Posted on 05/19/2015 10:33:26 PM PDT by iowamark
Even while the Civil War raged, slaves in Cuba could be heard singing, “Avanza, Lincoln, avanza! Tu eres nuestra esperanza!” (Onward, Lincoln, Onward! You are our hope!) – as if they knew, even before the soldiers fighting the war far to the North and long before most politicians understood, that the war in America would change their lives, and the world.
The secession crisis of 1860-1861 threatened to be a major setback to the world antislavery movement, and it imperiled the whole experiment in democracy. If slavery was allowed to exist, and if the world’s leading democracy could fall apart over the issue, what hope did freedom have? European powers wasted no time in taking advantage of the debacle. France and Britain immediately each sent fleets of warships with the official purpose of observing the imminent war in America. In Paris, A New York Times correspondent who went by the byline “Malakoff” thought that the French and British observers “may be intended as a sort of escort of honor for the funeral of the Great Republic.”
...the French forced Benito Juárez, the republican leader, to flee the capital and eventually installed the Austrian archduke Maximilian as emperor of Mexico.
European conservatives welcomed the dismemberment of the “once United States” and the bursting of the “republican bubble” that, beginning with the French Revolution, had inspired revolution and unrest in Europe. Republicanism had been in retreat in Europe since the failed revolutions of 1848, and some predicted that all the wayward American republics would eventually find their way back to some form of monarchy, or seek protection under European imperial rule. When Lincoln, in the darkest days of the war, referred to America as the “last best hope of earth,” he was hardly boasting...
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com ...
He didn’t have to mention the secessionists’ attack on Ft Sumter, it was huge news, and was the event that made the call-up both possible and necessary. That the attack wasn’t too bright goes without saying — it was a Democratic Party idea.
“That the attack wasn’t too bright goes without saying — it was a Democratic Party idea.”
The man who ordered the firing on Ft Sumter, General PGT Beauregard, had run for mayor of New Orleans in 1858. He was promoted by both the Whig and the Democratic Parties. The Whigs were Lincoln’s old party.
How would that have posed a threat?
The balance of power in Congress would have shifted dramatically to the North.
Without the southern states that would be pretty much a given.
Only in Haiti and the US was the end of slavery accompanied by a bloodbath.
Only in the U.S. was one section of the country willing to go to war to protect slavery.
What is your source for that?
Actually the result of my answer is very clear.......none of the Ordinances of Secession contains language that supports any assertion about slavery.
I don’t know....one of the dozens of books I’ve read about the civil war. But it shouldn’t be too difficult to put Stephens and his quote in a search engine and have something pop up.
You’re dodging the question, but that doesn’t surprise me.
Why does your statement “the official statements of the secession conventions were those approved by the people” apply to the ordinances but not the declarations?
Two strawmen in one breath - congratulations. Most Americans are aware that Colonialists did not "secede" from the crown. After years of effort made to find a platform for their grievances and overt acts of aggression and tyranny the Colonialists unambiguously declared that they were in a state of rebellion against king and crown.
Most Americans also knew that although the Constitution does not speak to an enumerated provision or process for secession, there was a reason for that silence. The reason was that the Republic was assembled in perpetuity and no Founder wished to be the author of its demise.
Reasonable people knew that honorable people would fight out their differences in the proper forum - the Congress or the courts. Too bad that the slavers were neither honorable or reasonable people.
If you had taken the time to look up Stephens’ speech, you would have found that it came from the recollections of someone that was quoted and then printed by a newspaper...not a primary source and nothing more than one opinion.
You entered this thread claiming:
Well, good luck. On one of these CW threads years ago I made reference to the Ordinances of Secession trying to convince the diehards(sp) why the Southern states seceded.(Not possible from that limited information.)
Every OOS made it plain slavery was the main reason they were seceding.(Not true as admitted by you and Bubba)
And for good measure I'd throw in Confederate Veep Alexander Stephens’s quote about slavery being “the cornerstone of the Confederacy.” All to no avail.(Of course you had no effect since you were presenting limited and incorrect information.)
