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.
Does anyone know why the original posting on Abe Lincoln's blue pills & Emmitt Dalton's post on Durand's book disappeared?
The posting on Director Burton insulting primates by turning Abe into an ape is still there but the two big threads from 7/23 are dead links...
just asking.
?
Emmett_dalton was banned. They delete all his posts when that happens.
Don't look at me. I had nothing to do with it.
He was indeed banned. Not sure about the reason.
I haven't heard why either. Maybe you should ask JR?
Good riddance to your pal E.D., his Southern victimology, and his pro-slavery, junk-revisionist history.
What did he do to get banned?
I emailed JR yesterday, but haven't heard back yet.
I honestly have no idea. When I dropped off of the forum on Monday he was there. When I got back on on Tuesday I noticed the missing posts and queried two of your fellow southern supporters if they had any idea of what happened. One of them mentioned that he was banned. Other than that I haven't a clue of what was cause of his banishment.
Thanks.
Not my fault. Honest!
Good riddance to your pal E.D., his Southern victimology, and his pro-slavery, junk-revisionist history.
A simple polite "I don't know" would have been sufficient. You are so rude!
That's OK Salt. As long as they keep a few of the blathering anti-Southern bigots like you around posting your "junk-revisionist history", the resolve of the pro-Southern movement will continue to grow by leaps & bounds.
If the truth is rude, then so be it! And I meant what I said.
While one can legitimately debate the issues surrounding the Civil War and Lincoln's policies and actions, I have no patience or respect for this Lincoln-loathing nonsense.
Sounds like Southern loathing is your problem.
Good riddance to your pal E.D., his Southern victimology, and his pro-slavery, junk-revisionist history.
It has been refuted more than a number of times that the WONA wasn't faught over slavery, and it is ridiculous to keep on spouting that confederates are a bunch of pro-slavery nuts. Even non-sequitur agrees that it wasn't about slavery, and yet you persist.
I think you just don't like southerners.
Sorry to disagree but I admit no such thing. There may have been more than one factor in the southern decision to secede but by far the single, most important reason for secession was the defense of the institution of slavery. All their speeches, all their compromise proposals, all their secession documents support that.
You did say so on the thread "Lincoln's little blue pills," and I replied to you "Exactly." You have changed your mind?
I must not have made myself clear. Sorry for the misconception.
No problem. Do you remember that link I put up regarding the number of slaves brought to America? Considering the fact that only a small fraction of people even owned slaves it is hard to believe that such a majority would go to war for the minority. The proposition of slavery was secondary to that of other causations, which I know we have argued over before.
Pardon my honest mistake on inferring that you said something which you did not!
You need to look at the census data more closely and not focus on that blanket '5% of all southerners owned slaves' quote that is constantly thrown around.
First of all, look at the 1860 statistics on slave ownership in Mississippi. There were 31,000 slave owners out of a white male population of 186,000. That means almost 17% of all males owned slaves, not 5%. Now I know that there may have been some single women who owned slaves and I know that in some states like Louisana there were Black slave owners but those probably won't change the percentage much if we knew what those numbers were. So 31,000 men owned slaves. Now the overwhelming majority of those men had wives and children. In Mississippi there were 63,000 families recorded in the 1860 census. That means that 49% of all families had slaves, give or take the occasional bachelor or spinster. Look at the figures for the rest of the deep south and you see a similar picture. In South Carolina 46% of all families held slaves. In Georgia it was 37% and in Alabama it was 35%. In Florida it was 34% and so forth and so on. So you see, it would be hard to understand people fighting to preserve an institution that one person in twenty gained from. It is much easier to understand how the people of Mississippi or South Carolina could go to war to defend an institution that almost half of their families gained from.
I have looked at the numbers and I just don't see where you come up with your yours. I would be willing to look at a link you provide. The treasury reports, and land titles from my local library, which was the source I used, show that most were too poor to have owned slaves.
"All their speeches, all their compromise proposals, all their secession documents support that."
That is a popular misconception.
