Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,814 posts, read 34,678,989 times
Reputation: 10256
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by NDL
I can't (yet) rep you again; thank you for your time, and very edifying, post.
You're welcome. I was searching for specific people and what happened to them. Some never made it home. I found a plethora of information. It's amazing.
I never thought to ask myself what you're asking because I came at it from a totally different angle.
Oh and by the way, I found Civil War dictionaries to translate, if needed. Expect to see language that would be verboten today.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,814 posts, read 34,678,989 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by mckee16
I get your drift, bUt Lincoln was a political genius. By the time of the emancipation proclamation, Lincoln was looking for any leverage against a southern Confederacy which was holding its own against a much more powerful foe. So he freed the slaves where he had no power to do so, but did not free a single slave in union territory, where he easily could. He hoped to turn southern secession into a holy war against slavery which he pretty much did.
As an aside, RE Lee freed his inherited slaves before the war because he thought it was the right thing to do. General Grant kept his slaves until well after the war until he was obligated to free them by law.
Grant had one slave who he freed in 1859. Are you confusing Grant with George H Thomas?
“The catch is that there’s more to that sentence, something we southerners are never taught: The Civil War was fought for states’ rights to enslave African people in the United States of America. Robert E. Lee is my ancestor. Take down his statue, and let his cause be lost.“
Just a couple of sentences from a piece in today’s Washington Post from Robert E. Lee IV, an ancestor of General Robert E. Lee.
That said, if we look at historical documents, we see that *many* factors were behind the War. Lincoln was a White separatist; historians have been far too kind to him.
For someone to deny that slavery had a role in the War, is incorrect. At the same time, to ignore the multitude of factors present behind the succession effort, is to be historically inaccurate.
Slavery was THE central, overarching issue in the forming of the Confederacy which led to the Civil War. All of those other factors, like taxation, fall under that and no amount of historical revisionism will change that. You DO know that you quoted excerpts from a document entitled "Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States" right? Not "Overtaxed States" or even "Southern States," but SLAVEHOLDING states. The rest of the document clearly demonstrates how differences in taxation in the North vs the South was based on slavery. It is disingenuous to present regional differences in taxation as some unrelated factor that in and of itself carried as much weight as slavery that contributed to the Civil War. This is why the document concludes:
Experience has proved, that slaveholding States cannot be safe in subjection to non-slaveholding States. Indeed, no people ever expect to preserve its rights and liberties, unless these be in its own custody. To plunder and oppress, where plunder and oppression can be practiced with impunity, seems to be the natural order of things. The fairest portions of the world elsewhere, have been turned into wilderness; and the most civilized and prosperous communities, have been impoverished and ruined by anti-slavery fanaticism. The people of the North have not left us in doubt, as to their designs and policy. United as a section in the late Presidential election, they have elected as the exponent of their policy, one who has openly declared that all the States of the United States must be made free States or slave States. It is true, that amongst those who aided in this election, there are various shades of anti-slavery hostility. But if African slavery in the Southern States, be the evil their political combination affirms it to be, the requisitions of an inexorable logic, must lead them to emancipation. If it is right, to preclude or abolish slavery in a territory–why should it be allowed to remain in the States? The one is not at all more unconstitutional than the other, according to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. And when it is considered, that the Northern States will soon have the power to make that Court what they please, and that the Constitution has never been any barrier whatever to their exercise of power–what check can there be, in the unrestrained councils of the North, to emancipation?
Anyone who reads that document in its entirety and comes to the conclusion that there were all sorts of factors that lead to the forming of the Confederacy and thus the Civil War is simply not being honest. The points made concerning economics, culture, politics, etc by the Confederacy were all ASPECTS of the central pro-slavery argument and not standalone, unrelated factors collectively contributing to the formation of the CSA and the start of the War.
None of this should be confused with personal reasons and motivations for going to war on the part of individual soldiers on either side of the conflict, but it would be the hugest stretch to argue that soldiers on either side were unaware of what each side ultimately stood for and what victory for their side would mean in the grander scheme of things.
Seeing your good natured posture, i'm trying to express this in a way that isn't incendiary (although I seem to be failing ):
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but unless my impression is wrong, you seem intent on believing that the State was motivated to succession solely on the basis of slavery.
I understand, and laud, your position towards people of all races and creeds; clearly, at the very least, slavery was a stain on America's past that should never have taken place; the practice is abominable.
That said, if we look at historical documents, we see that *many* factors were behind the War. Lincoln was a White separatist; historians have been far too kind to him.
For someone to deny that slavery had a role in the War, is incorrect. At the same time, to ignore the multitude of factors present behind the succession effort, is to be historically inaccurate.
It's a lot of reading, but part of the answers to our questions are there:
***
"The Southern States, now stand exactly in the same position towards the Northern States, that the Colonies did towards Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British parliament. “The General Welfare,” is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation, this “General Welfare” requires. Thus, the Government of the United States has become a consolidated Government; and the people of the Southern State, are compelled to meet the very despotism, their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776."
