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.
You've stated emphatically, several times, that there were realistic plans underway to end slavery without compensation. While I have no doubt that there were those who'd love to bankrupt a few competitors, I've never heard anyone seriously claim that this was some sort of insidious master plan just waiting to be sprung.
Do you have a cite or two that this was the intention of the non-slave states, and that it was a remotely realistic option? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it took an amendment to end slavery. Weren't the slave states in a position to block amendments quite easily?
Making slavery illegal, didn't need an amendment. However, emancipating the slaves did take that. There is a difference.
As for a cite, or source, I'm going to have to hit the library for that. As I said before, the web is slightly new, and newer books rarely, if ever, tell the whole story of the lead up to the civil war. To the victor belongs the spoils, and the history. We've even spun the Revolutionary war. Hell, Brittan had every right to require us to pay taxes. They had spent millions of dollars defending us from the French. Yet, you don't hear that in most history books either do you?
Oh please, making excuses for treason won't change it. I'm retired Army, I live in a town where basically the entire place is nin the military or retired from it. We already see more action from the Federal government than the State. Perhaps that's why unemployment is 4.5% here.
Making slavery illegal, didn't need an amendment. However, emancipating the slaves did take that. There is a difference.
As for a cite, or source, I'm going to have to hit the library for that. As I said before, the web is slightly new, and newer books rarely, if ever, tell the whole story of the lead up to the civil war. To the victor belongs the spoils, and the history. We've even spun the Revolutionary war. Hell, Brittan had every right to require us to pay taxes. They had spent millions of dollars defending us from the French. Yet, you don't hear that in most history books either do you?
Yes actually you do hear that perspective. What you hear about the Civil War, especially from Southern writers is a lot of "Lost Cause" nonsense, so the winners really didn't write history in this case any more than the losers did.
The North and Lincoln never threatened to abolish slavery before the war. What the Republican intended to do was prevent the spread of slavery to new territories.
Slavery was a corrupt and inefficient system. By the beginning of the Civil War the only way Virginia slave owners made money was by breeding and selling slaves. Slave-based agriculture in Virginia was a money losing proposition.
So if the US Army were to march into Arizona, seizing property and taking control of the government, you'd welcome them with open arms, happily letting them take anything that you owned?
Seizing of private property didn't happen in the Civil War. Even Lee was compensated for the loss of the Curtis homestead to form Arlington Cemetery. Sherman's orders to his troops on his "march to the sea" forbid the taking of private property without compensation and proscribed destruction of farms unless they were used to harbor Confederate troops or civilian insurgents.
Yes actually you do hear that perspective. What you hear about the Civil War, especially from Southern writers is a lot of "Lost Cause" nonsense, so the winners really didn't write history in this case any more than the losers did.
The North and Lincoln never threatened to abolish slavery before the war. What the Republican intended to do was prevent the spread of slavery to new territories.
Slavery was a corrupt and inefficient system. By the beginning of the Civil War the only way Virginia slave owners made money was by breeding and selling slaves. Slave-based agriculture in Virginia was a money losing proposition.
Slavery was wrong. It was morally just an awful practice, and economically it was actually hurting the South. Which is why Southern leaders like Jefferson, Washington, Carter had been advocating the gradual abolition of the practice for decades.
Gradual, for a reason. Farming isn't all that lucrative. In agrarian systems, the wealth is all tied up in the land. In order to make improvements on that land, in order to plant crops each year, requires capital. And to acquire that capital, the vast majority of farmers take out loans which they repay when they take their crops to market. But if you're a banker, do you make loans on the value of a future crop, one that may not come to fruition due to drought or flood or pests or frost, or do you make the loans on the value of assets. And in the 19th century, banks considered slaves assets. And made loans accordingly. This is one of the ways that slaves were entwined in an economic system as more than just a labor source. And when you have that kind of complexity in a system, you cannot abruptly end a system, it takes time to disengage the multiple relationships.