Slavery couldn't have been better protected in 1860. Lincoln had been elected, and he had promised not to abolish it. The US Constitution protected it, as well as the Supreme Court, and runaways were not protected in the borders. The first 13th Amendment guaranteeing the existence of the institution had passed both houses of Congress and was on the way to ratification.
And, the Banking and Mercantile class were becoming increasingly intolerant of the radical abolitionists whose actions were not good for their business.
You local records probably aren't wrong. Three of the four states with the smallest percentage of slave holders where the last three to secede - Virginia, North Carolina and Tennessee. They seceded, in large part, because the Union was willing to go to war to prevent secession. As I said, slavery was not the only reason some of the states seceeded. The information comes from a website maintained by the University of Virginia at this Link .
That is a popular misconception.
Then enlighten me. What secession document spoke of any cause with the same emphasis that slavery had? What single compromise proposal was put forth by any of the southern leaders that dealt with anything but slavery? Slavery was protected, it's true, but not protected enough for their liking. By the time the 13th Amendment had passed both houses 8 southern states had already seceded.
Perhaps you should use the term "Pro-Southron". I believe that is the term and spelling. Doesn't that associate them with neo-confederates? In the real world a neo-confederate and southerner are as different as day and night.
Loathing?
The vast majority of Southerners are decent, hard working Americans. It's only a tiny minority of pro-confederate wing-nuts who engage in this silly Lincoln-bashing. And they are far too insignificant to be worthy of loathing.
Well, here is just a bit of information from a very famous secession document, and read the last line very carefullly.
"The Southern States now stand exactly in the same position toward the Northern States that our ancestors in the colonies did toward Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British Parliament. "The general welfare" is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British Parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation this "general welfare" requires. Thus the Government of the United States has become a consolidated Government, and the people of the Southern States are compelled to meet the very despotism their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776.
The consolidation of the Government of Great Britain over the colonies was attempted to be carried out by the taxes. The British Parliament undertook to tax the colonies to promote British interests. Our fathers resisted this pretension. They claimed the right of self-taxation through their Colonial Legislatures. They were not represented in the British Parliament, and therefore could not rightfully be taxed by its Legislature. The British Government, however, offered them a representation in the British Parliament; but it was not sufficient to enable them to protect themselves from the majority, and they refused it. Between taxation without any representation, and taxation without a representation adequate to protection, there was no difference By neither would the colonies tax themselves. Hence they refused to pay the taxes paid by the British Parliament.
The Southern States now stand in the same relation toward the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation, that our ancestors stood toward the people of Great Britain. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress is useless to protect them against unjust taxation, and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British Parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue -- to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.
I think you are making lots of assumptions, and thereby creating a questionable reality for yourself.
pro-confederate wing-nuts
wingnuts?????? Stuff it, pal.
But according to Hugh Thomas’s history, The Slave Trade (published by Touchstone/Simon & Schuster) only 500,000 Africans ever made it to this country. Considering that both north and south owned slaves, it seems darn near impossible for the south to have achieved the number you give.
FWIW, There's going to be a huge $ museum honoring Lincoln in Springfield. Construction starts soon.
Let's quote from some other famous secession documents, shall we?
From the Texas Declaration of the Cause of Secession: " She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time."
From the Georgia Declaration of the Cause of Secession:"For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."
From the Mississippi Declaration of the Cause of Secession: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."
From the South Carolina Declaration of the Cause of Secession: "Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery..."
Now if these states revered the memory of our founding fathers as much as you obviously do, then they would respect the Declaration of Independence and remember that part which said, "...a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." Well, what were they doing here if not that?
Not my numbers, but the numbers of the Census bureau.
Maybe it was pulled because when Emmett was faced with FACTS, disproving much of the silly misquotes and out-of-context drivel he was posting, he went over the edge and broke Robinson's rules. Fitting, since Emmett had only been a member for a matter of hours, it is good that he learns how to color inside the lines early, and learns that this is NOT his web site, it is Jim's.
