Someone should permanently blackface that garbage-brained governor of Virginia.
Posted on 06/03/2020 2:52:57 PM PDT by buckalfa
That's a nonsequitur. When the war began, the vast majority did not give a sh*t. By the time the war was over, and after Lincoln locked up anyone that seemed to be criticizing him, everyone in the North had converted to wanting slavery abolished. There are several reasons for this.
1. Propaganda works. After years of the official word being "slavery is bad and should be abolished", this was now the dominant opinion.
2. Intimidation works. Locking up anyone criticizing Lincoln made opinions differing from his dangerous.
3. People want to support the winning side and believe their heroes are the good guys.
4. They wanted to punish the South. They had been made to believe (propaganda) that the Southern people were responsible for all the deaths they suffered while invading the South. Yes, it's stupid, but people wanted to blame someone, and they dare not blame the government, at least not publicly.
If you think people wanted to invade the South to abolish slavery in 1861, you truly do not understand the nature of what was happening at the time.
And although it seems you mean to associate the abolitionists with modern liberals, you made a technically correct point that they would have been considered liberals in their day.
If you examine the hotbeds of anti slavery sentiment in that era, you will discover in the modern era that these same places in the country are still hotbeds of liberal craziness.
Liberals always want to overturn whatever is the status quo of society. They are always finding new morality that they desperately need to impose on everyone else. The constant of liberal thinking is "change."
All of this is conjecture that proves nothing, but you post it as if it was historical fact. We don't know that any of this would have happened.
If you read some of the northern newspaper articles of the period, you would discover fairly quickly that they were very much worried about the South destroying their manufacturing empire by allowing cheaper European products into their markets. The wealthy powerful men of the north were not stupid. They could foresee what would have happened had the South been allowed to trade it's exports for European goods at greatly reduced tariffs from what they were in the USA. They detail their concerns about European goods flooding the nation along the wide uncontrollable border between the CSA and the USA.
The entire watershed of the Mississippi would have distributed these goods.
The CSA tariffs were also destroying the ability of the Federal government to collect the high tariffs in the Northern cities too. Boston, Philadelphia and several others flat out said that if the South wasn't paying these high tariffs, they wouldn't either.
If you force the USA tariffs down to 13% that the CSA had, you would see Northern cities flooded with European goods directly, because the Tariffs were the only thing keeping them out of Northern cities in lieu of domestic products which were manufactured locally. Not only would they lose the southern markets and the Midwestern markets, they would also be severely damaged in their own Northeastern markets.
However, it was their reason for making the decision to secede.
How Did Southerners Justify Secession?
There's plenty more where this came from if you need more.
We've had a 160 years of people coming up with "explanations" that the South's secession was strictly to protect the slavery that was never endangered anyways, but keeping the focus on the South's reasons for leaving is a magician's trick for keeping the focus off the North's reasons for stopping them.
The question boiled down to the essentials is this:
Did they have a right to secede?
If the answer is "no", then their reasons don't matter. If the answer is "yes", then their reasons still don't matter.
Did the North have a right to stop them? This is where the focus needs to be. It is the essential question.
You probably can't even see what's wrong with that.
There was a fairly well known conservative columnist who's opinion on the matter I stumbled across some months back. I can't think of his name at the moment. Wait, I think it's "Paul Craig Roberts." He made a very good argument that the South's insistence that they were seceding over slavery was put forth because it was the only valid (at the time) legal reason they had to break out of the compact.
His reasoning goes like this. The South hated the high tariffs, but they couldn't do anything about it because the Constitution gave the Congress the right to set the tariffs, and they couldn't get a majority in Congress to stop it.
But regarding the issue of Slavery, the Government had clearly failed to enforce the constitutional law on the matter, and on this particular issue had broken the deal agreed upon in 1787.
As a legal matter "Breach of Contract" is a valid argument for dissolving the contract, and the Feds were in breach regarding slavery, so this gave them a legal justification for getting out of the contract.
As a consequence, they couldn't claim they wanted out because of tariffs, they had to claim they wanted out because of efforts to interfere with slavery, and so this is why they were so insistent in claiming this was the reason.