Even Lincoln, AFTER the start of the Civil War, was working on legislation to compensate slave owners for the loss of property. Because Lincoln was a pragmatist. He was looking at the big picture. He was bent on relocating the slaves abroad, to Liberia (too far, inhospitable climate, newly freed people might be unwilling), to Haiti (considered to uncivilized), to South America (South and Central American countries unwilling to accept such a large infusion of immigrants). Lincoln's goal was to preserve the union. Less than 5% of Southerners owned slaves, the majority of Southerners had neither an interest nor incentive in maintaining the institutionn. But they had an interest in having a voice in their government. A voice they'd lost in the federal government in the United States. A voice that they had no reasonable expectation of regaining. Because the numbers weren't there. Northern, urban populations outnumbered Southern, rural populations, and the trend was growing.
American patriots had fought for independence from England to have a voice in their own government. They'd formed a new government that was meant to ensure that voice. But the simple fact is that the South was outnumbered population-wise from the very beginning. By 1860, the reality of their situation was made clear.
The South had a voice in the US government, they just couldn't get their way. They tried to leave by force of arms. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
The South had a voice in the US government, they just couldn't get their way. They tried to leave by force of arms. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
The South was outnumbered. And the trend was growing. What kind of voice is it when you are ALWAYS going to lose?
The South was outnumbered. And the trend was growing. What kind of voice is it when you are ALWAYS going to lose?
That what happens in a representative democracy. If you have a minority position, you rarely get your way. That's called democracy and it's what we fought our revolution about.
But they had an interest in having a voice in their government. A voice they'd lost in the federal government in the United States. A voice that they had no reasonable expectation of regaining. Because the numbers weren't there. Northern, urban populations outnumbered Southern, rural populations, and the trend was growing.
American patriots had fought for independence from England to have a voice in their own government. They'd formed a new government that was meant to ensure that voice. But the simple fact is that the South was outnumbered population-wise from the very beginning. By 1860, the reality of their situation was made clear.
This is very interesting. You have demonstrated that the Confederate traitors of 1861 were very similar to the conservatives of today. As soon as an election goes against them, they whine that they have no voice in government and they proclaim the illegitimacy of the President.
For instance, as soon as Clinton was elected, Rush Limbaugh started opening his program with "America Held Hostage, Day xxx". Conservatives loudly shouted that he wasn't their president, or their commander in chief, and that he'd better be very careful visiting military bases, particularly in the South.
The same thing is true with Obama. We hear the most ridiculous claims about his birth and citizenship, with absolutely no factual support, to argue that he isn't legitimately President. We hear people on these very boards arguing the desibability of a military coup.
This is not true of liberals. We didn't like Nixon but we never argued that he wasn't the legal president even after he got caught trying to steal the 1968 election. We didn't like Reagan or Bush, but we never argued that they were usurpers or interlopers. Bush 43 is another matter, of course, but that's only because he did, in fact, steal the election with the help of his allies on the Supreme Court.
Making slavery illegal, didn't need an amendment. However, emancipating the slaves did take that. There is a difference.
I can appreciate the distinction you're trying to draw here...but at the same time, it's difficult to see how you'd have one without the other. Are we talking "trading only" vs. "already held slaves" here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
Less than 5% of Southerners owned slaves, the majority of Southerners had neither an interest nor incentive in maintaining the institutionn. But they had an interest in having a voice in their government. A voice they'd lost in the federal government in the United States. A voice that they had no reasonable expectation of regaining. Because the numbers weren't there. Northern, urban populations outnumbered Southern, rural populations, and the trend was growing.
American patriots had fought for independence from England to have a voice in their own government. They'd formed a new government that was meant to ensure that voice. But the simple fact is that the South was outnumbered population-wise from the very beginning. By 1860, the reality of their situation was made clear.
Even a voice that loses is still a voice. Are you suggesting that the southern states should have been given (even more) disproportionate representation in order to preserve the union?
No doubt, though, the numbers were certainly not trending in their favor. Does that justify secession, that they don't have the votes to do what they want? I think some interesting parallels could be drawn between that and present-day "rural vs. urban" concerns.
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.
