has already been brought to the attention of Artemis, twice, but he has not yet deigned to notice it:

Resolved by the general assembly of Virginia [...] That these causes are to be mainly found in the denied equality of the rights of the slaveholder and the non-slaveholder, involved in the proposed partial exclusion of the former from the common territories--in the breach of the plighted faith of some of the non-slaveholding states and people, by acts and laws designed to obstruct the recovery of escaped slaves--by avowed designs to shape the policy, and use the machinery of the general government so as to effect, by indirection, the extinction of slavery, which it is conceded that government cannot rightfully or directly interfere with--and by other acts importing a denial of our rights of property in our slaves, and of our exclusive control over slavery as a domestic institution--and these are causes of complaint common to all the slaveholding people and states, and are in plain violation of the spirit and terms of our compact of union. --- Journal of the House of Delegates of the State of Virginia, for the Extra Session, 1861.

But that's just what Virginians thought that Virginians thought were the main causes liable "to involve the whole country in the calamities of war".

The question is, what does Artemis think that Virginians thought? He is, after all, himself a Virginian, though somewhat of a latecomer.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Artemis Entreri, posted 09-29-2010 1:30 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7148
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 11 of 193 (584051)
09-29-2010 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Artemis Entreri
09-29-2010 3:38 PM


More on Missouri
quote:
Two members Claiborne Jackson, and William B. Napton, Sr., sought to undermine the power of Missouri's U.S. Senator Thomas Hart Benton. Benton was not anti-slavery, but he opposed its expansion into new territories. Jackson and Napton penned a series of resolutions, which essentially made the following points:

1. Any attempt by Congress to regulate slavery is unconstitutional.

2. The establishment of free territories is an insult to slave holding states.

3. Only people residing in a territory at the time a state constitution was framed could vote to prohibit slavery. Future generations have no right to consider the issue of slavery.

4. Missouri would cooperate with other slaveholding states for their mutual protection against “northern fanaticism.”

The “Jackson Resolutions,” as these were known passed in both houses of the Missouri legislature by an overwhelming majority and signed by Governor Austin King on March 10, 1849. Within a few years, Benton was out of politics.



http://www.friendsar.org/civilwar.html

Jackson was MO governor in 1861.

quote:
Jackson assumed the governor's office on January 2, 1861, and despite a state convention that voted more than 3-1 in favor of Union, vowed to continue the policy of his predecessor Robert M. Stewart, whereby Missouri would be an "armed neutral," refusing to give arms or men to either side in the approaching Civil War, though Jackson personally favored joining the South, and surreptitiously provided both men and arms to the Confederate army.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claiborne_Fox_Jackson

You want to continue with MO or move on?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Artemis Entreri, posted 09-29-2010 3:38 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 12 of 193 (584052)
09-29-2010 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Artemis Entreri
09-29-2010 1:30 PM


For a start
Here is small sample of mobbing violence supporters of slavery, egged on by their Southern backers, used to suppress free speech as guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:

The order is place, action, response, verdict (often under intimidation).

July 20, 1833 Jackson County, Mo. Evening and Morning Star Print shop destroyed, forced to move Recovered minor property damages

Oct. 21, 1835 Boston The Liberator Office ransacked, editor assaulted Editor cited for fomenting riot

Oct. 21, 1835 Utica, N.Y. Oneida Standard and Democrat Type thrown into street Grand jury refuses to indict member of mob

July 12, 1836 Cincinnati Philanthropist Press destroyed Nothing

July 21, 1836 St. Louis Observer Print shop damaged One person acquitted of breach of peace

July 24, 1836 Alton, Ill. Observer Press tossed in river Nothing

July 30, 1836 Cincinnati Philanthropist Print shop damaged, press thrown in river Recovered property damages

Aug. 21, 1837 Alton, Ill. Observer Press destroyed Trial ended inconclusively

Sept. 21, 1837 Alton, Ill. Observer Press destroyed Nothing

Nov. 7, 1837 Alton, Ill. Observer Press destroyed, editor killed Attackers and defenders acquitted of riot

May 17, 1838 Philadelphia Pennsylvania Freeman Print shop destroyed in general riot Property damages recovered

Sept. 3, 1841 Cincinnati Philanthropist Print shop destroyed in general riot Nothing

April 1843 Peoria, Ill. Register Intimidation ends coverage of abolitionism Nothing

Aug. 18, 1845 Lexington, Ky. True American Print shop dismantled Property damages recovered

Sept. 1847 Cambridge, Ohio Clarion of Freedom Paper forced to move Nothing

April 18–20, 1848 Washington, D.C. National Era Mob threatened editor Nothing

Aug. 1851 Newport, Ky. News Print shop burned Nothing

April 14, 1855 Parkville, Mo. Industrial Luminary Press and type thrown in river Property damages recovered

May 21, 1856 Lawrence, Kans. Territory Free State and Herald of Freedom Presses destroyed, editor detained Nothing

Oct. 28–29, 1859 Newport, Ky. Free South Press damaged Grand jury indicted rioters, reverses self

Source: http://www.historycooperative.org/...hr/24.3/kielbowicz.html

The internet is wimpy in this respect, there is a lot more. It's called books.

Come Saturday, we (likely meaning I) will discuss the suppression of free speech in the antebellum South (as in deep South).

Let's Rock!

