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.
GS makes a good point about the break down of normal politics, which actually was occuring for years before the civil war. In one example of this a southern represenative almost beat a northern senator to death for making disparging comments about his state. The hatred built up over time and became too powerful to stop eventually (something I think about a lot as we increasingly engage in low level civil conflict between the right and left now).
I think, as a lifetime southerner, that the traditions of violence and arrogence that was common in the south also contributed to the war. The southerers of the time commonly resorted to violence in addressing problems (a point noted by Lee among others) and were completely contemptuous of the north. They thought a battle or two and the northern rabble would run away. Had they been a tad more humble, or interested in using politics to solve problems rather than combat, things might have gone differently.
I agree here Southern social and political culture at the time was very much based on honour paternalsim and easy use of violence it probobly contributed to the war South is still very consevative tradtionalist paternalist and elitist in its political culture though.
only 1 issue. heavy tariff taxes by congress on southern cotton trade with england. this was strictly unconstitutional.
this is why the southern states walked out on congress. this is why they fired on ft sumter.
slavery was never on the the agenda untll lincoln made it an issue. history has been rewritten by NAACP and the social engineering machine called K12.
only 1 issue. heavy tariff taxes by congress on southern cotton trade with england. this was strictly unconstitutional.
this is why the southern states walked out on congress. this is why they fired on ft sumter.
slavery was never on the the agenda untll lincoln made it an issue. history has been rewritten by NAACP and the social engineering machine called K12.
I don't believe the United States has ever had an export tariff on cotton or anything else.
only 1 issue. heavy tariff taxes by congress on southern cotton trade with england. this was strictly unconstitutional.
this is why the southern states walked out on congress. this is why they fired on ft sumter.
slavery was never on the the agenda untll lincoln made it an issue. history has been rewritten by NAACP and the social engineering machine called K12.
And the above is why the Civil War erupted over the nullification crisis during the Jackson administration. When South Carolina made its stand against tariffs, all the other Southern States rallied to its side.
Well...hey...as long as we are all rewriting history.
only 1 issue. heavy tariff taxes by congress on southern cotton trade with england. this was strictly unconstitutional.
this is why the southern states walked out on congress. this is why they fired on ft sumter.
slavery was never on the the agenda untll lincoln made it an issue. history has been rewritten by NAACP and the social engineering machine called K12.
And the tariff issue was a ploy by Founders to rupture Terran unity so the Jem Haddar armada could move in from the Gamma Quadrent.
And the tariff issue was a ploy by Founders to rupture Terran unity so the Jem Haddar armada could move in from the Gamma Quadrent.
You conspiracy theory buffs are a laugh. Everyone knows that Jem Haddar was simply being opportunistic and was not in league with the founders who were counting on a Borg takeover.
You conspiracy theory buffs are a laugh. Everyone knows that Jem Haddar was simply being opportunistic and was not in league with the founders who were counting on a Borg takeover.
As you know northern shipping interests were heavily involved in the assimilation trade.
Guess its a matter of determining whether "The Car" is slavery or the legality of secession then...
No matter.
I see it as a cop giving a man a ticket for speeding because he was trying to get his pregnant wife to the hospital...
Why did he get the ticket?
It wasn't because his wife was having a baby. He got it for speeding.
Well, so much for dueling analogies. It is the responsibility of the historian to explain matters without taking sides. In that role I am satisfied to explain it as the South, with a minority of the population, reacting to what they perceived as a threat to those things which had previously allowed them to exercise politcal power equal to and sometimes greater than the population majority which resided in the North. The foundation of my argument is that the two sides had been at odds over the slavery issue since the founding of the nation. After eight decades of applying compromises to this dispute, suddenly the North was in a position to win it. The curbing of the expansion of slavery did indeed mean that the South was going to be losing political clout. Thus the most accurate bumper sticker version of the cause comes out not as "Slavery caused the war" but rather, "The politics of slavery caused the war." And of course it was slavery which created the politics of slavery. So yeah, at bottom, it was about slavery.
It certainly wasn't a war about tariffs or internal improvements or transcontinetal railroads. And it was not a war about States rights which I view as a rather absurd assertion. If the war was about States rights, then we would have the preposterous situation where the South left the union simply to prove that they could do so.
Where we disagree seems to be in the justice of the South's reaction. You interpret it as did the South in 1860...our rights are threatened and in the great Jeffersonian tradition, we have a right to revolt to protect those rights. I see it more as the South being dishonorable and refusing to live up to their end of the political contract....they lost an election. The whole idea of a republic was that matters are to be settled by elections rather than anarchy or despotism. To my thinking, the South had an absolute obligation to live with the results of the 1860 election and make the best of it. That was the deal to which they agreed when the Southern States ratified the Constitution. I do not accept in any manner the idea of trying to compare the South's right to revolt to the revolution against England. The British relationship with the colonies was one which was imposed without any general consent on the part of those who endured it. To the Brits it was "Here is our policy, conform yourselves to it." That wasn't the case when the Southern States voluntarily agrred to be part of the Union and to abide by the laws established to make it prosperous and long enduring. They took on the obligation, did so in a democractic manner, and the Northern States had every right to insist that they live up to those agreements.