Basically it's banging your head against a brick wall trying to convince the diehards(sp).
The reason you think you are “banging your head” is that you are quoting incorrectly and deriving conclusions that are not based on the limited facts you think you have.
Let's see if you are the die hard or do some research.
The Ordinances of Secession were the documents drafted and ratified in 1860 and 1861 by each of the states that signified their formal secession from the United States of America. Each state ratified its own ordinance of secession, typically by means of a special convention delegation or by general referendum.
The ‘declarations’ were issued by 4 states and were simply various opinions and comments adopted into the records.
Why does your statement “the official statements of the secession conventions were those approved by the people” apply to the ordinances but not the declarations?
The union victory in the civil war threw gasoline on the fire of republicanism throughout the world. The hoped for disintegration of the United States did not happen. World wide anti-royalist social movements exploded and Karl Marx was one of many to ride the wave of republicanism.
And in Stephens' memoir, he says, regarding the speech:
The relation of the black to the white race, or the proper status of the coloured population amongst us, was a question now of vastly more importance than when the old Constitution was formed. The order of subordination was nature's great law; philosophy taught that order as the normal condition of the African amongst European races. Upon this recognized principle of a proper subordination, let it be called slavery or what not, our State institutions were formed and rested. The new Confederation was entered into with this distinct under- standing. This principle of the subordination of the inferior to the superior was the " corner- stone" on which it was formed.
I just did.
You think that continuing to argue this point serves as cover your error on the content of the Ordinances?
Not much of a man if you can’t admit your error...and bullying a useless point does not change the facts.
None?
Alabama:
"Whereas, the election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of president and vice-president of the United States of America, by a sectional party, avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions…"
"And as it is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South…"
Texas:
"WHEREAS, The recent developments in Federal affairs make it evident that the power of the Federal Government is sought to be made a weapon with which to strike down the interests and property of the people of Texas, and her sister slave-holding States…"
Virginia:
"...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 slave-holding States"
In the television series The Office, office manager Michael Scott is having money woes. A co-worker suggests that he look into bankruptcy. In a dramatic scene Scott walks into the main workroom and shouts, “I..declare...BANKRUPTCY!”
The co-worker pulls Michael aside and say, “It doesn’t work that way. You can’t simply declare it and have it be in effect.”
Likewise the states in rebellion could have simply written “Mashed potatoes” in their Ordinances and possessed documents that held the same irrelevancy in law as what they published.
In what post did I make this error?
Not much of a man if you can’t admit your error...and bullying a useless point does not change the facts.
So you're never going to explain why ordinances of secession issued by the conventions are valid expressions but declarations of causes issued by those same conventions are not, are you? Who's the coward?
Again.
Actually the result of my answer is very clear.......none of the Ordinances of Secession contains language that supports any assertion about slavery.
So your position is that just because they mention slavery doesn't mean they mention slavery.
Why are the ordinances valid expressions of the people and the declarations are not?
“That Confederacy would have inconvenienced Mississippi River traffic but would have posed no other threat than perhaps an economic one of lower tariffs.”
“How would that have posed a threat?”
Before 1803 the Spanish used to restrict Mississippi river trade when they controlled New Orleans. Northern traders using the Ohio and Mississippi were always very concerned about being able to freely access New Orleans and the gulf.
Lower tariffs in the South would have drawn trade away from northern ports, a real concern at a time when tariffs funded the government.
“The balance of power in Congress would have shifted dramatically to the North.”
“Without the southern states that would be pretty much a given.”
That was my point. With seven southern states gone abolition would have passed easily in 1861. The North would have rid itself of the Fugitive Slave Act. The Underground Railway would
“Only in the U.S. was one section of the country willing to go to war to protect slavery.”
That must be why they called up 75,000 troops with the goal of forcing the North into the Confederacy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.