It's an interesting theory, but i'm not sure it's accurate, though he makes a good argument.
Are you even serious? If nobody cared there wouldn't have been an abolitionist movement in the first place, and the abolitionists wouldn't have won.
In context, I was referring to the leadership of the Union, not ever kook group that happened to be in it at the time. The men in the government did not launch the war to abolish slavery. They launched it to prevent the South from being independent, because an independent South would cost the North a great deal of it's wealth.
I have noticed that you have little use for facts.
When the war began, the vast majority did not give a sh*t. By the time the war was over, and after Lincoln locked up anyone that seemed to be criticizing him, everyone in the North had converted to wanting slavery abolished. There are several reasons for this.
1. Propaganda works. After years of the official word being "slavery is bad and should be abolished", this was now the dominant opinion.
Wow, your true colors are showing. Never mind that abolitionists were around long before Lincoln was elected or the Civil War. You think that wanting to abolish slavery was a result of falling for propaganda?
If you think people wanted to invade the South to abolish slavery in 1861, you truly do not understand the nature of what was happening at the time.
That's better than fighting to keep slavery, which the south admitted it did.
Another fact I'm sure you have no use for.
If you examine the hotbeds of anti slavery sentiment in that era, you will discover in the modern era that these same places in the country are still hotbeds of liberal craziness. Liberals always want to overturn whatever is the status quo of society. They are always finding new morality that they desperately need to impose on everyone else. The constant of liberal thinking is "change."
One minute you're saying it wasn't about slavery, and now you're saying it was but it was the same mindset as wanting to mutilate your son to look like a girl. I can assure you that I am against slavery, but I'm also against what the homosexual lobby is doing to our children and indeed our country.
BTW, I'm sure the democrats appreciate you accepting the legacy of slavery on our behalf. I know you say it wasn't about slavery, but that's how they see it because that is what it was about.
If you read some of the northern newspaper articles of the period, you would discover fairly quickly that they were very much worried about the South destroying their manufacturing empire by allowing cheaper European products into their markets. The wealthy powerful men of the north were not stupid.
Since I have already acknowledged that not all shared the abolitionists' views and some had other reasons, I'm not sure what you hope to gain by repeating it. It doesn't change the fact that the abolitionists won.
We've had a 160 years of people coming up with "explanations" that the South's secession was strictly to protect the slavery that was never endangered anyways, but keeping the focus on the South's reasons for leaving is a magician's trick for keeping the focus off the North's reasons for stopping them.
The south made plain their reasons for seceding, which is that they saw the abolition of slavery as a threat and weren't having it. That is plain in all of their resolutions. It's the confederacy's apologists who have been inventing other reasons for the past 160 years.
Did the North have a right to stop them? This is where the focus needs to be. It is the essential question.
Did the south have the right to own slaves. Not was it a right under the law at the time, because so was everything Hitler and Stalin did and no one would say they had the right to do what they did. Did the south have a fundamental right to own slaves? Yes or no.
As a legal matter "Breach of Contract" is a valid argument for dissolving the contract, and the Feds were in breach regarding slavery, so this gave them a legal justification for getting out of the contract. As a consequence, they couldn't claim they wanted out because of tariffs, they had to claim they wanted out because of efforts to interfere with slavery, and so this is why they were so insistent in claiming this was the reason.
Or they could have abolished slavery and taken that issue off the table. If that was true, of course.
In context, I was referring to the leadership of the Union, not ever kook group that happened to be in it at the time.
The abolitionists were kooks?
I have great use for them, but you are trying to offer a set of "facts" which does not actually support the claim you are trying to make. That's why I said it was a "non sequitur." Your "proof" does not follow your claim.
Wow, your true colors are showing. Never mind that abolitionists were around long before Lincoln was elected or the Civil War. You think that wanting to abolish slavery was a result of falling for propaganda?
I am astonished that you are working so hard to avoid grasping what I am saying. Look dude, the abolitionist movement was a teeny tiny collection of kooks in 1861. The Northern states did have a dominant public opinion of wanting slavery gone, but it was mostly "meh." They wanted slavery to go, but they didn't feel strongly about it, and they did not want it gone because they cared about the slaves. Only the die hard liberal kook abolitionists claimed to care about the slaves.
