Political Crossfire Forums

[Mr 1 Percent]

The seed of the Civil War was sown by the desire of the more agricultural soutern states to trade internationally. Lincoln gave the more merchantilist northern states protection in the form of heavy tariffs and duties on manufactured imports which were imposed to the detriment of the southern states.

The southern states thus wanted to secede, but Lincoln wanted to keep the tax and duty revenue so he whipped up a slavery frenzy and invaded the south.

Lincoln was not anti-slavery. He declared slavery null and void in the lands in the north he did not command, but legal in the lands he did control. Are these the actions of someone who is against slavery?

[battleax86]

From the Texas Ordinance of Secession:

Quote: In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race or color--a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and the negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States.

By consolidating their strength, they hare placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments.

They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a "higher law" than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.

They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.

They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offences, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved.

They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides.

They have sent hired emissaries among us to burn our towns and distribute arms and poison to our slaves for the same purpose.

They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance.

They have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for the sole reason that she is a slave-holding State.

And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States.

In view of these and many other facts, it is meet that our own views should be distinctly proclaimed.

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding States. By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South.

For these and other reasons, solemnly asserting that the federal constitution has been violated and virtually abrogated by the several States named, seeing that the federal government is now passing under the control of our enemies to be diverted from the exalted objects of its creation to those of oppression and wrong, and realizing that our own State can no longer look for protection, but to God and her own sons - We the delegates of the people of Texas, in Convention assembled, have passed an ordinance dissolving all political connection with the government of the United States of America and the people thereof and confidently appeal to the intelligence and patriotism of the freeman of Texas to ratify the same at the ballot box, on the 23rd day of the present month.

Adopted in Convention on the 2nd day of Feby, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one and of the independence of Texas the twenty-fifth.

[Simon De Montfort]

battleax86 wrote: From the Texas Ordinance of Secession:

Quote: In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race or color--a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and the negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States.

By consolidating their strength, they hare placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments.

They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a "higher law" than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.

They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.

They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offences, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved.

They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides.

They have sent hired emissaries among us to burn our towns and distribute arms and poison to our slaves for the same purpose.

They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance.

They have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for the sole reason that she is a slave-holding State.

And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States.

In view of these and many other facts, it is meet that our own views should be distinctly proclaimed.

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding States. By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South.

For these and other reasons, solemnly asserting that the federal constitution has been violated and virtually abrogated by the several States named, seeing that the federal government is now passing under the control of our enemies to be diverted from the exalted objects of its creation to those of oppression and wrong, and realizing that our own State can no longer look for protection, but to God and her own sons - We the delegates of the people of Texas, in Convention assembled, have passed an ordinance dissolving all political connection with the government of the United States of America and the people thereof and confidently appeal to the intelligence and patriotism of the freeman of Texas to ratify the same at the ballot box, on the 23rd day of the present month.

Adopted in Convention on the 2nd day of Feby, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one and of the independence of Texas the twenty-fifth.

He shoots he scores.

[yETII90]

This was basically the Civil War

North: "We are preserving the Union"

Abraham Lincoln wrote: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."


South: "We are fighting for States Rights"


If the North would have done it for slavery it would have been dead because Maryland would have gone to the Union therefore the Union Capital Washington DC would have been surrounded by the Confederacy since Virginia and Maryland surround it on all sides.

If the South would have done it for slavery it would have alienated most of the white families that didn't have slaves because they would have felt angry that they are fighting this war so the plantation owners could have slaves and they get nothing in return.

[Simon De Montfort]

I keep saying this until I am blue in the face. The war was over secession but the South seceded over slavery. Therefore slavery was the major cause for the war.

[Mr 1 Percent]

If slavery was the issue why did they not include it in the constitution?

[battleax86]

Mr 1 Percent wrote: Simon De Montfort wrote: I keep saying this until I am blue in the face. The war was over secession but the South seceded over slavery. Therefore slavery was the major cause for the war.

If slavery was the issue why did they not include it in the constitution?
I don't understand your question. Slavery was mentioned in the Constitution, though it was mentioned in the context of a necessary evil that might be done away with at some later time, but Constitutional references to it have nothing to do with the Civil War.