"The consolidation of the Government of Great Britain over the Colonies, was attempted to be carried out by the taxes. The British parliament undertook to tax the Colonies, to promote British interests. Our father, resisted this pretension. They claimed the right of self-taxation through their Colonial Legislatures. They were not represented in the British Parliament, and therefore could not rightfully be taxed by its Legislature. The British Government, however, offered them a representation in parliament; but it was not sufficient to enable them to protect themselves from the majority, and they refused the offer. Between taxation without any representation, and taxation without a representation adequate to protection, there was no difference. In neither case would the Colonies tax themselves. Hence, they refused to pay the taxes laid by the British parliament."
"And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue–to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures."
"There is another evil, in the condition of the Southern toward the Northern States, which our ancestors refused to bear toward Great Britain. Our ancestors not only taxed themselves, but all the taxes collected from them, were expended among them. Had they submitted to the pretensions of the British Government, the taxes collected from them, would have been expended in other parts of the British Empire. They were fully aware of the effect of such a policy in impoverishing the people from whom taxes are collected, and in enriching those who receive the benefit of their expenditure. To prevent the evils of such a policy, was one of the motives which drove them on to Revolution. Yet this British policy, has been fully realized towards the Southern States, by the Northern States. The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three-fourths of them are expended at the North. This cause, with others, connected with the operation of the General Government, has made the cities of the South provincial. Their growth is paralyzed; they are mere suburbs of Northern cities. The agricultural productions of the South are the basis of the foreign commerce of the United States; yet Southern cities do not carry it on. Our foreign trade, is almost annihilated. In 1740, there were five shipyards in South Carolina, to build ships to carry on our direct trade with Europe. Between 1740 and 1779, there were built in these yards twenty-five square rigged vessels, besides a great number of sloops and schooners, to carry on our coast and West India trade. In the half century immediately preceding the Revolution, from 1725 to 1775, the population of South Carolina increased seven-fold."
Funny that the declaration that you cherry picked uses the word "SLAVE" 33 times in it's entirety. And the state wasn't arguing any other issue than slavery. They just found someone who was a better writer to create more flowery prose.
Slavery was THE central, overarching issue in the forming of the Confederacy which led to the Civil War. All of those other factors, like taxation, fall under that and no amount of historical revisionism will change that.
How so?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77
You DO know that you quoted excerpts from a document entitled "Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States" right? Not "Overtaxed States" or even "Southern States," but SLAVEHOLDING states.
I just looked into this further, and by the numbers, you're right; I was wrong. There's no need to debate this further.
I saw the duplicity of Lincoln's positions, and saw that the Emancipation Proclamation applied only to enslaved people in the Confederacy, and not to those in the border states that remained loyal to the Union. Seeing the contradictions, along with other tangibles, I concluded that the War effort came as a result of several factors, among which was the institution of slavery.
I still view Lincoln as a scoundrel, yet I cannot deny the well written and presented arguments that you produced. By the sheer numbers, several States in the Northeast held no slaves at the time at which the War was fought. I am now reconsidering my position on certain things.
I just looked into this further, and by the numbers, you're right; I was wrong. There's no need to debate this further.
I saw the duplicity of Lincoln's positions, and saw that the Emancipation Proclamation applied only to enslaved people in the Confederacy, and not to those in the border states that remained loyal to the Union. Seeing the contradictions, along with other tangibles, I concluded that the War effort came as a result of several factors, among which was the institution of slavery.
I still view Lincoln as a scoundrel, yet I cannot deny the well written and presented arguments that you produced. By the sheer numbers, several States in the Northeast held no slaves at the time at which the War was fought. I am now reconsidering my position on certain things.
I certainly respect your willingness to consider counterarguments and ability to allow the propensity of evidence to lead the way. Unfortunately, that's not so common these days.
I certainly respect your willingness to consider counterarguments and ability to allow the propensity of evidence to lead the way. Unfortunately, that's not so common these days.
That's very kind of you to say...one thing that I live by: the day a person stops learning, is the day that they die.
Now...I still don't see the North's war efforts as being motivated out of nobility, and I still see Lincoln as a white separatist/political opportunist/scoundrel. Yet everything you said about the South is correct, and I too, have very strong feelings about how people of color have been mistreated.
That's very kind of you to say...one thing that I live by: the day a person stops learning, is the day that they die.
Now...I still don't see the North's war efforts as being motivated out of nobility, and I still see Lincoln as a white separatist/political opportunist/scoundrel. Yet everything you said about the South is correct, and I too, have very strong feelings about how people of color have been mistreated.
I am glad you hung in there with me
Sure. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt at the outset and proceed from there. And I agree with you; we should always be open to learning and understanding.