Over the next four years of constant propaganda, the Northern opinion shifted to strongly wanting slavery gone, but most of them wanted it gone because they saw it as the root cause of the conflict, which is exactly what the government insisted they believe.
One minute you're saying it wasn't about slavery, and now you're saying it was but it was the same mindset as wanting to mutilate your son to look like a girl.
Pay closer attention to what I say. I said in the "hotbeds" of anti slavery sentiment. Places like Boston. And yes, those same liberal places in 1861 are liberal places in 2020. In 1861 the rest of the nation felt about abolition the way we do nowadays about transgender nonsense.
Since I have already acknowledged that not all shared the abolitionists' views and some had other reasons, I'm not sure what you hope to gain by repeating it.
Here is another non sequitur response. You quote what I said about European products flowing into the West, the Midwest, the South and even the Northeast, and then respond with that "abolitionists views" comment which had absolutely nothing at all to do with the point to which you are responding.
The point was *ECONOMIC THREAT* to the Wealthy men of the North.
The south made plain their reasons for seceding, which is that they saw the abolition of slavery as a threat and weren't having it.
Okay, i've tried to make this point twice before, and you are seemingly not grasping it. The South's reasons for seceding are irrelevant. They have no bearing on the discussion. The only salient question is.
Was secession legal? If "Yes", then their reasons don't matter. If "No", then their reasons don't matter.
Is this so hard for you to grasp? The South's reasons don't matter. They either had a right to secede, or they didn't.
How about you address the core of the matter and show evidence why you think they didn't have a right to leave?
Did the south have the right to own slaves.
Under existing US law at the time, they absolutely did. You may not like it, but it is the ugly truth. If you are incapable of comprehending this fact, then there is no further point in discussing this with you.
Or they could have abolished slavery and taken that issue off the table. If that was true, of course.
Slavery accounted for the vast bulk of their economic activity at the time. What you are suggesting makes as much sense as demanding modern Americans stop using gasoline. It's utterly silly, and indicative of an unserious understanding of events.
The abolitionists were kooks?
In 1860, they were considered kooks by the vast majority of the population, both North and South. By 1865, they were regarded as part of the mainstream. The mainstream had changed it's position while the kooks claimed vindication. They went on to other progressive causes like votes for women, banning alcohol, stopping child labor, supporting "labor" movements and attempting to control the black population through abortion and birth control.
I'm getting the impression that you really don't have a good grasp of American history. There is a solid ideological chain from abolitionists to modern liberals, you just have to know enough about the subject matter to realize how it all connects together throughout American history.
I not only grasp what you're saying, I can see that what you're saying is conjecture based on cherry picked items that you think prove your point.
I've presented the facts, from the confederacy's own documents.
Look dude, the abolitionist movement was a teeny tiny collection of kooks in 1861. The Northern states did have a dominant public opinion of wanting slavery gone, but it was mostly "meh." They wanted slavery to go, but they didn't feel strongly about it, and they did not want it gone because they cared about the slaves. Only the die hard liberal kook abolitionists claimed to care about the slaves.
Over the next four years of constant propaganda, the Northern opinion shifted to strongly wanting slavery gone, but most of them wanted it gone because they saw it as the root cause of the conflict, which is exactly what the government insisted they believe.
So the original abolitionists were kooks, and the rest came to support abolition because of government propaganda. I'm not sure that nonsense even requires an answer.
Pay closer attention to what I say. I said in the "hotbeds" of anti slavery sentiment. Places like Boston. And yes, those same liberal places in 1861 are liberal places in 2020. In 1861 the rest of the nation felt about abolition the way we do nowadays about transgender nonsense.
There's a big difference. The abolitionists were right. The leftists who think that a man can become a woman by slicing it off are wrong.
The point was *ECONOMIC THREAT* to the Wealthy men of the North.
I get it. They lost, and the abolitionists won.
Under existing US law at the time, they absolutely did. You may not like it, but it is the ugly truth. If you are incapable of comprehending this fact, then there is no further point in discussing this with you.