I just cannot get around the idea of the South as spoiled children, sore losers, people who will cooperate with and exploit the system as long as the outcomes are favoring them, but cut and run the moment they are faced with an unfavorable result. To me, what the South did corresponds to a basefall fan demanding his money back because the home team failed to win that day.
The last two paragraphs above represent my personal views and that would be a different argument.
Well, so much for dueling analogies. It is the responsibility of the historian to explain matters without taking sides. In that role I am satisfied to explain it as the South, with a minority of the population, reacting to what they perceived as a threat to those things which had previously allowed them to exercise politcal power equal to and sometimes greater than the population majority which resided in the North. The foundation of my argument is that the two sides had been at odds over the slavery issue since the founding of the nation. After eight decades of applying compromises to this dispute, suddenly the North was in a position to win it. The curbing of the expansion of slavery did indeed mean that the South was going to be losing political clout. Thus the most accurate bumper sticker version of the cause comes out not as "Slavery caused the war" but rather, "The politics of slavery caused the war." And of course it was slavery which created the politics of slavery. So yeah, at bottom, it was about slavery.
But in acknowledging that the two sides had been at odds since the inception of the nation it is, IMO, necessary to assume that the nation was built on a compromise, or in this case TWO compromises:
1) That the slavery issue will not be addressed or touched.
and
2) That we will not assign any sort of permanence in writing to the Union, because to do so would essentially have the Anti-Federalists signing away the sovereignty of their state which we both know that they would NEVER have done voluntarily.
Unfortunately issue #1 kept rearing its ugly head and issue #2 which had never had a reason to be tested, NOW had a reason.
It is my opinion that the North COULD have simply agreed to the separation as the differences were obviously irreconcilable, but instead they chose to subdue the other half of the country through force...
This is why I will ALWAYS claim that the separation was due to slavery, but the WAR was due to the argument over the right of secession.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grandstander
It certainly wasn't a war about tariffs or internal improvements or transcontinetal railroads. And it was not a war about States rights which I view as a rather absurd assertion. If the war was about States rights, then we would have the preposterous situation where the South left the union simply to prove that they could do so.
Agree except for the last part. Why test something for the sake of testing it? The South had an issue that it felt strongly enough about to test their views on State's Rights and did so....
To re-iterate, I think we both can understand that without some understanding that states weren't signing away their sovereignty, the Constitution never gets ratified.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grandstander
Where we disagree seems to be in the justice of the South's reaction. You interpret it as did the South in 1860...our rights are threatened and in the great Jeffersonian tradition, we have a right to revolt to protect those rights. I see it more as the South being dishonorable and refusing to live up to their end of the political contract....they lost an election. The whole idea of a republic was that matters are to be settled by elections rather than anarchy or despotism. To my thinking, the South had an absolute obligation to live with the results of the 1860 election and make the best of it. That was the deal to which they agreed when the Southern States ratified the Constitution. I do not accept in any manner the idea of trying to compare the South's right to revolt to the revolution against England. The British relationship with the colonies was one which was imposed without any general consent on the part of those who endured it. To the Brits it was "Here is our policy, conform yourselves to it." That wasn't the case when the Southern States voluntarily agrred to be part of the Union and to abide by the laws established to make it prosperous and long enduring. They took on the obligation, did so in a democractic manner, and the Northern States had every right to insist that they live up to those agreements.
Well, let's remember that most of these people came over as British subjects and were born British subjects... The relationship wasn't "imposed". It was there from the beginning and understood as a condition of settling the colonies in the first place (to most, not to all).
Anyway, I can agree that the South could have handled Lincoln's election much better than it did, but as I've stated previously, the "deal" that was ratified implied that slavery wouldn't be under threat and would always be a right afforded to the states... They began to see that this was no longer going to be the case (whether true or not), and felt that politically, slavery was in its death roll in the United States.....
To me, the reaction of the Upper South has always been the deciding factor in this argument.... The four states that didn't see the issue of slavery worth seceding over, but only once it became clear that the right of the other southern states to secede was going to be squelched by Federal force did they decide to join the cause...
Speaks volumes to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grandstander
I just cannot get around the idea of the South as spoiled children, sore losers, people who will cooperate with and exploit the system as long as the outcomes are favoring them, but cut and run the moment they are faced with an unfavorable result. To me, what the South did corresponds to a basefall fan demanding his money back because the home team failed to win that day.
Well, they definately could have waited to see if team management was going to honor their request before bolting...
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.