The Confederate vice-president, Alexander H. Stephens, had said in a speech at Savannah on March 21, 1861, that slavery was “the immediate cause of the late rupture and the present revolution” of Southern independence. The United States, said Stephens, had been founded in 1776 on the false idea that all men are created equal. The Confederacy, by contrast, is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based on this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
Non-Sequitur, can you believe that, the United States founded on the false idea that all men are created equal, and the Confederacy founded upon the opposite idea. The Founding Fathers of the USA and the CSA were very different.
If memory serves me, these documents were published after the state legislatures voted for secession which next had to be approved by the citizens of the state.
One could then make the case that a northern newspaper of the time had it right when it editorialized that "slavery is not the cause of the (secession), it is the pretext on which the leaders of the (secession) rely, 'to fire the Southern heart', and through which the greatest degre of unanimity can be produced".
South Carolina's "Declaration of Causes of Secession", published at the time of secession, argued specifically states' soverignty and the violation of the Constitution by the North.
Alexander Stephens, vice-president of the Confederacy, is often quoted out of context. Here is what he said:
"The conflict in principle arose from different and opposing ideas as to the nature of what is known an the General Government. It was a strife between the principles of Federation and Centralism. Slavery was but the question on which these antagonistic principles were finally brought into actual collision with each other".
Our old friend, Bruce Catton states that "Southern anti-slavery societies outnumbered Northern groups in 1827; prominent Southerners had emancipated their slaves." He goes on to say that "the venomous abolutionist attacks on slavery turned eventually to propaganda against the entire South...characterizing the region as a land where slaves were inhumanly treated, where lynchings, ...brawls were everyday affairs.
"Urged to write 'something which would make this whole nation feel what an accursed thing slavery is, Harriet Beecher Stowe dashed off some powerful propaganda in her novel...As Northern abolitionists became more virulent and intemperate in their attacks, the South adopted a defensive attitude.
"Now the South, beset with a nightmare fear of Northern hegemony, began to think of secession."
So, a combination of factors, economic, political, social were driving secession.
But the significant question is what caused the Congress and the courts to allow Lincoln to unilaterally refuse the peace compromises, abandon the political process, and call out the Army to coerce the people.
I believe that you are mistaken. Of the four states who published the secession documents I quoted from only one - Texas - ever submitted the question of secession to a popular referendum and that referendum was held after the secession document was signed. Of all the southern states only Texas, Tennessee, North Carolina and Virginia held popular referendums on the question of secession. North Carolina voters actually voted against a secession convention if February but the convention was called anyway in May after Fort Sumter. In all other cases the secession conventions were called by the legislatures.
Great find! Is there a web link to this speech (would like to learn more).
Here you go. George Stephen's speech to the people of Savannah, Georgia on March 21, 1861. Commonly know as the Cornerstone Speech .
I am not sure what error you ascribe to my post,since it was not describing the method of approval by the people, but suggesting that it was easier to secure support by arguing the slave issue. In that way, Southern leaders co-opted the issue to gain support.
...but suggesting that it was easier to secure support by arguing the slave issue. In that way, Southern leaders co-opted the issue to gain support.
Are you suggesting, then, that the southern leadership had to mislead their people in order to get their support for secession? Your whole cause is based on lies?
Wow! This is a bit of history our Southern victimologists never seem to address. Let’s compare and contrast how Abe Lincoln and Alexander H. Stephens (Vice-Prez of the Confederacy) interpreted the Declaration of Independence. First, Abe Lincoln, speaking on July 26, 1857:
"Chief Justice Taney, in his opinion in the Dred Scott case, admits that the language of the Declaration is broad enough to include the whole human family, but he and Judge Douglas argue that the authors of that instrument did not intend to include negroes, by the fact that they did not at once, actually place them on an equality with the whites. Now this grave argument comes to just nothing at all, by the other fact, that they did not at once, or ever afterwards, actually place all white people on an equality with one or another. And this is the staple argument of both the Chief Justice and the Senator, for doing this obvious violence to the plain unmistakable language of the Declaration. I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all men, but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness, in what respects they did consider all men created equal—equal in "certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This they said, and this meant. They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth, that all were then actually enjoying that equality, nor yet, that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. In fact they had no power to confer such a boon. They meant simply to declare the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit. They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere. The assertion that "all men are created equal" was of no practical use in effecting our separation from Great Britain; and it was placed in the Declaration, not for that, but for future use. Its authors meant it to be, thank God, it is now proving itself, a stumbling block to those who in after times might seek to turn a free people back into the hateful paths of despotism. They knew the proneness of prosperity to breed tyrants, and they meant when such should re-appear in this fair land and commence their vocation they should find left for them at least one hard nut to crack.”