It came as no shock to me that you snipped the real question I was asking you, but it won't be that easy. Here it is again.
Did the south have the right to own slaves. Not was it a right under the law at the time, because so was everything Hitler and Stalin did and no one would say they had the right to do what they did. Did the south have a fundamental right to own slaves? Yes or no.
Slavery accounted for the vast bulk of their economic activity at the time. What you are suggesting makes as much sense as demanding modern Americans stop using gasoline. It's utterly silly, and indicative of an unserious understanding of events.
I'm sure many on the left equate using gasoline to having slaves, but I don't.
And the free states were able to do without slaves. So was the south once slavery was abolished. They could have made it easier on themselves in the long run by just freeing their slaves, assuming this wasn't about slavery of course.
I'm getting the impression that you really don't have a good grasp of American history. There is a solid ideological chain from abolitionists to modern liberals, you just have to know enough about the subject matter to realize how it all connects together throughout American history.
Maybe that's because FR has plenty of Conservatives who would oppose slavery but don't support the modern leftists agenda. That chain is fictitious.
Ping. Here is an example of how constant pressure and propaganda combine to get people to adopt ideas which the government wants them to adopt.
Like the confederacy convincing its citizens to defend slavery?
The abolitionists never answered what would happen to them if they did, and we're still finding out.
Gross revenues from trade are not "cherry picked". They are the relevant economic numbers. You have better numbers to suit your argument? You trot out those numbers and lets have a look.
I get it. They lost, and the abolitionists won.
The powers of the US Government were unconcerned with whether or not the abolitionists won or lost. They were very concerned about whether the wealthy men of the North won or lost. Abolition was an afterthought, not a primary goal.
Did the south have the right to own slaves.
Yes, the South had a g*dd@mned right to own slaves under the laws of the United States. Did you not grasp this answer the first time I told you?
Did the south have a fundamental right to own slaves? Yes or no.
Fundamental under US law? Yes they did. Do you not believe in US Law?
And the free states were able to do without slaves.
This is a lack of understanding on your part. The Northern "slaves" were Irish immigrants and others working in sweat shop factories and with no recourse if they were killed or injured in a factory mishap. The wealthy men of that era learned that it was cheaper in the long run to just exploit their endless supply of immigrants and shift all the burdens for their well being onto them rather than pay for it themselves.
If they got injured, which was all too common, they were shown the door and sent out to starve or die of their injuries. A lot of the abuse of workers in the North is what helped to kick off the Labor movement and subsequent labor unions.
Like the confederacy convincing its citizens to defend slavery?
If your wife was a drug addict, and someone broke into your home to assault your wife for failing to pay her drug bill, if you rose to defend her, you would be defending drug usage, even though that's not what you are doing at all.
That's what you mean when you say they rose up to defend slavery. No, they rose up to defend their homeland, which just happened to have slavery in it.
Would you have defended the United States in 1850, or would you say "I shall not defend my country because it has slavery and I don't approve of slavery." ?
What would the south have if slavery was not abolished that they don't have now?
So you hijacked another thread to convince me that people had to be bullied by President Lincoln to oppose slavery? Here are some facts.
The abolitionist movement was well underway long before he was elected.
It was the slave states who jailed and even murdered abolitionists who were helping slaves gain their freedom. Those abolitionists were putting their lives on the line for what they believed. The idea that they were being threatened by the north is nonsense. They weren't being threatened by anyone except the slave states for "stealing property". You excuse all of this by arguing that "the South had a g*dd@mned right to own slaves under the laws of the United States", but that doesn't make it any less appalling.
I don't need to be bullied to know that this was wrong. If you do, then you're the one with a problem.
Gross revenues from trade are not "cherry picked". They are the relevant economic numbers. You have better numbers to suit your argument? You trot out those numbers and lets have a look.
The only number that counted, which is that the abolitionists had the numbers to abolish slavery, against the wishes of those whom you say would have lost revenue from abolition.
The powers of the US Government were unconcerned with whether or not the abolitionists won or lost. They were very concerned about whether the wealthy men of the North won or lost. Abolition was an afterthought, not a primary goal.
