Causes for the War of northern aggression.

Started by hokiewoodchuck, March 14, 2012, 02:56:46 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

hokiewoodchuck

Mr Fudd........IF Lincoln was a racist and IF he didn't want them around why did he wait 2 years to announce his intentions..............because slavery was at the bottom of the list of his priorities. And the only folks that owned slaves were the financiers and defenders against the War of Northern Agression so the best way to disrupt the financing of the war was to disrupt the 'way of doing business' of these slaves owners.

It was just another tactical move by a politician.
I thought I was wrong one time but I was mistaken.

elmerfudd

#16
Quote from: hokiewoodchuck on March 20, 2012, 04:52:06 AM
Mr Fudd........IF Lincoln was a racist and IF he didn't want them around why did he wait 2 years to announce his intentions..............because slavery was at the bottom of the list of his priorities. And the only folks that owned slaves were the financiers and defenders against the War of Northern Agression so the best way to disrupt the financing of the war was to disrupt the 'way of doing business' of these slaves owners.

It was just another tactical move by a politician.

I've already 'splained that.  I agree it was a tactical move by a politician.  So what?  Again, irrelevant to the causes of the War of Northern Aggression.

The south, having seceded over the perceived threat to slavery, and such secession leading to a bloody civil war, the only smart thing to do was to abolish the thing that led to secession, assuming the north won the war.  At the same time, the north needed a little spine stiffening...a "moral" reason to continue the war.  "Preserving the union" was beginning to wear thin as the primary reason.  And he needed a couple union victories to immediately precede his announcment "freeing" the slaves, which is why he waited as long as he did.  Much more politically effective to announce the "moral" reason right after a couple victories that ALSO stiffened some spines. 

It's debatable, but I sincerely believe if the south had not seceded, slavery would have continued in the southern states for several more years.  It would eventually have been abolished, maybe through political action that included some federal compensation to slave owners, maybe not.  But it would have gone away without nearly the bloodshet it caused.  And Lincoln would have been perfectly happy to let it continue in the states where it then existed, even though he was morally opposed to slavery as an institution. Doesn't mean he loved black people or wanted to have any over for dinner.  Someone once asked him about his attitude toward blacks and he said (this is a paraphrase) - "I don't believe blacks are the equal of whites, but at the same time I don't see where that should cause me to want to do them harm or enslave them.  I can just leave them alone, can't I?"


mdgiles

In one of his speeches, Lincoln noted that the Constitution never mentions slaves or slavery. It stated "persons held in servitude". And that legally and Constitutionally anyone - even whites - could be held as slaves - if they could gather enough votes. In short slavery, at its heart was a menace to everyone, not just blacks.
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

hokiewoodchuck

THAT is a VERY true statement Mr Giles. It just confirms what we have been trying to explain to Elmer..............

I am glad that era of slavery is over, atleast here in the states, but the freedom of such individuals were NOT the basis for the War of Northern Aggression.....it came well after the beginnning of the war and is well documented.
I thought I was wrong one time but I was mistaken.

elmerfudd

Quote from: hokiewoodchuck on April 29, 2012, 04:03:49 AM
THAT is a VERY true statement Mr Giles. It just confirms what we have been trying to explain to Elmer..............

I am glad that era of slavery is over, atleast here in the states, but the freedom of such individuals were NOT the basis for the War of Northern Aggression.....it came well after the beginnning of the war and is well documented.

What exactly have you been trying to explain to Elmer?  All I have heard so far is "it was tarrifs! Not slavery!" which is, of course, utter hogwash.  And no, the Constitution did not mention Negro slavery per se, but the general consensus among most whites, including more than a few in the north, was that the Negro was inferior to the white and that slavery was his natural condition.  No one ever seriously suggested enslaving any race other than the black race, and none but free blacks were ever in danger of being forced into slavery.  It was always about skin color, from day one. 

Tis also VERY well documented that the war was over preserving the union.  The union was threatened because of secession.  And secession came about because of the perceived threat to slavery. 

hokiewoodchuck

Hogwash yourself Elmer.....I said tariffs as well as other things but it wasn't slavery....that came much later in the war.
I thought I was wrong one time but I was mistaken.

elmerfudd

Quote from: hokiewoodchuck on April 30, 2012, 12:02:48 PM
Hogwash yourself Elmer.....I said tariffs as well as other things but it wasn't slavery....that came much later in the war.

So you've never read any of the secession speeches? The ones where the guy speaking says "our cause is entirely bound up with the issue of slavery" when he's giving the reason for secession?  And never even mentions tariffs or anything else? You've never read anything of the Dred Scott decision?  The Missouri Compromise?  Bleeding Kansas? Harper's Ferry?  The clubbing of Charles Sumner in the Senate?  Uncle Tom's Cabin? What were all those things about?  Tariffs? Or one of those "other issues"?