[Jehan]

The reason why the South seceded was simple: When Stephen Douglas, the Illinois Democrat could not and would not accept the slave codes the Fire-Eaters had put forward for the territories that had not yet become states, it turned into a debate that resulted in the Deep Southern delegates walking out of the Charleston convention, and nominating their own presidential candidate, John Breckinridge, to counter the Northern Democratic candidate Douglas. The real reason the Fire-Eaters split, however, was to allow for a Republican candidate to move into the White House, which they could then use as a justification for secession. Therefore, they could keep the institution of slavery going as long as possible.

If you want a very well documented history of the events mentioned above, I reccommend you pick up Bruce Catton's "The Coming Fury" and read up.

[Simon De Montfort]

Mr 1 Percent wrote: If slavery was the issue why did they not include it in the constitution?

um ... they did.

Constituion of of the Confederate States of America

Article I Section IX line 4
"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."

CSA .Constitution

[battleax86]

Simon De Montfort wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote: If slavery was the issue why did they not include it in the constitution?

um ... they did.

Constituion of of the Confederate States of America

Article I Section IX line 4
"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."

CSA .Constitution
:owned:

[eynon]

Mr 1 Percent wrote: The seed of the Civil War was sown by the desire of the more agricultural soutern states to trade internationally. Lincoln gave the more merchantilist northern states protection in the form of heavy tariffs and duties on manufactured imports which were imposed to the detriment of the southern states.

The southern states thus wanted to secede, but Lincoln wanted to keep the tax and duty revenue so he whipped up a slavery frenzy and invaded the south.

Lincoln was not anti-slavery. He declared slavery null and void in the lands in the north he did not command, but legal in the lands he did control. Are these the actions of someone who is against slavery?

so do you think that if the South had not had slaves there still would've been a war? :-|

[flushman]

Very little know fact about lincoln, he had an order written that all the slaves would be returned to africa the US would pay for thier voyage. But he got killed before he could actually do it. Civil war had very little to do with slavery, however the historians turned it into a slavery war. Heck in school well when I went all you were told was the civil war was fought because of slavery, now wonder every one is confused.

[battleax86]

flushman wrote: Very little know fact about lincoln, he had an order written that all the slaves would be returned to africa the US would pay for thier voyage. But he got killed before he could actually do it. Civil war had very little to do with slavery, however the historians turned it into a slavery war. Heck in school well when I went all you were told was the civil war was fought because of slavery, now wonder every one is confused.
Yeah, I've heard that about Lincoln. Even if it's true, it doesn't change the fact that the South seceded over slavery, while the North fought to preserve the Union. Thus, slavery was the cause of the war.

[Jehan]

flushman wrote: Very little know fact about lincoln, he had an order written that all the slaves would be returned to africa the US would pay for thier voyage.

The Emancipation Proclamation says absolutely nothing about transporting the slaves back to their homeland. Read it yourself, you'll find nothing on the matter. I suggest you examine the order before even jumping to conclusions.

Quote: But he got killed before he could actually do it. Civil war had very little to do with slavery, however the historians turned it into a slavery war. Heck in school well when I went all you were told was the civil war was fought because of slavery, now wonder every one is confused.

Everyone is confused because a bunch of Confederate sympathizers don't bother to study their history. :wink:

[NobleOne]

battleax86 wrote: flushman wrote: Very little know fact about lincoln, he had an order written that all the slaves would be returned to africa the US would pay for thier voyage. But he got killed before he could actually do it. Civil war had very little to do with slavery, however the historians turned it into a slavery war. Heck in school well when I went all you were told was the civil war was fought because of slavery, now wonder every one is confused.
Yeah, I've heard that about Lincoln. Even if it's true, it doesn't change the fact that the South seceded over slavery, while the North fought to preserve the Union. Thus, slavery was the cause of the war.
Surely to find the cause of a war, you need to look at the motivation of the aggressor.
The South had every right to secede. Their doing so was not an act of aggression. Their motivation is irrelevant and can not be considered a cause of the war as only aggressors cause wars.
Yes, the North (Lincoln) started the war to preserve the Union, but with the motivation of retaining the tax and duty revenue. So that was the cause of the war, not slavery. 600,000-odd dead for the sake of good old fashioned greed. Not much to write home about.