Edited by anglagard, : Damn, gettin' old, forgot source

Edited by anglagard, : Saturday's discussion


The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
— Salman Rushdie

This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Artemis Entreri, posted 09-29-2010 1:30 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 13 of 193 (584054)
09-29-2010 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Artemis Entreri
09-29-2010 3:38 PM


Arkansas
Here's a view from Albert Pike, Arkansas newspaper magnate and Confederate General:

No concessions would now satisfy (and none ought now to satisfy) the South but such as would amount to a surrender of the distinctive principles by which the Republican Party coheres, because none other or less would give the South peace and security. That Party would have to agree that in the view of the Constitution, slaves are property – that slavery might exist and should be legalized and protected in territory hereafter to be acquired to the southwest, and that Negroes and mulattoes cannot be citizens of the United States nor vote at general elections in the states.

In the words of Arkansas Governor Henry M. Rector, urging secession:

God, in His omnipotent wisdom ... created the cotton plant, the African Negro, and the lower Mississippi Valley, to clothe and feed the world, and a gallant race of men and women produced upon its soil to defend it and execute that decree.

So, Artemis, the actual issue was ... what? What "concessions" did Pike really want from the North? What supposedly divine "decree" except that "Negros" should pick cotton, did Gov. Rector really think that the "gallant race" of Arkansans were defending?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Artemis Entreri, posted 09-29-2010 3:38 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 14 of 193 (584070)
09-30-2010 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Artemis Entreri
09-29-2010 1:30 PM


Confedetopia
The confederacy was not another union to fight against the previous union, but a collection of individual sovereign states.

It was another union --- that's why their Constitution was taken virtually line from line from that of the USA.

In his inaugural address, Jefferson Davis explicitly said:

We have changed the constituent parts, but not the system of government.

Was he mistaken?

The page linked to shows a line-by-line comparison, highlighting the differences. Apart from the bits about slavery, these are largely inconsequential. The most interesting are the introduction of the line-item veto (7.2) and of the provision that a bill could only be about one subject (9.20), both of which seem like ideas worth trying. But neither of these, nor anything else in their C&Ped Constitution, give credence to the idea that this wasn't "another union".

Of particular interest is clause 9.6, which empowers Congress to impose export taxes on member States, something explicitly forbidden in section 9 of the US Constitution. I fail to see how this makes the Confederate States more sovereign. Certainly it shows that this can't have been the guiding principle of the framers of the Confederate Constitution.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Artemis Entreri, posted 09-29-2010 1:30 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 15 of 193 (584073)
09-30-2010 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Artemis Entreri
09-29-2010 1:30 PM


Kentucky
I'm not sure what Missouri and Kentucky are doing in your list --- you seem to be arguing about why they would have seceded if they did, which they didn't.

"Granted, John didn't kill his grandmother, but I tell you if he had, it wouldn't have been because he was motivated by the large sum of money she left him in his will. John just isn't the grasping or mercenary type, and he had no pressing financial needs ..."

Well then, that's probably why he didn't kill his grandmother.

In the same way, let us concede that slavery did not provide sufficient motivation for Missouri or Kentucky to secede --- which is probably why they didn't.

However, let's have a closer look at what they were thinking. Here's Gov. Beriah Magoffin of Kentucky addressing the State of Alabama through its Commissioner S.F. Hale:

The rights of African slavery in the United States and the relations of the Federal Government to it, as an institution in the States and Territories, most assuredly demand at this time explicit definition and final recognition by the North. The slave-holding States are now impelled by the very highest law of self-preservation to demand that this settlement should be concluded upon such a basis as shall not only conserve the institution in localities where it is now recognized, but secure its expansion, under no other restrictions than those which the laws of nature may throw around it.

[...]

It is true that as sovereign political communities the States must determine, each for itself, the grave issues now presented; and it may be that, when driven to the dire extremity of severing their relations with the Federal Government, formal, independent, separate State action will be proper and necessary. But resting, as do these political communities, upon a common social organization, constituting the sole object of attack and invasion, confronted by a common enemy, encompassed by a common peril--in a word, involved in one common cause, it does seem to me that the mode and manner of defense and redress should be determined in a full and free conference of all the Southern States, and that their mutual safety requires full co-oper-ation in carrying out the measures there agreed upon. The source whence oppression is now to be apprehended is an organized power, a political government in operation, to which resistance, though ultimately successful (and I do not for a moment question the issue), might be costly and destructive. We should look these facts in she face, nor close our eyes to what we may reasonably expect to encounter. I have therefore thought that a due regard to the opinions of all the slave-holding States would require that those measures which concern all alike and must ultimately involve all should be agreed upon in common convention and sustained by united action.

I have before expressed the belief and confidence, and do not now totally yield the hope, that if such a convention of delegates from the slave-holding States be assembled, and, after calm deliberation, present to the political party now holding the dominance of power in the Northern States and soon to assume the reins of national power, the firm alternative of ample guarantees to all our rights and security for future immunity or resistance, our just demands would be conceded and the Union be perpetuated stronger than before.

[...]

You ask the co-operation of the Southern States in order to redress our wrongs. So do we. You have no hope of a redress in the Union. We yet look hopefully to assurances that a powerful reaction is going on at the North. You seek a remedy in secession from the Union. We wish the united action of the slave States, assembled in convention within the Union.

To summarize:

* He says that the sole reason for the conflict is slavery.
* He says that Alabama is seceding in defense of slavery.
* He says that Kentucky is staying in the Union to fight for slavery through political means.

Was he wrong on any of these points?

Your call.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Artemis Entreri, posted 09-29-2010 1:30 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by ruby01, posted 07-16-2012 2:36 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022