Now, let’s see what the “Number Two” of the Confederacy had to say:
“But not to be
tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude
to one other -- though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever,
all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African
slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our
form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and
present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the
"rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was
conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended
the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be
doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading
statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the
enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was
wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil
they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that
day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution
would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the
constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is
true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should
last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional
guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those
ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of
the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the
government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind
blew."
Our new
government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid,
its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to
the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his
natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the
first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical,
philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its
development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It
has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well,
that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors
of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those
at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we
justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the
mind -- from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the
most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming
correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the
anti-slavery fanatics; their conclusions are right if their premises were. They
assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal
privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their
conclusions would be logical and just -- but their premise being wrong, their
whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of
the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of
Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled,
ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to
war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or
mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining
slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle
founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to
him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he
and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately
fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully
against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted;
but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring
against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the
Creator had made unequal.
In the
conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length
and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our
social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the
ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the
civilized and enlightened world.
As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo-it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not, therefore, look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of his ordinances, or to question them. For his own purposes, he has made one race to differ from another, as he has made "one star to differ from another star in glory."
“Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the
assumption of the equality of races.”
Yeah, I’m feeling some loathing!
I was once a member of the League of the South and Heritage Preservation Association until I began to see the "states rights" thing was a cover for the cause of the Civil War which was slavery. No Slaves, No Civil War.
"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition." [Applause.]
Your saying, Alexander Stephens didn't say that?
The Southern states' leadership was seeking unity and border state secession, which is obvious. The government and appointed secession delegates wanted support from the people, and used slavery as the "hot issue" to solidify support.
The Northern political and financial leadership that wanted to dominate the South financially, used slavery as the issue to sanction Lincoln in his military coercion of the South.
Both sides used slavery to advance their agendas, but the difference is that the South was content to exist as the South; the North was lonely for Southern comfort.
Just why would you think that would be the case "my man"?
What you refer to was written in a Savannah newspaper, and apparently was not a direct quote.
But, what if it were......people spoke in those terms then. Not right by today's standards, but a truth.
So, the vice-president makes those comments....what is the relationship to the Federal and Confederate Constitution on the issue of slavery, since both were the same in 1861.
" No Slaves, No Civil War. "
No, actually the quote is "No Lincoln, no War Between the States."
And to be more accurate, the slogan should be: "No tariff, and no defecit spending, then no need for war."
"Your whole cause is based on lies?"
As was yours. The Federal government was supported 60% plus by tariffs on Southern production during the decade of 1850-1860. When the Southern states seceeded, the Federal government was broke. Unless Lincoln forced the South in line, a low tariff South would have put the North in the red quickly.
Wall Street would not have a profitable New Orleans or Mobile, or Savannah or Charleston.
But why not use their real issue, if it was so invasive and oppressive? Why lie? You claim that slavery was not the overriding issue and that every document that claims that it was was part of some elaborate scheme to hornswaggle the local yokels. The whole case was built on a lie, unless defense of the institution of slavery WAS the most important reason.