[battleax86]

NobleOne wrote: battleax86 wrote: flushman wrote: Very little know fact about lincoln, he had an order written that all the slaves would be returned to africa the US would pay for thier voyage. But he got killed before he could actually do it. Civil war had very little to do with slavery, however the historians turned it into a slavery war. Heck in school well when I went all you were told was the civil war was fought because of slavery, now wonder every one is confused.
Yeah, I've heard that about Lincoln. Even if it's true, it doesn't change the fact that the South seceded over slavery, while the North fought to preserve the Union. Thus, slavery was the cause of the war.
Surely to find the cause of a war, you need to look at the motivation of the aggressor.
That's what I've been doing the whole time. :wink:

NobleOne wrote: The South had every right to secede. Their doing so was not an act of aggression. Their motivation is irrelevant and can not be considered a cause of the war as only aggressors cause wars.
Whether or not they had a right to secede is highly debatable. The only Constitutional mention of secession is the right of 3/4 of the country to expel a particular state. And, no, secession, in and of itself, was not an act of aggression. Firing on a United States Army garrison was the act of aggression. In the eyes of the United States government, a full third of the country had illegitimately seceded and attacked American military forces on American soil, specifically federal property. In Constitutional language, that's known as a "domestic insurrection" and President Lincoln had every right to suppress it.

NobleOne wrote: Yes, the North (Lincoln) started the war to preserve the Union, but with the motivation of retaining the tax and duty revenue.
To begin with, Lincoln did not start the war. Confederate Col. Beauregard, under the orders of Jefferson Davis (against the advice of his War Secretary), started the war. Secondly, how exactly do you know what Lincoln's motivations were?

NobleOne wrote: So that was the cause of the war, not slavery. 600,000-odd dead for the sake of good old fashioned greed. Not much to write home about.
Again, without slavery, there is no secession. Without secession, there is no attack on Fort Sumter. Without the attack on Fort Sumter, there is no war. Regardless of any northerner's ulterior motivations (which we can only speculate about, not forthrightly determine), slavery was the root cause of the Civil War.

[battleax86]

Jehan wrote: flushman wrote: Very little know fact about lincoln, he had an order written that all the slaves would be returned to africa the US would pay for thier voyage.

The Emancipation Proclamation says absolutely nothing about transporting the slaves back to their homeland. Read it yourself, you'll find nothing on the matter. I suggest you examine the order before even jumping to conclusions.
Umm...I don't think he was talking about that. :-|

[Simon De Montfort]

battleax86 wrote: Jehan wrote: flushman wrote: Very little know fact about lincoln, he had an order written that all the slaves would be returned to africa the US would pay for thier voyage.

The Emancipation Proclamation says absolutely nothing about transporting the slaves back to their homeland. Read it yourself, you'll find nothing on the matter. I suggest you examine the order before even jumping to conclusions.
Umm...I don't think he was talking about that. :-|

Actually there is some truth in what he said. Lincoln did support the idea of colonizing freed slaves back to Africa. Some where colonized to the state today known as Liberia. But he did not have a written order.

[eynon]

Simon De Montfort wrote: battleax86 wrote: Jehan wrote: flushman wrote: Very little know fact about lincoln, he had an order written that all the slaves would be returned to africa the US would pay for thier voyage.

The Emancipation Proclamation says absolutely nothing about transporting the slaves back to their homeland. Read it yourself, you'll find nothing on the matter. I suggest you examine the order before even jumping to conclusions.
Umm...I don't think he was talking about that. :-|

Actually there is some truth in what he said. Lincoln did support the idea of colonizing freed slaves back to Africa. Some where colonized to the state today known as Liberia. But he did not have a written order.

Wasn't Liberia set up by Monroe? :-|

[Simon De Montfort]

Eynon81 wrote: Simon De Montfort wrote: battleax86 wrote: Jehan wrote: flushman wrote: Very little know fact about lincoln, he had an order written that all the slaves would be returned to africa the US would pay for thier voyage.

The Emancipation Proclamation says absolutely nothing about transporting the slaves back to their homeland. Read it yourself, you'll find nothing on the matter. I suggest you examine the order before even jumping to conclusions.
Umm...I don't think he was talking about that. :-|

Actually there is some truth in what he said. Lincoln did support the idea of colonizing freed slaves back to Africa. Some where colonized to the state today known as Liberia. But he did not have a written order.

Wasn't Liberia set up by Monroe? :-|

Here ya go American Colonization Society

Lincoln's views on Colonization