Pull your head out of the sand.  Quit making conclusions in advance of the evidence and you won't come across as so foolish and gullible. 

elmerfudd

Here's some food for thought.

http://hd.housedivided.dickinson.edu/node/34491
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/Mississippi_causes.htm

You'd have a hard time convincing either of these guys, and every other guy who gave a secession speech or voted to secede, that secession was over anything BUT slavery. 

elmerfudd

Brother Hokie, you're from SC, right?  Here's their secession speech.  Count the number of times you see the word "slavery" mentioned. 

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/secession_causes.htm

Here's a relevant excerpt to make it easy for you (and others):

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. 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; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

hokiewoodchuck

Quote from: hokiewoodchuck on April 30, 2012, 12:02:48 PM
Hogwash yourself Elmer.....I said tariffs as well as other things but it wasn't slavery....that came much later in the war.

Sorry I left out an important word......."it wasn't JUST slavery"
I thought I was wrong one time but I was mistaken.

hokiewoodchuck

Many people I have spoken with somewhat agree that today's environment parallels pre WNA.
It appears we have race relation problems today but what is underlying all of this is the ecomonic state of affairs. If everyone was working and making money race baiting and aggitation would not be taking place.
Therefore if things don't get correct soon we might see society come apart once again.

This country has never been so divided except prior to the onset of WNA.

Fact.....most of the folks that actually did the fighting and dying were dirt poor and didn't own one slave so how can slavery be an issue to them.....it was their hungry bellies............
I thought I was wrong one time but I was mistaken.

hokiewoodchuck

Also...these speeches.....well haven't you heard that politicians pander to those whom have money? Of course they will not speak the truth if it means their benefactors will not write the check.

If the millions of the dead southernors had owned slaves we would be outnumbered even today.

Now keep in mind the mason-dixon line was above Maryland and New Jersey back in the day. So it was not just the 'southernors' we think of today, in fact, it included what we refer to today as yankee land.
I thought I was wrong one time but I was mistaken.

elmerfudd

Quote from: hokiewoodchuck on May 01, 2012, 05:57:48 AM
Also...these speeches.....well haven't you heard that politicians pander to those whom have money? Of course they will not speak the truth if it means their benefactors will not write the check.

If the millions of the dead southernors had owned slaves we would be outnumbered even today.

Now keep in mind the mason-dixon line was above Maryland and New Jersey back in the day. So it was not just the 'southernors' we think of today, in fact, it included what we refer to today as yankee land.

It's a free country.  Keep your head in the sand.

elmerfudd

Quote from: hokiewoodchuck on May 01, 2012, 03:46:46 AM
Many people I have spoken with somewhat agree that today's environment parallels pre WNA.
It appears we have race relation problems today but what is underlying all of this is the ecomonic state of affairs. If everyone was working and making money race baiting and aggitation would not be taking place.
Therefore if things don't get correct soon we might see society come apart once again.

This country has never been so divided except prior to the onset of WNA.

Fact.....most of the folks that actually did the fighting and dying were dirt poor and didn't own one slave so how can slavery be an issue to them.....it was their hungry bellies............

Irrelevant to the discussion.  The discussion is what caused the civil war.  The answer is - secession.  Which begs the question: what led to secession?  The answer is - the perceived threat to slavery. One cannot possibly read anything about the history of this country from its founding up to that war and come to any other conclusion.

I do not argue that many rebel soldiers were fighting to preserve slavery, thought some of them clearly were.  I think they mostly all supported slavery, because everybody needs someone to look down on and even the meanest, most stupid peckerwood white could look down on a slave.  I don't think their hungry bellies led them to fight, either, even though they may have been hungry.  What led them to fight was their patriotic fervor. They saw their states threatened by an enemy.  So they rallied round the flag. 

hokiewoodchuck

Quote from: elmerfudd on May 01, 2012, 02:20:29 PM
Irrelevant to the discussion.  The discussion is what caused the civil war.  The answer is - secession.  Which begs the question: what led to secession?  The answer is - the perceived threat to slavery. One cannot possibly read anything about the history of this country from its founding up to that war and come to any other conclusion.

I do not argue that many rebel soldiers were fighting to preserve slavery, thought some of them clearly were.  I think they mostly all supported slavery, because everybody needs someone to look down on and even the meanest, most stupid peckerwood white could look down on a slave.  I don't think their hungry bellies led them to fight, either, even though they may have been hungry.  What led them to fight was their patriotic fervor. They saw their states threatened by an enemy.  So they rallied round the flag.

On the contrary, it was and is very revalent to this discussion....many didn't join they were conscripted into the military.....that means drafted or forced into service.

And what the hell do 14 yr old boys know about slavery, they were looking for 3 hot meals, or something close to it, that they were not getting at home.

Acorn coffee comes to mind....so that means food wasn't plentiful and was scarce.
I thought I was wrong one time but I was mistaken.