"The next evil that my friend complained of, was the Tariff. Well, let us look at that for a moment. About the time I commenced noticing public matters, this question was agitating the country almost as fearfully as the Slave question now is. In 1832, when I was in college, South Carolina was ready to nullify or secede from the Union on this account. And what have we seen? The tariff no longer distracts the public councils. Reason has triumphed. The present tariff was voted for by Massachusetts and South Carolina. The lion and the lamb lay down together-- every man in the Senate and House from Massachusetts and South Carolina, I think, voted for it, as did my honorable friend himself...Yes, and Massachusetts, with unanimity, voted with the South to lessen them, and they were made just as low as Southern men asked them to be, and those are the rates they are now at. If reason and argument, with experience, produced such changes in the sentiments of Massachusetts from 1832 to 1857, on the subject of the tariff, may not like changes be effected there by the same means, reason and argument, and appeals to patriotism on the present vexed question?" - Alexander Stephens in a speech to the Georgia Legislature, Nov. 14, 1860.
Tariffs didn't seem to bother Alexander Stephens, soon to be Vice-President of the confederate states. But the 'present vexed question' of slavery did.
I meant reply 51 for you.
No, I'm not talking to myself. I meant the previous post about the prior post for you. I must be losing it.
So, the vice-president makes those comments....what is the relationship to the Federal and Confederate Constitution on the issue of slavery, since both were the same in 1861.
Bull!
"They (the Founding Fathers) defined with tolerable distinctness, in what respects they did consider all men created equal—equal in "certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This they said, and this meant."
-- Abe Lincoln
"Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error....Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition."
-- Alexander Stephens
In view of the Federal Laws as defined in the Constitution, Lincoln's comments were nice poetry.
"This subject came well nigh causing a rupture of the old Union, under the lead of the gallant Palmetto State, which lies on our border, in 1833. This old thorn of the tariff, which was the cause of so much irritation in the old body politic, is removed forever from the new. [Applause.]"
That is his first remark on the Confederate Constitution from the "Cornerstone Speech".
Seems as if he was preoccupied with both.
You have read of decades of bickering, argument, political abuse, and propaganda attacks on the South.
South Carolina had two problems.......years of dissatisfaction with sectional abuse which was about to get worse as soon as Lincoln was elected. Secondly, practically everyone feared the freeing of the slaves by the government....a real fear as justified by what happened in Haiti.
Of course none of this mattered, especially to the North.
In effect, the issue of slavery was all over for the North in January of 1861. One could make the case that the North did not pass the Emancipation because slaves would then flee to the North and exercise their second amendment rights.
But something prompted Lincoln to send the fleets to Charleston and it wasn't to free slaves in Charleston harbor.
Back to the fleet again? You're never going to let me forget that, are you? Well, something caused the southern states to attempt secession and it was defense of the institution of slavery.
In view of the Federal Laws as defined in the Constitution...
And it is quite clear that the Constitution was deficient in the eyes of the Southern Slavers:
"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization...
...This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth...
...It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system."
The South seceeded to protect its right of self determination.
Lincoln and the Federal Troops brought war for completely different reasons.
Here is a pop quiz:
1. Who is Gustavus Fox?
2. How much of the total government's budget was the South paying annually?
Oh goody! A pop quiz!
1. Who is Gustavus Fox?
Gustavus Vasa Fox was a former naval officer who Lincoln placed in charge of the relief effort for Fort Sumter.
2. How much of the total government's budget was the South paying annually?
The overwhelming majority of the federal funding came from tariffs. About 66% of net tariff income came from the ports of New York, Boston and Philadelphia.
Now a couple for you.
1. The compromise proposals submitted by Jefferson Davis, Robert Toombs, Thomas Hindman and John Letcher all delt solely with the protection of what southern institution?
2. What is the sole reason given for secession in three of the four Declarations of Causes for Secession and the most often mentioned reason in the fourth?
You like to spin, don't you.
l. Fox was a naval officer leading the armed reinforcement for Ft. Sumter.
Question: When he returned to New York, he was sworn to do something. What was it?
2. The total revenues for the Federal government in 1860 was 95% tariff financed. The production of Southern goods accounted for 65% of the tariff revenue.
Looking at it another way, in 1860 the population of the US in total was approx. 24 million. That meant that each citizen was responsible for $2.20 in money for the government operation.
Southern planters and merchants were generating goods paying for $6.40 per citizen in revenue for the government, lowering the financial responsibility of each citizen of the North to about $1.50.
