Perverted Rebel agenda indefensible

rrstar ^ | 12 June 2003 | Pat Cunnigham

[stainlessbanner]

At the bottom of a snotty e-mail I recently received in response to a column of a few weeks ago, the writer asked if I "also believe the so-called Civil War was about slavery."

As my daughter would say: Well, duh!

[stainlessbanner]

Pat Cunnighman:

cunningham@smtp.registerstartower.com

[stainlessbanner]

who sent the email?

[AdamSelene235]

If such proof is needed, look at the United States. There is no country in the world where the law is kept more within its proper domain: the protection of every person's liberty and property. As a consequence of this, there appears to be no country in the world where the social order rests on a firmer foundation. But even in the United States, there are two issues -- and only two -- that have always endangered the public peace.

What are these two issues? They are slavery and tariffs.

-Frederick Bastiat 1850

[ETERNAL WARMING]

Nevertheless, the Constitution gives to States the sovereign right to secede from the Federal Government. It's the first blatant attack on the Constitution of the United States, and it's been downhill ever since for our Constitutional rights.

[shuckmaster]

What was the dominant political issue in America in the years just before the Civil War?

tarrifs

What was the principal difference between the respective economies of the North and South in those days?

industry vs. agriculture

What issue gave birth to the Republican Party in the mid-1850s and prompted the party to nominate Abraham Lincoln for the presidency in 1860?

the greenback dollar

The perpetuation of what institution was admittedly of paramount concern to Southerners when they extolled the principle of "states' rights"?

The state bank dollar vs. greenback dollar designed to better the implement the collection of tarrifs

What issue was most pro-minently mentioned in the secession resolutions of the various Confederate states?

tarrifs & states rights

[WhiskeyPapa]

Golley.

[WhiskeyPapa]

The Militia Act of 1792 as amended in 1795 leaves it to the discretion of the president as to when insurrection or rebellion exists.

There is no legal right to unilateral state secession in U.S. law.

Walt

[annyokie]

Oh, Walt. Let SB have a thread without you and GOP chiming in for once. Please.

[yooper]

The author raises many salient and indisputable points; however, he oversimplifies the war as a whole. He is profoundly wrong in that oversimplification and intellectually dishonest with his questions. I'll ask a few myself:

The vast majority of confederate soldiers were not slave owners and were not conscripted. Why did they fight?

The authors plays the race card in this article, to the detriment of southerners. What was the general attitude of the northern working class toward emancipation and why?

A slave was looked upon as property in the south during this time. Please try to place yourself in the southern perspective of the time if you can and answer this: If the federal government wanted to confiscate your car tomorrow, how would you feel?

"Well, duh!"

[WhiskeyPapa]

There is no legal right to secession in U.S. law and no free ride in an open forum to say that there is.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Slave ownership devolved on 1/2 the whites in MS, LA and SC, and on 1/3 of whites in the other so-called seceded states. There were more slave owners in the south than there were real property owners in the north.

The common men of the south were vitally interested, if not in slavery, then certainly in what would now be called white supremacy.

Walt

[yooper]

"What issue gave birth to the Republican Party in the mid-1850s and prompted the party to nominate Abraham Lincoln for the presidency in 1860?"

"the greenback dollar."

Wrong. The green back dollar didn't exist for many years afterward. I disagree profoundly with the author, but he is correct that slavery was the central issue which caused the creation of the Republican Party in Wisconsin several years prior to Lincoln's election. The first candidate was John C. Fremont, a rabid abolitionist and future Union General....

[The Iguana]

Hello Shuck,

Looks like we've got ourselves another thousand post thread just hatching.

But I'll start out with just one question, if I may.

What was the dominant political issue in America in the years just before the Civil War?

tarrifs

I think you're stretching here.

Sure, tariffs were an issue.

But more important than slavery?

If you look at the 1850's, what sticks out the most?

The Compromise of 1850, Uncle Tom's Cabin, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Bleeding Kansas, the caning of Charles Sumner, Dred Scott, the Lincoln Douglas debates, John Brown's raid. And so on.

All of which occurred over contnetion about what issue?

One cannot limit the causes of the war to slavery. One cannot even say that most Confederate soldiers fought primarily because of slavery. But it is impossible to imagine the war erupting without slavery - the "peculiar institution."

North and South were two very different societies bound to come into conflict. But slavery was the issue that got men's blood up, that made the arguments unresolvable. Not tariffs.

Men weren't killing each other in Kansas or beating each other senseless on the Senate floor over tariffs.

[Non-Sequitur]

bump

[Grut]

There is no legal right to secession in U.S. law and no free ride in an open forum to say that there is.

So, what does "government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed" mean if "the governed" can't withdraw that consent?

[annyokie]

Well, you are wrong. But feel free to screed away.

[Grut]

The argument isn't convincing; Lincoln would have invaded New England had New England, sickened by the existence of slavery in the United States, seceded before the South did.

[tsomer]

tarrifs & states rights

True, but you're wasting your time.

These ideologues aren't interested in facts.

[yooper]

"Slave ownership devolved on 1/2 the whites in MS, LA and SC, and on 1/3 of whites in the other so-called seceded states. There were more slave owners in the south than there were real property owners in the north."

No argument there. It's common knowledge that the northern working class, particularly in the east, were peons of the industrial complex. Most others in the northern mix were farmers, who were still striving to achieve peoperty ownership under the Homestead Act, so I guess they would not be considered property owners.

These facts, however, are not relevant to what I stated: The vast majority of confederate soldiers were not slave owners. Why did they fight? Before you again paint them as racists I would suggest some serious research on the private confederate soldier.

Also, I don't mean to question your 1/2 and 1/3 claims, but everything I've read on the conflict (a considerable amount) doesn't suggest anything near those percentages. Do you have a source for these numbers? If so, I'd be most grateful if you directed me to them. I've always been a hunter of truth, and I've always also been skeptical of records written by the winner of a conflict, so I'm anxious to examine this data for myself.

[metesky]

A slave was looked upon as property in the south during this time. Please try to place yourself in the southern perspective of the time if you can and answer this: If the federal government wanted to confiscate your car tomorrow, how would you feel?

There you have it, Walt: Car = human.