Replies

Thanks for the post, amazingly enough I had never seen the text of that resolution previously. It is very interesting. I am in full agreement with you that the north's reasons for the conflict, at least at the start, were primarily for maintaining of the union.

I don't believe this is contrary to what I have said previously regarding the changes in motivations for each side fighting as the war progressed. In this instance the idea was to preserve the union, even without regard to slavery. Lincoln himself stated that he would preserve the union with slavery intact if that is what it took. There were, to my understanding, proposals to guarantee the protection of slavery as a potential compromise immediately before the war. Potential compromises that were basically rejected by the Southern states (which is an interesting event itself).

However, neither the joint resolution or Southern rejection of such compromises excludes the issue of slavery from playing its role in the crisis.

Opponents on the other side can just as easily whip out the secession documents of the Deep South states, or Alexander Stephens speech and say AHA! just as you have with the joint resolution.

None of these documents trumps the other, the joint resolution can't make the Deep South secession documents disappear and vice versa. Thats why we have to look at all of them in context and as a whole. Neither Stephen's speech, or Lincoln's words an AHA! moment make.

Northern partisans will trot out Stephens speech and completely ignore the facts that you have just presented. Of course, I have seen southern partisans just not respond to questioning from the other side about the Deep South's stated causes. It's been going on for years and thats why there is no resolution and its an endless conflict of judging the war by this or that, but not those together.

Now I have on many occasions explained my view of the context of Alexander Stephen's speech. But no northern partisan cares because it sounds like a Southern partisan just trying to whitewash it or bury it. Which is not the case.

The North and Lincoln, at the start of the war, wanted to make clear that they were not on an abolition crusade. The obvious reason for that is political to keep the South from totally discounting a return to the Union and end the war. An offer of sorts. But not a proof that slavery played no role in the conflict excecpt in the most technical and bureaucratic sense. No more than Stephen's Cornerstone Speech to a political audience "proves" that the war was all about slavery as the other side says constantly.

There were two different views of the nature of the union that were not compatible, a raw wound. The issue of slavery was the irritant that caused it to fester. Southerners are correct when they say that differing views of the nature of the union, cultural differences, demographics, and economic differences were key (the raw wound) while northerners are correct that the issue of slavery was key (the infection).

It did not HAVE to be slavery, it could have been other issues that rubbed the wound raw. But it wasn't. There is no way that I, even as a Southern partisan, can look at the long history of the issue prior to the war, and things like Kansas and John Brown's raid, and say that slavery played no role.

I don't know why we Southerners have come to the point where we feel that we must somehow prove that slavery did not play any role. It is not a necessary component of defending the Southern view.

It is also not an argument that the general public is ever going to buy because it divorces all of the slavery related historical facts prior to the war and leaves them adrift and unattached to the war. Something that their common sense, even with their limited knowledge, will just not bear. Nor will mine.

We both know that there was a fundamental divide in the way both sides viewed the nature of the union. Northerners claim that these views really did not exist except as a defense of slavery. However, those views of the nature of the union pre-existed the friction over slavery and have lived long after its death. Many here in these forums, who are not even Southern partisans, clearly believe in a more "Confederate" view of the modern union than they would care to admit.

I've studied on this quite a bit, with an open mind. Over the years I've had an increasingly steady view that Southerners were correct about the nature and structure of the union and the constitutional issues while the northern view is something of a construct for the purposes of justification.

At the same time, I've had an increasingly steady view that Northerners views on the role of slavery are, though not always perfectly stated, essentially correct with Southern views being essentially a construct, for the purposes of justification.

My views have alternately pissed off Northerners and fellow Southerners. But I can't really worry about that because I calls it like I sees it.

It is also not an argument that the general public is ever going to buy because it divorces all of the slavery related historical facts prior to the war and leaves them adrift and unattached to the war. Something that their common sense, even with their limited knowledge, will just not bear. Nor will mine.

Whammo! There it is.

I've read numerous threads over my four years of being here on this subject. I don't post much on them, just lurk mostly.

I can honestly see the validity of most arguments from both sides.

But what blows my mind from Southern partisans is the totally cavaier attitude towards slavery, as if my forefathers being in bondage in a nation dedicated to the founding principles that, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, That all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Slavery is diametrically opposed to the principles of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Slavery flipped these terms on their heads.

I do not believe, however, that in 21^st Century America that anyone wants to hold anyone else as a slave. It's the cavalier, nonchalant attitude towards it that I find appalling.

Nothing can be done to rectify this history of ours. It's over (thank you Lord Jesus!), and I for one am not asking for anything because of it, whether it be in word or deed.

But I can't, in my spirit, abide by those who look upon that subject as though it was nothing. That line simply can not be crossed.

Lastly, I want to publicly praise you, Arkansaw, for being a true voice of reason. You just don't know how refreshing it is. You just don't.

Again, thank you!

My parents' home State.

Arkinsaw-

Great reply (# 247)!!!

Concerning Stephen's "Cornerstone" speech, I think it is relevant, in the case of politicians, to realize that they- whether northern or Southern- often say things to get a RESPONSE. Sometimes we should give little weight to what politicians SAY,and look far more closely to what politicians DO! This is a point that Tom DiLorenzo forces home in an excellent manner in "The Real Lincoln". Stephens did indeed SAY that. BUT----
Since the northern controlled Congress was willing to keep the federal government from EVER interferring with slavery, and if Lincoln PUBLICLY STATED that he supported State's rights on the issue, that he supported the fugitive slave laws, and he even SUPPORTED THIS AMENDMENT, then did the Southern states truly secede over the issue?????

Truly, it makes a MASSIVE, almost UNDENIABLE CASE that the Southern states NEVER seceded over slavery, REGUARDLESS what Stephens or anyone may have said. Lincoln and the north would do ANYTHING to keep the South in the Union-- even a Constitutional guarrantee to prevent the feds from EVER interferring with slavery!!!! This also fully supports the view that the TARRIFF, NOT SLAVERY, caused the war!

There is another, perhaps even more important point that CANNOT BE OVEREMPHSISED here, that is simply LOST on most people: SECESSION did NOT cause the war. Lincoln could have simply followed the principles of self-determination laid out in the Declaration of Independence, and allowed the South to go freely. He would have been following the clear political inspiration and indeed, the very words of Presidents Jefferson and Madison. But he did NOT.

In using force to FORCE a government on Southerners that we no longer desired, Lincoln joined the list of tyrrants who have acted in similar manner, like King George, the Caesars, Krushev, and Chairman Mao. And that is the REAL story of the war that is completely LOST on most people.