And the answer to both questions of yours is "the right of self determination and survival of the Southern economy".
So that begs the question of why that would be of any matter to the Union, since the blight of the slavery issue no longer blackened the boundaries of the Union as of January 1861.
Sat. morning pop quiz extra credit question: explain in 25 words or less why sending armed ships to reinforce a customs house fort was aiding the slave issue. You may use "x" as a lifeline because he has been working on that question for a week now.
"The overwhelming majority of the federal funding came from tariffs. About 66% of net tariff income came from the ports of New York, Boston and Philadelphia"
That is WhiskyPapa's misleading factoid.
The only thing that tells us is where the ships were landing, not who was paying tariffs.
Southern producers exported 65% of all the products that produced imports. The owners of the imports, mostly Southerners, paid the tariff at the docks where the ships landed, then transported the goods either by boat or rail back South.
So where the imports landed had no relationship to who owned them, or who paid the tariffs.
And by the way, remember the "Star of the West"? That was one of a number of shallow draft ships used to trans-ship exports and imports from Norfolk, Wilmington, Charleston, Savannah, and Mobile.
And if you want to ask why tariffs weren't paid there, sometimes they were. But the bulk of the tariffs were paid at the port of entry, not the secondary port of shipment.
This is so much fun!
When he returned to New York, he was sworn to do something. What was it?
He was sworn in as an Assistant Secretary of the Navy.
Looking at it another way, in 1860 the population of the US in total was approx. 24 million.
That 'misleading factoid' is based on government figures for the period of June 1858 to June 1859. And once again you are making the assumption that a dollar of export by the south equalled a dollar of import by the south. If ever dollar exported was spent on imports then what kept the local economy running? What did they use to buy molasses at Billy Jim Bob's General Store? It is more likely that the overwhelming majority of every dollar generated by an agricultural export stayed right there in the south and was used to purchase local goods when they could and goods from up north when they had to, which was frequent because the south chose to base their economic well-being on agriculture instead on manufacturing. Over 2/3rds of all tariff income was generated up north. The idea that 75% of the imports were purchased by 33% of the country makes no economic sense. Tariffs were paid at the point of entry not at the transhipment point. That would violate the Constitution. Imports flowed mainly to the ports of New York and Boston and Philadelphia because the south wanted it that way. Why clutter up your ports with imports when you had so much to export. Over 75% of all souther agriculture was exported from southern ports.
Bonus question: ...explain in 25 words or less why sending armed ships to reinforce a customs house fort was aiding the slave issue.
It wasn't about slavery up north, it was about illegal secession. As to why Sumter, as Lincoln said in his inagural address, "The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government..." Sorry, I went over 25 words.
it was about illegal secession
Of course, you can point to the precise Article in the Constitution which prohibits secession. Failing that, is it too much to ask for the act of congress which outlaws secession?
There has never been any amendment to the Constitution which prohibits secession, nor any act of Congress doing so.
Shuckmaster, this anti-Southern bigotism is a fairly recent phenomenon. Those who engage in it seem to be telling us that there's no room in the GOP big tent for Southern conservatives. There's room in their tent for communists, gays, and atheists, but not for us.
Every time these characters post their hateful comments, more of us give them their wish, an abandonment of their party. They want our votes, but not our voices. My vote comes with my voice. Since they don't want both, they'll have to settle for neither.
There's room in their tent for communists, gays, and atheists, but not for us.
Amen!! I'm really starting to have some problems with the 'conservatism' of the Republican party. And many Republicans look to Dishonest Abe as some kind of party mascot, while in effect he stood for everything the old party didn't. IMO, let's just bring back the Federalist and Anti-Federalist parties, lay it on the line and see who wants to be part of EMPIRE and who wants to be part of a Federal Republic as the Founders desired
....let's just bring back the Federalist and Anti-Federalist parties, lay it on the line and see who wants to be part of EMPIRE and who wants to be part of a Federal Republic as the Founders desired..
That's the bottom line for me, too. These Southern bashers with their Blue Zone rhetoric can have the GOP.
We need to go ou