.
I do agree with you concerning the North's motivations. Well, I should say there was indeed a subset of Northerners who opposed slavery on moral grounds (although the vast majority did not believe that slaves were equal to Whites), but the North certainly profited from slavery. It is well known that many of the nation's oldest and most well-known universities, banks, insurance companies, etc. held slaves as capital. But in the decades leading up to the Civil War, the growing political divide between North and South based on discrepancies between state populations and Congressional seniority (Northern states had larger free populations but the 3/5 clause in the Constitution resulted in equal representation and greater seniority among Southern politicians in Congress), as well as major sociocultural differences (master/slave relationship serving as the template for all relationships in the South), was leading the nation to a breaking point. Most importantly, and quite paradoxically, the invention of the cotton gin made cotton a much more profitable crop but instead of spurring industrialization which would have increased efficiency and diversified the economy, it created a greater demand for labor on several large plantations and in the Deep South which lacked a free market, that meant a larger enslaved population and wealthy planters becoming even more disproportionately wealthy. Over the long term, this retarded economic development throughout the South and by extension, the rest of the nation:
...there can be no doubt that opponents of slavery had come to view the South's "peculiar institution," as an obstacle to economic growth. Despite clear evidence that slavery was profitable, abolitionists--and many people who were not abolitionists--felt strongly that slavery degraded labor, inhibited urbanization and mechanization, thwarted industrialization, and stifled progress, and associated slavery with economic backwardness, inefficiency, indebtedness, and economic and social stagnation. When the North waged war on slavery, it was not because it had overcome racism; rather, it was because Northerners in increasing numbers identified their society with progress and viewed slavery as an intolerable obstacle to innovation, moral improvement, free labor, and commercial and economic growth.
As far as Lincoln goes, certainly he believed in the supremacy of the White race and his commitment was to preserving the Union first and foremost, whether that entailed preserving slavery or abolishing it. Every major political decision in American history involving a moral issue was always made on the basis of political expediency, whether the decision was regressive (the Compromise of 1877 that ended Reconstruction) or progressive (LBJ's passage of Civil Rights legislation in the late 60's).
Sure. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt at the outset and proceed from there. And I agree with you; we should always be open to learning and understanding.
.
I do agree with you concerning the North's motivations. Well, I should say there was indeed a subset of Northerners who opposed slavery on moral grounds (although the vast majority did not believe that slaves were equal to Whites), but the North certainly profited from slavery. It is well known that many of the nation's oldest and most well-known universities, banks, insurance companies, etc. held slaves as capital. But in the decades leading up to the Civil War, the growing political divide between North and South based on discrepancies between state populations and Congressional seniority (Northern states had larger free populations but the 3/5 clause in the Constitution resulted in equal representation and greater seniority among Southern politicians in Congress), as well as major sociocultural differences (master/slave relationship serving as the template for all relationships in the South), was leading the nation to a breaking point. Most importantly, and quite paradoxically, the invention of the cotton gin made cotton a much more profitable crop but instead of spurring industrialization which would have increased efficiency and diversified the economy, it created a greater demand for labor on several large plantations and in the Deep South which lacked a free market, that meant a larger enslaved population and wealthy planters becoming even more disproportionately wealthy. Over the long term, this retarded economic development throughout the South and by extension, the rest of the nation:
...there can be no doubt that opponents of slavery had come to view the South's "peculiar institution," as an obstacle to economic growth. Despite clear evidence that slavery was profitable, abolitionists--and many people who were not abolitionists--felt strongly that slavery degraded labor, inhibited urbanization and mechanization, thwarted industrialization, and stifled progress, and associated slavery with economic backwardness, inefficiency, indebtedness, and economic and social stagnation. When the North waged war on slavery, it was not because it had overcome racism; rather, it was because Northerners in increasing numbers identified their society with progress and viewed slavery as an intolerable obstacle to innovation, moral improvement, free labor, and commercial and economic growth.
As far as Lincoln goes, certainly he believed in the supremacy of the White race and his commitment was to preserving the Union first and foremost, whether that entailed preserving slavery or abolishing it. Every major political decision in American history involving a moral issue was always made on the basis of political expediency, whether the decision was regressive (the Compromise of 1877 that ended Reconstruction) or progressive (LBJ's passage of Civil Rights legislation in the late 60's).
I thank you for your very informative and well written reply. It would seem then, that You & I are on the same page as to our feelings about the North.
Can you therefore see, how I concluded that the War consisted of several factors, not just slavery? Because it would seem, and I say this in agreement with you, that while there were abolitionist movements in the North, as a whole, at the Federal level, she enacted her war effort upon the South, being guided by issues outside of morality.
In other words, I am not saying that the prevailing practices in the South weren't morally reprehensible; my assertion is simply that, when it came to the poor treatment of people of color, the Federal government had it's share of culpability as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
):