You can't be serious. The abolition movement was at work long before President Lincoln was elected. After the Civil War slavery was abolished, as declared in the Emancipation Proclamation three years earlier. They said they would do it, and they did it. The idea that abolishing slavery was nothing more than an afterthought is pure delusion.
Yes, the South had a g*dd@mned right to own slaves under the laws of the United States. Did you not grasp this answer the first time I told you?
Once again, you snipped the real question I was asking you. I'm sure this is an honest mistake that you keep making, so I'll post it for you again.
Did the south have the right to own slaves. Not was it a right under the law at the time, because so was everything Hitler and Stalin did and no one would say they had the right to do what they did. Did the south have a fundamental right to own slaves? Yes or no.
This is a lack of understanding on your part. The Northern "slaves" were Irish immigrants and others working in sweat shop factories and with no recourse if they were killed or injured in a factory mishap. The wealthy men of that era learned that it was cheaper in the long run to just exploit their endless supply of immigrants and shift all the burdens for their well being onto them rather than pay for it themselves.
If they got injured, which was all too common, they were shown the door and sent out to starve or die of their injuries. A lot of the abuse of workers in the North is what helped to kick off the Labor movement and subsequent labor unions.
I'll grant that working conditions in the 1860s was far from idea, but they still had the freedom to come to this country, choose their profession, and later to form labor unions. That was something the slaves didn't have, and comparing their situations is just plain appalling.
If your wife was a drug addict, and someone broke into your home to assault your wife for failing to pay her drug bill, if you rose to defend her, you would be defending drug usage, even though that's not what you are doing at all.
You would be defending her against assault. Everyone would understand that. No one would see that as defending her drug usage, unless you announced that you were defending that.
Just as the slave states announced they were seceding to preserve their right to slaves.
That's what you mean when you say they rose up to defend slavery. No, they rose up to defend their homeland, which just happened to have slavery in it.
We disagree on the causes of the war, but I can agree with you on this. Some may have been defending their right to have slaves, but many of the soldiers saw it as defending their homeland and nothing more.
The moral opinions of TwelveOfTwenty are not the foundation of law. If you think your moral opinions should hold the power of the law, without being actually codified as law, you are not well adapted to live in a constitutional Republic.
You would be defending her against assault. Everyone would understand that.
Exactly what the men of the South were doing. It wasn't about what she was doing wrong, it was about the fact that invaders were marching in to hurt her.
Just as the slave states announced they were seceding to preserve their right to slaves.
I've noticed you like to repeat some of your attempts to make a point over and over again, and perhaps you think this is an effective tactic, so i'll try it back on you.
Did the South have a right to secede?
On the contrary, many laws are based on someone's concept of morality. Thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal, etc.
If you think your moral opinions should hold the power of the law, without being actually codified as law, you are not well adapted to live in a constitutional Republic.
So slavery and human trafficking are OK as long as the country passes laws saying they're legal, is that your argument?
Does that mean what Hitler and Stalin did were also OK since the laws in their countries said they could do it?
Many injustices, whether discrimination against blacks, discrimation against women, or slavery, were legal. They were abolished by those with "moral opinions" who stood up and said they were wrong. Slavery is the only of these examples I can think of where the country was split and sent into a civil war by those who wanted to preserve it.
I guess they were all wrong to act upon their "moral opinions" because the injustices were legal, right?
Exactly what the men of the South were doing. It wasn't about what she was doing wrong, it was about the fact that invaders were marching in to hurt her.
I'm sure the slaves were glad they had their masters to protect them from the evil abolitionists.
I've noticed you like to repeat some of your attempts to make a point over and over again, and perhaps you think this is an effective tactic, so i'll try it back on you.
My question was in response to your question thast you repeated below.
Did the South have a right to secede?
The slave states seceded to protect their "right" to slave labor. All of their statements say this. Do you really need me to tell you that forming a nation with an economy deliberately based on slavery and human trafficking is wrong? If so, then you are living proof that the confederacy was everything the history books say it was.
The sad part is that as a Republican, your legacy is in abolishing slavery. Why you would reject it in favor of a democrat formed nation where, as you yourself put it, slavery was legal, is beyond me.
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.